As it does become costlier to 'keep all data', regarding business data, when using a data or document 'classification' method which identifies data that poses greater risks for the organization, regulatory and\or legal, or in unnecessary costs, once the data can be moved from 'riskiest' to 'least risky', maybe then it becomes acceptable to introduce the 'unknown' of 'where' the data is located, (if you keep it, at all), but surely not while the data is classified as 'risky'.

Concerning stored data, one way or another, one or more of these requirements comes into play: "confidentiality, integrity, availability", or sometimes "authenticity" If you are seeking 'proof' of any one of these concepts regarding the data, at any of the varying stages of consideration, how can you, or your service provider, prove it if there is a question of "where" the data resides?

What about any differences in the students graduating from Trade Schools vs Traditional Colleges? Does focusing on a trade make any improvement here?

Where tiers are possible in service, service is tiered. This is not new. This is good business. For residential-class service they charge X and they block the port. For business-class service they charge X + and they unblock the port. there's nothing 'unfair' here, the contract defined the tiers. You do not 'own' the network, nor the access to it. You have a contract for access to use the network, and you agreed to fine print in the contract. The fine print states that if you want to run a web server, or email server, you must purchase business-class service. move along now. there is no story here. It has been this way

I am not necessarily pro-Dell, but I am for making money, so I learned 'contracts' -(IANAL) When you call a 'Hardware' company for tech support regarding 3rd party SOFTWARE that the hardware company did not install on the hardware you bought, and so therefore could not have had the opportunity to configure their hardware for that software, how would it be profitable for that company to support you? It could not be. MOSTLY because if they did that for you, they'd also have to do it for everyone else, but mainly because [you contracted with them to provide tech support based upon the hardware and software configuration that you purchased] YOU made the contract for their services. If they were expected to provide unlimited services to you, no matter what you did, then they would have been justified to charge you for that. It's common knowledge that Dell is a hardware company, not a software company. If they tried to charge you for support of software they did not 'build', you'd really get heated. -They would not be able to alter the software to your configurations, so what would you be paying for ? Also, 'increased service' above your warranty -just because its relatively soon after you made your purchase, is not kosher, either. There is no 'Service' without 'contract', and 'Contract' is two-way, never only one-way. On another note - I can say from experience that had you purchased your upgrade from Dell based upon the system as it was sold (you had that choice), they would have slip-streamed all necessary drivers into your installation CD and the entire upgrade process would have been pretty quick. Also, Dell does not abandon their hardware because you change the software. They would continue to provide hardware support as best they could based upon the contract. -Its just that when you change the operating system, sometimes the hardware then needs new drivers and setting configurations TO WORK. So if you expect them to work (provide service) on what you did not pay for, who would it be getting the short end of the interaction? any company's shareholders would have lots to say about that business model.

here's a freebie, although I need to eat: I say offer 3 levels of service; full, consult for pro se, with\without 'forms' - normal full service OR consult for pro se with your assistants completing forms, OR consult only and client gets\fills out forms by self (unbundled services) - after consult counsel fills out check list of topics counseled and client files that with paperwork - more clients due to other types of services offered, more exposure for full services offered, satisfies the court - counsel and client sign waiver for 'counsel only' - no continuing representation without new agreement - this has been on my mind since the 80's see my linkedIn posts: http://www.linkedin.com/in/counseltechnologyinc

remember these posts and in 2025 look back at them.

the earth is a closed system folks

EVERY closed ecological system eventually burns itself out. We learned that in the 3rd or 4th grade, when looking at ant farms.

of course, after posting I read http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/042910-terry-childs-juror-explains-why.html [networkworld.com] for the details, and maybe my thinking has changed somewhat, BUT, not as to the employer being ultimately prepared with proper polices and procedures. more coffee!

I was thinking the scenario was as follows: 1. He was employed as the sys admin and as such had obtained the focus to be the top person responsible for protection of the network. 2. His reluctance to give up the passwords was caused by his position that those people wanting the passwords were unskilled and had proposed not-safe activities on\to the network and so he deemed it the safest move he could have done to save himself from being responsible for any resulting damages, as well as to protect the network, not to cough them up. 3. His employer then searched for the passwords, which should have been accessible by someone else in the chain of responsibility, and received none because said employer had not already had in place the safeguards necessary to avoid this very situation (which, ultimately, is what created the situation in the first place). 4. He then continued to refuse based upon the reasoning stated in #2, above, after speaking to (people) claiming, mostly, "principals" as reason-enough, but also that the use of the network was not being 'denied', -so how could they charge him with denial of service, AND based upon the fact that he was doing, in every aspect of consideration, EXACTLY as he had always done regarding his position and protection of the network, based upon the processes and procedures and safeguards in place during his entire time of employment. 5. Employer found itself in awkward, perhaps embarrassing predicament and could not, based upon the man's 'principals' (which were cause for him to be hired into the position to begin with) force him to allow the not-safe-for-the-network access, and decided to go with what the State wanted to do, prosecute the man as an example. 6. He was arrested and charged under CA's new laws. 7. He lost. No mention of improprieties in the actions of the court have been heard, so what is there to 'appeal'? "All" should now be 'noticed' of this possibly happening to them. All should now be prepared to 'give-up' your principals when\if it comes out that your employer is\has been slacking in its responsibilities regarding this type of situation. (which may also mean disqualifying yourself for REAL responsible jobs in the future.) All should take note to make sure that the job you are in, and all future positions, is one where the employer IS already taking the safeguards.