Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Deal of the Day - Pay What You Want for the Learn to Code Bundle, includes AngularJS, Python, HTML5, Ruby, and more. ×

Comment Mixed.... (Score 1) 379

I think it is pretty open/shut that these are his photographs and his property.

That said, the school probably has a leg to stand on when it comes to protecting the privacy of it's students at school activities.

It would be a reasonable general rule (that should be enforced as such and not just applied to one person) that you cannot publish photos of students on the Internet taken at school events. They can presumably enforce this for students but they would presumably need to also enforce a "no photos" policy at games/etc with the parents (i.e. in order to attend the game, you must sign this waiver).

If student privacy is the real issue, then they need to follow this through all the way. Half measures seem less likely to be enforceable or even useful...

Comment Re:State sponsored hack= state terrorism/act of wa (Score 3, Insightful) 221

Just because some vague articles and politicos point the finger at North Korea doesn't mean that it's true. I'm not making any assertions about the truth at this point, but we should be careful before jumping to (potentially violent) conclusions based on hearsay.

"But in their initial public statement, whoever hacked Sony made no mention of North Korea or the film. And in an email sent to Sony by the hackers, found in documents they leaked, there is also no mention of North Korea or the film. The email was sent to Sony executives on Nov. 21, a few days before the hack went public. Addressed to Sony Pictures CEO Michael Lynton, Chairwoman Amy Pascal and other executives, it appears to be an attempt at extortion, not an expression of political outrage or a threat of war."

Comment Re:Copyright violation? (Score 3, Insightful) 230

I think it is.

It is one thing to install software on your own computer that serves modified content. When you start serving the modified content to other people, I believe that creates the difference.

If comcast can inject ads, then there would be no problem with ISPs offering "Advertising Filtering" proxy servers for their customers and serving them sanitized content.

Comment Re:Firewall != Windows Firewall (Score 1) 348

The argument for running a windows firewall *in addition* to physical firewalls is that you create a "soft underbelly" if the individual servers do not have their own defenses. Say someone compromises server #1 -- now they can attack server #2 - #4 and have access to a significantly larger threat surface (i.e. Server #1 has direct access to ports on #2 - #4 that you wouldn't want an attacker to see).

The basic principle is - keep your attack surface as small as possible from as many attack vectors as possible. This means inefficiency and overlapping defenses.

Comment "Yeah... right"... Re:John Smith? (Score 4, Informative) 148

Pretty sure these people haven't spent much time in the courts....

I was sued for defamation by a company over content that someone else published on their site. I was included in the lawsuit because I provided the owner/operator/content-creator/everything of the other site a web analytics tool I created (before the days of free Google Analytics). This was enough to confuse the courts and put me in the position where best case scenario, I spend $40K+ and I "win" and worst case scenario, I spend $40K and lose the case and face a ridiculous judgment.

Unless you are an unemployed lawyer with no assets and plenty of free time, the legal system is a big pile of lose-lose.

I have a theory that it's impossible to prove anything, but I can't prove it.