Has anyone stopped to think about this being a box NOT owned by the OP? If the box is OWNED by the company and you are just leasing it chances are they have a right to enter the server at anytime. When I worked for a very large ISP/Hosting Provider we had the right to gain access to your box in the event we needed to. I worked in abuse and logged in Single User and did what I needed to including reset the root password or look around. Just depended on what mood I was in. Either I pulled your box network cable (and power plug) or you provided me root, or I just logged in myself.

I am suprised by the response of rgigger... For a few reasons...

The poster sent a "WTF" ticket to the provider. The provider at that point was ASKED to become involved in troubleshooting. If you know what is going on and where the problem exists then state what the issue is and then the provider can fix it. If you ask me WTF?!?!?! I would ask you for root access on your box too depending on the problem. I want to see not only just logs but everything. Did you make some weird change to the kernel? Did you modify a lib file? If you don't want me to look into the problem don't ask for my help.

The questioner has an attitude of I know what I am doing and you have a problem so fix it. The provider does have a problem they want to fix it but also investigate. If it is hardware they want to troubleshoot it properly and replace only failed components not the entire system. If it is the network they need to find out is the problem with the router, switch, network cable, or network card.

I think for those of us that know a lot of what we are doing in technology we tend to except someone to just take our word for it. However, coming from the background of working in Call Centers I know also that the other guy doesn't know that I know what I am doing and he still has to check to make sure it is right. How many times have we all heard the customer go on and on about how the problem is our fault and we find out that the customer didn't turn the computer on or forgot to plug the mouse in?

My point being if you don't want my help please don't ask for it. If you want my help then please give me the ability to help. Offering logs would have been fine... If you are doing something so secretive that you don't want them to see something then just move companies to one you can trust enough to let them see it. Offer to have one of the techs or some of the techs sign and agree to a NDA and return to you.

As I was typing a response to your post I remembered that I needed to harvest my sunflowers.... BRB!

I can see the verizon dude now going.. Can you count the bytes now?..... Good....

Sad thing is... I am from Texas and I understood it perfectly.

I couldn't agree more with your post. General society will tell the soldiers, fire fighters, and EMS thank you for doing their jobs but most forget police officers.

Being the son of both parents being police officers (my Dad is retired) I can point out that everything you said here is extremely true. I can remember the first time my Mom called me while I was at school just to tell me she loved me so much. She called because she was involved in a shooting. I can tell you I am more afraid of my Dad and I getting a visit from the Police Chief, Captain of Patrol, and the shift Sergent at our house to tell us tat something happened to my Mom in the line of duty. Every day she (and when my Dad wore his) puts that uniform on you draw a big target on yourself.

Not only that but the pay is not only crappy but low for what they do. My Mom has to work extra jobs on her time off in order to make enough money to help pay bills. She makes less then 56,000/yr and has been in law enforcement for 17 years. I have been in the work force less then 5 and have no degree and make 45,000/yr. Something majorly wrong with those pictures.

So to all the officers on Slashdot Thanks!

When I think of killbits... I think of the video with Balmer running across the stage and him yelling developers. Instead of it being developers its KILLBITS! KILLBITS! KILLBITS!

What is to stop them from putting your name in the caption field? Nothing. So if I can post a comment or put your name some where on the page then me putting up a "tag" with your name won't change the fact that you still couldn't stop me from posting your name in a comment or caption field.

The other side to this is that if you don't want your picture displayed on a page then ask the owner of the picture to not post it. A friend would respect your privacy.

With all due respect to everyone. Pictures can be posted by anyone that takes them. Sure you can request them to be blurred or taken down if they are of just you but the fact is that they can still be posted. Everyone getting up in arms about this really should be telling their friends to respect them and not post pictures with your face/body in them.

Hi, Yes NetFlix I had a change of address... Yeah I am on mars right now. Can you send me Apollo 13? What? No? Why not?! I want to watch Apollo 13!

What if I am in rehab for being addicted to video games? Guess this won't help me much... :-(

I am not trying to argue here. As well thank you for disagreeing polietly. It makes it easier for you to see my side as I respect and see your side.

1. With this I can disagree. If the police officer doesn't know this person from adam/eve then how is the officer to know that the child is the parents? You would say they should find out if that is the case. But to that extent we have heard the stories of mothers/fathers passing their children off for sexual acts to get money etc. How does the officer not know that is the case or even so how does the officer know this person isn't trying to sell these pictures or trade them? Can the officer investigate further? Sure but they now have reason and the ability to search further. The point is the officer had a reason to arrest her for a violation of the law.

Furthermore, is it the officers job to interpret the laws and what they are intended for? IMO the law has to be black and white with very little gray area. If everything is left to the interpretation of officers then we wouldn't need the checks and balances of the law. Our officers are not Judges. They can't interpret the law for what it meant to be. This is the job of judges and lawyers so then it can be reviewed for changing.

