Sorry, you're too late. I already subscribed to a competing cloud service which provides the same functionality, only: I can use it from anywhere in the world, and my provider worries about maintenance.
This would be like suing a hacker who formatted your company web server and the judge refusing to accept the argument that the damage was harm to reputation and loss of business, and instead only accepting the claim of increased electric bill and wear/tear on the hard drives.
The only secure Android phone is what is running Cyanogenmod.
No... the only secure Android phone is the one you pulled the battery out on.
iPhone is trickier... since there's no removable battery: it is very hard to secure. Best bet is to wrap it in tin foil and let the battery drain down on its own, then when it reaches 0% it will be secure
Is having the county itself provide internet connectivity. We already know that doesn't work.
Don't do that! School districts' should be provisioning their own upstream connectivity.
This is not the type of thing that the county should be handling.
The answer is simple..... put internet services out for bid and buy a big bandwidth contract for the school district.
Yes it's expensive..... it's where a majority of the cost of 20,000 iPads goes.
And it's not fair to be leeching off the local government's resources or forcing 100 school districts to share a limited pipe that cannot reliably meet the requirements.
Yep. The Canadian enforcement bureau wants to see some information... so they make a request to the DOJ.
The DOJ then makes an order for Google to deliver that information to them.
The DOJ looks over the response, and saves a copy of all the juicy data for later reference, just to see if there's anything that might interest them in the future, then they bundle it up, attach it to an e-mail, and forward it unencrypted to their Canadian buddies..
But what about when you can't prove date of hire?
I have no hatred towards the individuals. The point is to punish the employer, thus eliminating the market that is causing some businesses to effectively invite large numbers of illegals to come in and work for money under the table under illegal employment conditions.
Why not enfranchize the migrant population. Let's open the borders, and adjust benifits for non-citizens.
The illegals are only able to get work since they can work for such low wages. You could also eliminate the problem of illegals by exempting certain specified non-skilled jobs or completely untrained workers from minimum wage requirements.
The illegals can't be "enfranchized," because this would effectively disqualify them for the jobs that the market wants illegals for ---- which are jobs where they illegally pay undocumented workers below minimum wage. Above minimum wage, they are competing with legal residents for jobs, which causes problems, but most illegals do not have training or skills beyond the simplest of labor.
Give everyone who isn't a violent criminal and who wants it a path to citizenship. Get everyone on the tax rolls, and out of black markets.
I believe that's the case already --- there is a path to legal residency and citizenship available, which many immigrants take: the illegals are just getting an unfair shortcut by ignoring the processes established and required to become a legal resident.
but they'd certainly have enough evidence for a search, and they could keep a record of any potential weapons seen in the house in case forensics can later get them a better description of the weapon used.
They wouldn't have probable cause to visit every apartment in the building and cease every blunt object in the house from every tenant and take it to the lab for analysis. And from the public there is a simple answer to this illegal search behavior.... Jury nullification. If this person comes before a jury charged with a crime, and I find out about this illegal search; I will almost certainly reach a finding of not guilty, regardless of the facts of the case.
Not a single citizen is required to tolerate an illegal unconstitutional search or assist in a law enforcement action tainted by such misbehavior of police and judges.
However, with a service such as Google there is a simple answer. Order them to preserve and not delete any e-mail for the user within the potential time frame
Then when they have enough evidence to specify the thing to be searched or the particular objects to be seized, without first conducting an illegal search, they will be able to get a legitimate warrant and inspect the preserved materials.
To be honest, I've see this, but only when migrating VMs off host for host Maintenance, or a boot Storm on our VDI.
Maintenance mode migrations are pretty common; especially when rolling out security updates. Ever place two hosts in maintenance mode simultaneously and have a few backup jobs kick off during the process?
My state has a law that any employee can demand to be paid in legal tender
An employer does not have to own or directly provide the legal tender themselves under any circumstances; an employer may deliver to the employee a cheque payable in full for legal tender, from their bank or other financial service provider, which is standard practice in every industry, essentially.
And the direct payment of cash as wages is a bit suspicious, but I only suggest fraud should be assumed if it has already been shown that the employer hired undocumented workers and an investigation of their documentation and private interviews of their employees suggest the possibility of deception by the employer; for example, a large amount of revenue generating activity being completed requiring labor, with little ability to produce sufficient paycheck stubs and show tax witholdings to adequately account for work completed.
Tor has value, BUT it has no proper place running behind the firewall on the corporate intranet or in the home within the developed world -- it is a huge security risk, and it makes sense to block tor completely.
Tor has value for some people living in tyrannical regimes where free speech has been outlawed and internet users have a jealous government to worry about who may object to what they post or read, and may threaten them or their families based on it.
However.... these users also need some sort of VPN or anonymized onramp to get onto Tor, or else they may be busted for the crime of using Tor.
Is that not disclosed in their Terms of Service or is it more like, "big boobs on TV so I didn't bother to read the agreement"?
Hi. Compliance with the accredited registrar policy is not optional; it is part of a signed agreement between the registrar and ICANN. ICANN posted an advisory clearly alerting registrars to their obligations: 1. Registrars are prohibited from denying a domain name transfer request based on non-payment of fees for pending or future registration periods during the Auto-Renew Grace Period; and 2. A registrant change to Whois information is not a valid basis for denying a transfer request.
GoDaddy adopted practices that were directly contrary to the ICANN policy.
It doesn't matter if GoDaddy disclosed it in the terms of service, the ICANN terms have priority: the practice was a violation of policies that accredited registrars have promised to adhere to, before being allowed to be accredited registrars, and before being able to maintain that status and any access to the registry database or the ability to be in the business of transferring or creating domain registrations.
If you have evidence of it, please write to ICANN to complain about the obvious WHOIS data mining for marketing/e-mail spam purposes....
They do allow outbound transfers (it's a requirement of being an accredited registrar) but it's a giant pain in the ass. I used to do customer domain management for my company and getting the auth code and domain unlocked from these guys was an exercise in frustration.
Considering their "piece of paper" form that they send out is enough to get a transfer to other registrars: I do believe they must honor the same process. If a written form is presented to them, they must take it as authorization for the transfer, otherwise the other domain registrars who are harmed by it would have fought this practice away a long time ago.
Up to you whether you think this is good governance or not.
ICANN always argued that regulation / enforcement / policing of the registrars was not their job in response to complaints about many registrar's activities --- such as GoDaddy's onerous "60 day hold/no registrar transfer period" after you renew your domain or change the name of any of your WHOIS contacts.
Why not got one step further - the fines imposed on the employer could be set at the difference between the actual wage earned and the (minimum wage + $1/hour).
Let's also set a higher than normal minimum wage for illegal/undocumented workers, a so called "employer penalty minimum wage" of 25% higher.
Also.... for each illegal: if the farm employer paid them in cash or cannot otherwise prove beyond a shadow of doubt any particular payment, then it shall be assumed the employer made every effort to defraud the employee of wages and hours worked and that the payment was actually $0, so the entire minimum wage is due fir the maximum conceivable number of hours the employee might have worked.
Similarly... if they cannot show affirmative documentation of the hours worked: then it will be assumed an illegally numerous 16 hours a day for every day since hiring. Burden of proof on the employer to show what was paid and how many hours or days the employee worked.