Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Criminal liability ... (Score 2) 82

Their only a "victim" due to lax security. The corporation broke the law too, by not properly securing their data as required by HIPAA law. And we SHOULD accuse them partially for the success of the criminals, as they enabled them twice. Once by having crap security, and two by not even noticing for an entire year. The HIPAA law might have changed since I did audits, but your supposed to do them on a yearly basis as well. So, triple failure.

As a side note, there seems to be a marketing opportunity here for security companies to do active domain name "dyslexic" attacks. It seems it would be trivial to have a script that transposes numbers into the real URL and does a WHOIS on a scheduled basis. Really, there are probably a dozen employees at Carefirst who could do this. At my job, probably over 50% of the people I directly work with could either do this off the top of their head or figure out how to do this in a few days; and their not even programmers or such.

Comment Re: Criminal liability ... (Score 2) 82

Doesn't matter, HIPAA law doesn't have a designation that says "non-profits don't have to follow this law". Care First should be receiving a fine for every piece of lost information. Just because it's member owned doesn't mean they don't have to do security audits, real-time monitoring, etc. If anything these "members" who own it should be on the hook personally for the fines. If it's "your business" (ie, member owned) and your making profit off it, you should also be an active participant in the business.

Comment Re:As usual... (Score 3, Informative) 379

I hope you never have a job that asks you for your opinion on this type of issue, since you couldn't be more wrong. It's even in the article...

Title 17 of the United States Copyright Law, which denotes that the “Copyright in a work protected under this title vests initially in the author or authors of the work”; in the case of photography, the individual who presses the shutter is the ‘author’.

In addition, the District’s Board Policy Manual explicitly states “a student shall retain all rights to work created as part of the instruction or using District technology resources.”

Comment Re:Camer was owned by the school (Score 4, Insightful) 379

Nice try Coward, but both copyright law AND the school's own policy disagree with you. This is even in TFA itself: "Title 17 of the United States Copyright Law, which denotes that the “Copyright in a work protected under this title vests initially in the author or authors of the work”; in the case of photography, the individual who presses the shutter is the ‘author’. In addition, the District’s Board Policy Manual explicitly states “a student shall retain all rights to work created as part of the instruction or using District technology resources.”"

I hope you don't have a job that depends on you giving them advice like this, because if you do your company is probably violating the law all the time based on your "idea" of how the law works, as opposed to reality.

Comment Re:Metorite cult (Score 1) 190

It's not "bad" about Muslims, it's a fact. There is a big rock that they all make a pilgrimage to, in Mecca, named Alhajar Al-Aswad. It could also be a piece of shock glass from an impact. And your not quoting me about "blinding", I didn't type that. Not sure why you think I said anything about "blinded by a meteorite"...maybe you should read my comment again? Here is some info on Constantine and the possibility of a meteorite fueling his conversion, or at least his conversion of everyone else since he didn't actually convert until on his deathbed.

It's not "bad" if they worship a space rock, it's somewhat common. It does seem a bit paradoxical for a religion that is so iconoclastic to hold a physical object in such veneration.

Comment Metorite cult (Score 1) 190

returning to the stars. Quite poetic, for a country who worships the Alhajar Al-Aswad (The Black Stone). Saul, who became Paul, also was spooked into religion by a meteorite...Constantine's "vision" may well have also been burning, falling rocks. The UAE most likely has some pretty advanced tech for looking at water...launching a probe to Mars isn't the difficult part. That is getting the probe deployed and functioning properly once it's there lol.

Comment "Legal" immunity maybe... (Score 2) 118

by allowing them to hack unfettered, eventually they will come across someone who will hack back. By giving them immunity, it removes any possibility of legal recourse; the only path left for those who've been wronged by GCHQ hackers is now to follow far more illegal paths for retribution. "From Hell's heart, I strike at thee"...once the courts deny this, it will become an even more dangerous game.

One would think that Britain has had enough past experience of what happens when their rulers remove accountability from specific segments of their subjects. When the Courts won't listen, the next step is often quite bloody.

Comment Re:Veto it (Score 1) 103

a decade-long extension of the moratorium on regulating commercial human spaceflight

Good! There is no commercial human spaceflight yet, not enough for the FAA to get involved and bog it down even more. IF Virgin Galactic actually takes passengers up, then that's when the FAA should get involved...it's just a waste of tax money for the FAA to do anything before hand. Look at the issues with the FAA and drones; their really doing a "great job!" But ten years is probably too long, this part needs to be reviewed every few years to keep track of when these flights start. Example, if VG proves they will have a passenger flight going up on XYZ date (proves, not just Branson doing marketing), they should HAVE to notify the FAA and do all due diligence possible before the launch. Looking at his recent crash, I'm not too optimistic for any of his previously announced scheduals lol

a nine-year extension of industry-government cost sharing for damages caused by launch accidents

Even with this, no launch company will have the fiscal suicide of not having their own insurance...but the insurance system is very complicated. This all depends on what's being launched, from where, who's doing the actual launching...just keeping the "current method" until there are multiple, monthly launches. SpaceX might not even be launching / landing from within US territory (with his floating pads, which adds another level of complications.

and an act that would give companies property rights to materials they mine from asteroids.

Good for them, if a company takes the risks, puts up their own investor's money and manages to bring back valuable materials it SHOULD belong to them. If you want in on the potential rewards, you should go invest in some "asteroid mining company". There will be ZERO asteroids that are privately mined in the next nine years. Even if one is launched, it won't have any "finished project" to drop on your city in the next decade. With current engine tech it takes months to get to asteroids, if not years. A remote mining operation (and potential refining) will take time, then a very calculated trajectory back to Earth. Now, mining on the Moon...if the current treaties weren't in place we wouldn't even be talking about mining asteroids! A large nation-state might be able to get some type of mining operation done in the next ten years.

If humanity, as a species, wanted to mine the Moon with a combination of remotes and crew, that might be doable within ten years. Even then, I don't see unfinished materials being sent back. In-space fabrication will be able to do far more amazing stuff than we can do on the ground anyway.

The biggest threat to your city would be someone hacking an automated return mission, re-directing it to smash into a city.

Slashdot Top Deals

The rule on staying alive as a program manager is to give 'em a number or give 'em a date, but never give 'em both at once.

Working...