Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Back for a limited time - Get 15% off sitewide on Slashdot Deals with coupon code "BLACKFRIDAY" (some exclusions apply)". ×

Comment "have considered"? (Score 1) 397

try "have quit". i quit years ago, not because of the stress caused by users/customers, but because of ineffective management and, specifically, a ceo (not a manager, but the ceo) telling you (a) in front of anyone in the immediate area, (b) in public, and (c) in meetings that you (literally) were a fuck up and didn't know what you were doing. it was a 100 employee company; she did that to most of the senior employees. most tolerated it (among them her management team). some of us didn't.

Comment hear, hear! (Score 1) 247

i too, run my own mail server. i also run my own dns server. the email addresses i generate for each vendor i deal with also live in their own unique mail subdomain, meaning the subdomain has its own mx record. so, for vendor X, i will give them an email address of x@x.example.com and will create an MX record for x.example.com. i never share that address with anyone except the vendor, and i rarely will ever send an email from one of those addresses. over the years this scheme has served me well in stopping spam.

since there are no other email addresses in that vendor's mail domain, if i do start getting spam i can just delete the mx record and the mail domain. and if i do start getting spam i know that the vendor has shared my info, or their systems have been compromised.

i used this scheme for several years and never received a single spam email. that was ... until 2007, when td ameritrade's systems were compromised, and most recently just a few days ago when i received spam to the account i had created for dropbox. (there have been several other cases in between.) i sent two emails to dropbox and contacted them via two separate web forms but have heard exactly zerozilchnada from them.

the major problem for me when this happens is that it's a time sink to really do anything about it. it's very easy for me to delete the subdomain and mail address and then create a new one. but getting the vendor to even acknowledge an issue (let alone getting assurance that something is being done about it) is time consuming and frustrating.

they do have some legal obligations when their systems are compromised; public shaming them into action seems to me to be the easiest for the consumer.

(for one of the instances where this happened to me, you can visit my rant blog at http://caringcostsextra.org/2011/01/20/ewiz-com-superbiiz-com-user-data-hacked-and-compromised/)

Comment GSM Association (Score 5, Insightful) 299

"To do this while supposedly being concerned about privacy is beyond me"

can someone point me to the article where the GSM Association was outraged when it learned of the illegal wiretapping program which the carriers happily participated in as agents of the u.s. government? i'm sure they protested that, right? riiight?


Submission + - What are you willing to consent to, to land a job? 3

Pooch writes: I'm a network and systems administrator with more than two decades of experience under my belt. I've worked for Fortune-100 companies, a few startups, and started my own company which has since gone public. Recently, after a quick phone screen, I arranged a day-long job interview with a Big! Internet Company. They seemed very interested in me, I was very interested in the job, everything seemed like a great fit, and I have no doubt I could have brought a lot to the table. Just prior to the interview, however, I was presented with a background check consent form that I was required to sign before things could move beyond the interview stage. The consent form said they wanted to investigate things that "[...] may include my educational history, employment history, social security trace, driving records, consumer credit information, and civil and criminal court records." They further required that "I authorize without reservation any party or agency contacted by [Big! Internet Company] to furnish the above-mentioned information." And, my consent was to be in force from the time I signed the form until I left the company. Of all the companies I have worked for, none have required such a broad spectrum of information. Somewhat invasive, IMHO. Needless to say, I balked at the request (even though most of the information might be publicly available). The recruiter admitted that for my position they wouldn't need most of the requested information but when I asked her to clarify what they actually did need for my position she said it didn't matter because they wouldn't create consent forms specific to various positions and that I would have to sign the broad consent form. The net result was that I didn't sign the consent form and I didn't interview with them. I'm a very private person and I have nothing to hide, but I also don't want employers (or others) poking their nose so very far into my private life. And yeah, I understand the obvious need for some of the information. Also, this was not a company that I absolutely had to work for ... perhaps if it had been I might have been a bit more willing to "give it up", but it wasn't. My question for Slashdot readers: what are you willing to give up to work for a company, any company? What are you willing to give up to work for a company that you really really really want to work for?

Intel CPUs are not defective, they just act that way. -- Henry Spencer