Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:He is lucky not being labelled a terrorist... (Score 1) 875

This isn't police state stuff, because Southwest Airlines is not a police organization but a private corporation.

"Failure to comply with the orders" of a flight attendant, gate attendant, or just about any other airline employee while in any area they "control" (e.g., the airplane, the gate, etc.) is a felony in the US.

So, yeah, it's "police state stuff", because these people know they have that kind of power.

Comment: Re:Is there an SWA Twitter police? (Score 1) 875

If he wanted to complain about the agent by name, he should have filed a complaint with the airlines rather than post it for anyone to see.

Do you seriously think that she would have reacted the same way (pull him off the plane and ask him to delete the tweet) if she had let the kids join him and he tweeted positively about how great she is at customer service?

The situation would be identical in that she would be named personally and an opinion would be stated about her. Just because that opinion might be a "bad" one doesn't give her the right to use her very real authority to attempt to bully him into retracting the post.

Comment: Re:Is there an SWA Twitter police? (Score 1) 875

The other is that - as the articles say - he named her in the very public tweet, and might have threatened to escalate further and encourage people to harass, threaten, or do worse to her.

So if he had named her in a tweet full of praise, it would be OK? Wouldn't she then feel threatened that wackos might want to propose to her because she's such a great person? He's not responsible for what other people might do in regards to a truthful but opinionated twitter post, regardless of whether that post is positive or negative.

I would be OK with your idea if she only requested that he remove her name from the post, and explained her personal discomfort. If she then also offered contact information for her supervisor so that he could complain about her personally if he wished, that would have been just about the perfect way to react. But, none of this should have involved pulling him off the plane. That was done solely as leverage to get her way.

Comment: Re:Customer service? (Score 1) 875

That's not government authority, that's the authority of a privately owned company to refuse service to anyone.

As others have pointed out, "failing to follow the instructions of a airline/TSA/whatever employee" when at an airport is a felony in the US. Thus, if he refused to remove the tweet, he technically could have been arrested.

Whenever the government says "you can't do X" and "X" is exercising one of your inalienable rights, it's a Constitutional issue, which in this case is 1st Amendment.

Comment: Re:Customer service? (Score 1) 875

I think he figured he didn't want to pay the extra money to upgrade his kids and that he could slip them into boarding with himself counting on the fact that either he felt entitled due to his frequent flying status, or that the gate person wouldn't call him out on it.

Actually, I suspect that he felt that instead of boarding first and then saving the seats for his kids (which the flight attendants will let you do), he felt that letting them board at the same time would have the same net effect on other passengers but allow him to keep his kids with him the whole time.

Comment: Re:Customer service? (Score 1) 875

The gate agent was correct in telling him he could move back in the line to join his kids, but they couldn't cut in line and move up to join him. That's the policy and they tell you this when asking you to line up.

No, SW doesn't tell you this when you line up, and specifically allows "families" to board together first. In addition, for groups that don't qualify as a "family" that have different boarding assignments, the flight attendants have no problem with the first persons to board saving seats in the same rows for later people. They won't let you save random seats all over the aircraft, though.

There are dozens of solutions that the gate attendant could have chosen that would have resulted in the man feeling he had received good customer service and thus never posting a bad review. After the tweet was out there, the gate attendant then chose the very worst method to try to resolve the situation in her (but not Southwest Airlines) favor.

Comment: Re:well (Score 1) 128

by nabsltd (#47522711) Attached to: The Psychology of Phishing

then send them an email tailored just for them: Hi Joe, we found another missile system using flight parameters that may be interesting for use in the Ramrod. Here is the website..., signed your coworker Frank.

Frank doesn't sign his e-mail that way, so something must be up. Or, I don't know Frank personally, why would he send this to me? Or, Frank always sticks his head in my office right after he sends and e-mail and asks "did you see my e-mail?", so this must be fake. If your investigations that allow you to "spear phish" are good enough to solve these sorts of problems, you don't need to phish for stuff, you've paid off the cleaning crew and they can just take the papers.

As for technological solutions (after all, this is /. ), we can assume that the e-mail was flagged as arriving at our e-mail server from an external server (i.e., not authenticated against our network), so it has a header added that causes it to be filtered by e-mail rules to not go directly into the inbox, but instead into the "external contacts" folder. Yes, I know most companies don't do this, but they should. My company adds headers, but doesn't automatically filter...that's up to the user.

Comment: Re:well (Score 1) 128

by nabsltd (#47522601) Attached to: The Psychology of Phishing

How are spammers successful so often? Simple, companies don't train people.

Companies also don't often have the infrastructure set up to help their people do the right thing.

As an example, every company should provide users with unlimited e-mail addresses that end up in their real e-mail inbox but can be filtered using rules. Employees should then be instructed that they should never use their "real" e-mail address for anything that gets put into a database. This means that if they sign up at Cisco's support portal, they don't use "realaddress@example.com", but instead something like "cisco-realaddress@example.com". This means that if you get what seems to be an official-looking e-mail about paying an invoice from Cisco addressed to "amazon-realaddress@example.com", you know it's fake.

If ISPs provided the same feature, phishing success would be reduced dramatically. I get any number of e-mails that pretend to be from a bank (some actually from a bank I do business with), yet all come to the wrong e-mail address, so they are immediately trashed. With a little work, it could even be automated, especially if companies co-operated and documented keywords that would always appear in every e-mail from them. This would allow you to compare the keywords in the body to the recipient and see that they don't match as being from the same company.

Comment: Re: Systemd? Not on my system... (Score 1) 224

by nabsltd (#47509885) Attached to: X.Org Server 1.16 Brings XWayland, GLAMOR, Systemd Integration

cgroups, kernel capabilities, boilerplate code when writing own system services, cgroups, cgroups, cgroups, did I mention cgroups?

So, one feature of systemd that is used only by a very small percentage of users and could have been broken out into its own code is worth making debugging startup issues almost impossible?

Since the poster who originally said "systemd makes system administration a joy" never replied, I'm gonna assume he was either being sarcastic or a troll.

Comment: Re:" and particularly describing" (Score 1) 150

by nabsltd (#47502063) Attached to: New York Judge OKs Warrant To Search Entire Gmail Account

from what I have read, they do not specify the person or things to be seized except "everything".

We don't know that, as nothing has reported what they can "seize", only what they can "search". They are permitted to search the entire account. My guess would be that prosecutors would then take everything they found which they believed was relevant and bring it before the judge, who would then give the yes/no for each piece, seeing as how that's how evidence works in every case.

Also, if the government has some sort of injunction to prevent the defendant from using the account (reasonable, since they could destroy or fabricate evidence), it has already been "seized", and would need to remain so until the trial was complete. Getting a snapshot of everything now could actually allow the defendant to resume using the account, so that the "seizure" period would be minimized.

Comment: Re:Warrants are supposed to be narrow (Score 1) 150

by nabsltd (#47501991) Attached to: New York Judge OKs Warrant To Search Entire Gmail Account

Its not fair to just open up all of someones papers for their entire life for investigation.

OK, how about this physical example where you have a filing cabinet which contains papers that have written on them evidence of a crime. The police execute a warrant to search through the filing cabinet for those papers, and take only those papers concerning the crime.

But, but must read every paper to determine if that particular paper has the evidence they are looking for. So, your "entire life" has been exposed. Nothing except what concerns the exact crime on the warrant can ever be used against you in a criminal trial, but they might have learned any number of other things about you that you wanted to keep secret.

"Never ascribe to malice that which is caused by greed and ignorance." -- Cal Keegan

Working...