This sounds like a contractor who's in over their head or a management chain that doesn't get it...
The real test will be once there really *IS* an explosion. What will it look like and how will Apple and other companies be able to respond to that issue? If there is a slow response, or any serious denial we'll end up with a breeding ground for a far more serious issue. While there will always be a degree of cat-and-mouse, if they can contain damage early on, that will be helpful. Further, will it be easier to "train" Mac users to NOT do stupid things? (open up a pic of "naked Jessica", etc) I was able to "train" my Dad, after the 452,485,745 time he got a virus, I made him use the geek squad (and pay for it) to clean his computer. Guess what? Never got another of THOSE calls!
Maybe it's time to start setting up Mac users without "Admin" rights, make greater use of "sudo" with a password. From a practical day-to-day use perspective , I don't know how that would work with OSX, but since it's BSD-based I'd assume that it shouldn't be overly difficult
what did legal say?
Legal doesn't HAVE an opinion because they weren't contacted and if this is forwarded, they'll say "don't to anything (including respond most likely) until we get a cease-and-desist or similar". It's the unfortunate mentality of these organizations. That being said, I believe that if they are using your images as you describe for any kind of advertising it would be worth your time to go after them. ALTHOUGH: I do NOT know what kind of damages (if any) you should receive since they were released under the CC
One option might be to contact EFF. Either they, or possibly lawyers or law professors (with students who need experience!) might be interested in helping you out. Good luck!
The article is of dubious value, but you have some interesting points. I don't think we suffer from an "Overabundance of qualified, educated people". I'm risking getting blasted here, BUT, I think we have an overabundance of mediocre people with a degree. The difference is that we're producing fewer and fewer people with degrees in science and technology fields and more people with degrees which have little direct applicability in the workforce. Further, we're "forcing" people into 4 year programs who have more potential in vocational-type programs.
And I'm NOT being condescending regarding vocational programs. There's talent, skill, and dedication required for those jobs which I do NOT possess. I am a menace with any kind of carpentry tool and when doing anything an electrician probably should have touched live wires (120v, thankfully) more often than I'd like to remember.
But I absolutely agree with your point that we're falling behind in the US. We've been content to let other people do the "hard work" and encouraged many of our smartest and most talented people to pursue "quick-and-easy" money in areas like the financial industry to the ultimate detriment of other industries. This is anecdotal to a degree, but as a hiring manager, it was VERY difficult to find people of reasonable intelligence and talent. A friend who's a recruiter runs into similar problems finding programmers in SF for the rates companies are willing to pay. Yes, the bay area is expensive, but the salaries offered were reasonable for what I considered mid-tier and lower-end senior folks. The company was very flexible (including allowing varying degrees of remote work). Still he has a tremendous ongoing challenge to find, and place (before they get snatched) good people
The bottom line is that we need to encourage people to get education in areas where they can succeed AND which are in demand by the market. If someone wants to get a degree in a field not in demand, that's their business, but I don't think merely "getting a degree" should be the end goal nor encouraged.
You have to return the property of your former employer to the employer. That's not just physical items, but can include IP as needed to do your job. That's been in every severance agreement I've had the displeasure to give or receive. Passwords are in there.
Not having seen the agreement, the password is owned by SF, not this admin. He had no right to withhold it; almost certainly he had an obligation as a part of his severance to provide it.
I agree with this. I'm pretty surprised so many people are jumping to this guy's defense based on some pretty off and esoteric arguments regarding details they know nothing about, e.g. "not knowing if the boss can have the password", etc.
Not giving it to his boss even after the city demanded it was just being a dick.
And that's the end of it, Mayor Gavin had to make a PERSONAL visit to get the password. Is HE authorized to have the password? I'm sure he made good use of it - gave it to the IT staff...
"Trust me. I know what I'm doing." -- Sledge Hammer