Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Audit before issuing policy (Score 1) 111

by SecurityGuy (#49783535) Attached to: Insurer Won't Pay Out For Security Breach Because of Lax Security

The claim is that the insured made a bunch of medical records available to the public on the internet, presumably by accident. Unless that happened before the policy was in place, due diligence wouldn't have revealed a mistake that was going to be made later.

There does seem to be a valid business need for "my employee screwed up" insurance. Companies that want that kind of coverage should probably make sure that's what they're buying.

Comment: I know nobody Rs TFAs, but really... (Score 1) 111

by SecurityGuy (#49783415) Attached to: Insurer Won't Pay Out For Security Breach Because of Lax Security

They weren't hacked. They accidentally put a bunch of medical records online according to (linked from the article). If they bought an insurance policy that only pays out if they follow "minimum required practices", and they didn't, then of course it shouldn't pay out.

Comment: Re:would like to see this kind of reply (Score 1) 379

After all, the school organized and funded (invested) these events.

They most certainly did not. I checked, and that school district and therefore that school is funded by tax revenue. Taxpayers funded those events. The school employees organized them, yes, but because they were paid by taxpayers to do so.

Comment: Re:Only in some situations ... (Score 2) 158

by SecurityGuy (#49753155) Attached to: The Body Cam Hacker Who Schooled the Police

Part of the reason people are starting to insist on body cameras is we don't trust the police. Because increasingly the police are not trustworthy, and don't know or care what the law says.

Well, mostly. I've been arguing with people for years on this. For so long, many people had this default notion of the police as the good guys. This is very much the default in traffic court. If the police say you did it and you say you didn't, you're guilty. People need to understand that putting on a badge doesn't change your morality. Some people are trustworthy, and some people are not. Police are people, and we don't have a perfect process to separate the trustworthy from those who aren't, so inevitably sometimes we hire police who aren't. Just like every other profession.

Comment: Re:Hatred of High School Principals (Score 1) 379

I'm well over 18, and care because I saw this sort of thing when I was a kid. It was wrong then, and it's wrong now. The fact that it doesn't impact me directly means I care less than the student in question and less than when I was in school, but I still think this sort of abuse of authority should never go unchallenged.

Comment: Re:How is the north and south pole more round? (Score 2) 493

by SecurityGuy (#49743677) Attached to: The Brainteaser Elon Musk Asks New SpaceX Engineers

I think you found the worst possible answer to this question.

"Elon, I finished the task you gave me! I haven't actually done what you wanted, I just redefined the terms so I was done before I started."

I usually say asking such questions in an interview is a terrible idea, but I'd honestly disqualify anyone who gave an answer like this.

Comment: Re:Qustion on US views (Score 1) 289

by SecurityGuy (#49722573) Attached to: North Carolina Still Wants To Block Municipal Broadband

I don't want government internet because my government thinks it's ok to read my email (and everything else). Letting them be the ISP makes it that much easier.

That said, I don't see any problem with letting local governments, with the consent of their citizens, provide that service any more than I think it's a problem for them to provide trash service, water service, etc. Internet service at this point should follow a utility model. All I want is a pipe.

Just don't make the public option the only one. Monopolies can be bad no matter who runs them.

Comment: Re:Not really about lie detectors per se (Score 1) 246

You're about to be refuted by someone who not only despises William Jefferson Clinton but was also paying close attention during the the time of impeachment.

The other thing is that it was not a Material Matter and it was not a criminal case. Having sex or not with Monica Lewinsky had beans to do with whether he forced himself on Jennifer Flowers (her own sister said she was trying to climb that pole for months).

Bill Clinton was deposed in a suit about his having allegedly sexually harassed Paula Jones, not Ginnifer Flowers.

Bill Clinton signed the Violence Against Women Act into law, a law that was principally written by Joe Biden(which is a part of why he was chosen to be Obama's VP over Hillary Clinton) that permitted the exploration of a defendant's sexual history during a sexual harassment lawsuit.
Wonderful irony right?

It's certainly materiel if he had engaged in a pattern of seeking oral sex from subordinates when he was accused of requesting oral sex from a subordinate.

He was impeached, but he did not perjure himself.

If that's the case, why did he work out a plea deal to only be denied his license to practice law for 10 years?

He committed perjury. His supporters in the Senate and the broadcast media did their best to make it about his infidelity.

During a civil lawsuit, one had three choices. 1. Tell the truth. 2. Lie. 3. Refuse to answer.
Bill Clinton chose the one of those three options that was illegal. He was rightfully impeached and he was acquitted for political concerns, not for legal ones.


Comment: Bad summary. This is about BI. (Score 1) 152

No, in the general case you're not responsible for making sure your users make the right decisions. Imagine doing that for a dating app. Should you date this person? How should I know? All I can do is present you with information.

The article, though, is about software that specifically exists to help businesses make better decisions. So yeah, if you're writing software that's supposed to help people make better decisions, you do have some ethical duty to write software that leads people to make better decisions. If you're writing such software that DOESN'T do so, why?

This is just a specific instance of the general idea that if you write software to do a thing, it should actually do that thing.

: is not an identifier