2. Agreed. As I have. Where I live (one of the largest cities in Texas) we have an entire police division that does nothing BUT traffic enforcement. I have even myself been subject to some of what you say. Even when I worked in the IT Dept of the Sheriffs Dept I got yelled at for about 10 minutes about my inspection being out for 12 days. I was even threatened with jail time. I couldn't believe it. His tone changed when he noticed my county ID hanging from my rear view mirror. But none the less. There are some bad attitude people. But I have also run into more "fair" cops then anything.

I was on the side of the road talking to my now ex-wife. I had a constable pull up behind me and offer to get me assistance.

You're even more so right. Cops will tell you that there are some bad ones out there. It is those citizens that make complaints that cause these officers to be investigated and if need be retrained or removed from the job.

As far as the letting you off with a warning for speeding. You are talking about in most cases a misdemeanor offense compared to a felony. You can't compare the two offense to be equals. They aren't...

I can't speak for "Blue Flu" but how many officers compared are we talking about compared to the millions out there?

As far as divorce rates, alcoholism rates, and domestic violence rates. How much is that stress of the job getting to them? I can personally speak of stress impacting officers. I have seen it. I have known good people that every day stress of dealing with liars, thieves, abusive prisoners, etc get to good officers. We think our jobs in the IT world are stressful. When these people have the stress of not only dealing with people who think they are "Big and Bad" but also dealing with the stress of knowing that they are a huge target. Does it make it right? No.

Let's take some things into consideration. Officer pay is low. I mean I make more then my Mom and shes been in law enforcement for 20 years. I have only been in the work force for 5 years and never once have I had a gun pulled on me or fear for my life when I sit in my chair.

Another thing to consider is that officers are sometimes overworked. There is a nation wide (don't have the link with me) shortage of officers. This contributes to their stress levels.

If you ask me for the "power" they have they are paying for it more then you know. I know several officers at various agencies that do not even wear their wedding bands (My Dad and Mom both. My Dad now wheres his). What about your stressful day at the job? Do you always act level headed and never blown up? I am not saying that acting this way is right at all.

I agree with what you said some of them get power hungry and act out. But this doesn't just happen to police officers. Politicians, Judges, Doctors, CEO's, even the managers at restaurants. But because officers are in the public and protecting the public their business is more widely distrubted.

If you want to see what an officer does for a day go to your local police department and request a ride along. Here in Texas most departments will let any member of the public ride along with an officer as long as they are not criminals with a bad background. (Of course you will need to sign a waiver I am sure.)

Whoa, I disagree completely. IANAL and IANAPO (I am not a Police Officer). Having parents that have been law enforcement (Dad retired Mom is still working as a police officer). The Police (at least here in Texas) are not responsible for interpretations of the law per se. They have to know what the law says and make their decisions based on their understanding of the law. Ultimately it comes down to the prosecutor (the one with the law degree) to interpret the law and researching to make sure that what was committed was actually a crime. If he/she is not able to determine based on the evidence handed to them then they are the ones that need to have the police do more leg work. If the law says that possessing child pornography is illegal and the definitions are set to be a child under the age of 18 then the officers job is to treat that situation as a person who has broken the law.

What I think some people forget here is that the law doesn't state (in the places I know of) that possessing such pictures as bath pictures of your children is not child pornography. If the law states that having pictures of your own naked child is not pornography then yes the officer SHOULD have investigate before arresting.

When you refer to the "police not understanding the seriousness of responsibilities that comes with the power to arrest" is incorrect. Every department has their bad apples don't get me wrong and some make bone headed decisions but for the majority of the police force out there they understand that power.

So to make sure I understand your post... You are saying that if I make a copy of some songs to my friends its okay because well its just a few friends? What happens if my friend then decides to use that copy I made him to make a ton of "tapes" to pass out on the street?
Further more how is it that by file sharing you are not doing the same thing as the guy on the street handing out millions of CD/DVD's? The street in this case is the internet and your copy of tapes is that file waiting to be shared. Its just like having the originals there with a tape copy machine for people to walk up make their selection and go.

Granted I don't like the RIAA's tactics and their abuse of the laws (to pick and choose which they follow and don't follow). However, whatever happened to making people take some responsibility for their actions? If you knew it was wrong why are you doing it? I know that going to a store and stealing a loaf of bread is wrong. But if I do it I should take the consequences for my actions. We want the RIAA and Co to play fair and so forth with their damages yet we want to do nothing to fix the problem. After all its not like they lose money because the person shared the songs...

Now before anyone starts screaming RIAA lover here hold on a moment and think about this. My point is not that their actions (suing the wrong people, making up BS, violating people's privacy, etc) are the right things and are okay because I don't think so. I would like to point out that if you do the crime you do the time or pay the penalty. Should the damages be fair YES but if all it costs people is the total cost of the song per download then where is the punishment or the attempt to fix the problem at? Where is the punishment at all? There is none. But even if we did it per download that the person gave out. How can they prove the true amount of downloads someone got from that person? You can't. Breaking the law is breaking the law.

I just had that yesterday... When I corrected the person 3 others told me I was wrong. One of the goobers told me that her FRIEND called it Linkskees and I didn't know what I was talking about.

I wrote it out and asked them how they pronounced "SYS". When they told me I explained all you have to do is ad LINK in front of it and *POOF* you have the word LINKSYS.