Not precisely what I was getting at with that comment.
Not precisely what I was getting at with that comment.
It's definitely an inside job, and it certainly could be backup tapes, although I think it is just as likely that they stored all their backups on the same file server in the office as their desktop file shares and the hacker simply had a backdoor into the network and just went in and downloaded it all.
The level of security in the dumps that I have seen leads me to believe that they really didn't give two shits about security. Which is odd, given that they should have realized that they are Blackmail Central. Although I have met enough managers who think security is just overhead that I could believe that it kept being put off until "later" or that it was "too inconvenient".
I don't see the blackmail-type of hacker becoming an "outraged" type of hacker. Someone who blackmails a site like this doesn't care how they get their money, they just want a cut of it. It's a very pragmatic business. They're parasites, why would they kill a site that they know they could knock over every few months or years?
I think this was an inside job due to someone who sounds like they flew into a righteous rage about what ALM was and was not doing. Or not-so-righteous rage if ALM somehow failed to meet their personal expectations for some reason. The comments from ALM make me think it was some sort of contractor or consultant who was working with ALM on a technical or security level, but *something* soured the relationship and that contractor used his knowledge to perpetrate the hack.
It makes it sound like he was working with the security director or knew of him and all the other execs were part of the problem. That screams "working relationship" with the company at the very least.
Biderman was a founder of AshleyMadison.com. You can be sure he's already been paid. Unless he's been squandering his money on hookers and blow (which admittedly is something he might do), he's not going to lose his shirt.
Any lawsuits that breach the corporate barrier may be an issue, though.
He quit because that is what a CEO does who has presided over such a disastrous set of events. At least in this case, he was the man in power during all of those actions, so he did richly deserve it. He's not just the scapegoat/sacrifice.
I sincerely doubt it would legally be a fraud, I imagine they had those bases covered with ToS language. I agree that it was certainly misleading given the fact that they apparently had bots pretending to be females.
There were definitely women who used the service, however. Both the credit card records and some reports of females who had used it make that pretty clear.
There's also the fact that once a female made a response in that sort of environment, you'd probably have a date and be able to take it off the site, whereas males would spend more effort and money because they'd usually end up pursuing many more "non-productive" leads on the site (and therefore being forced to use the site for all contacts).
As you pointed out, the numbers of women actually participating were overwhelmingly dwarfed by number of males, just as they are on most dating sites. Most of the money in those sites is getting males to stay interested enough to keep shelling out money. It's like ladies night at the bars.
They can't take his stock away from him, at least not the stock he owns already. That belongs to him personally like his house does.
Obviously, he might lose options or stock grants that he hasn't received yet as part of his compensation package, but not necessarily. It depends on the contract.
Of course, stock is pretty much moot at this point, although it may be interesting to see if ALM can dig out of this.
I wouldn't be surprised if they do, cockroaches are good at surviving things that would have killed any other organism.
I'd step away from that partisan comment. If the President was a Republican, then liberals would be complaining.
The problem isn't with liberals going after conservatives or vice versa. The problem is that there exists a power which allows whoever is in charge to go after those they don't like. If the Republicans are in power, they'd use it as much as the Obama Administration does.
There is always the consideration that lowering the bar tends to increase the caseload and thus, hinder the functioning of the courts, which can cause its own problems.
There may well be a case for changing how standing is determined for certain specific cases like this, but this needs to be work done with a scalpel or you could hopelessly bog down the Federal court system.
No, that isn't justice, it is a bias against the possibility of injustice being worked on the innocent when due process and proper procedure is not employed or there is insufficient evidence.
Justice for the guilty still remains due, we simply hold that it is better for a guilty man to walk free than an innocent man go to jail. Justice has been denied, but we accept the need for that against the possibility of ensuring perfect retaliation for all injust acts, which would allow a much lower standard of evidence and procedure but innocent people would also be punished.
There has always been the assumption by most that even the guilty who get away from the courts unscathed will face justice eventually in some manner. For some, those unrepentant guilty will end up in Hell. For those of a more secular mindset, those who carry out anti-social acts are more likely to end up in a bad way due to their friction with society and their interaction with dangerous people. Justice is frequently served in some manner, although satisfaction of victims can be very hard to ensure in any case.
You are right about the DC Court of Appeals, but the ruling in question is a ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which is a US Federal Circuit Court of Appeal.
So yes, this is a Circuit court opinion which will be resolved by the Supreme Court on appeal. And they are more likely (although not certain) to hear the appeal if there is a Circuit split involved.
Sweeping may not be the word for it, but it is a very influential decision.
The President can fire any cabinet member at will even those requiring Senate approval. The Senate only comes into play when you try and hire a new cabinet member.
There was a law about firing without Senate approval called the Tenure of Office act, but that was repealed in 1887.
So yes, if he decided to fire an executive branch officer who disobeyed his directives, he totally could.
To be fair, I should have put quotes around "conservative" like I did with "progressive".
As other people have pointed out, I am not describing the parties the way they'd like to be portrayed, or you or I think they should be acting, I'm describing them the way they *are*.
The blame goes to both liberals and conservatives who keep adding size and red tape to the government.
Sure, conservatives want more cops and cop gear. The liberals get upset with cops and their solution is regulating the cops into the ground.
The liberals or "progressives" want to create a whole new social experiment with health care or their plan for ending racism or something. They increase the government to do it. The conservatives oppose this. Their solution? More laws to complicate the implementation of the program, or they just hold up the rest of the government to get their way. In the end, the program still gets implemented, but in some mutant form.
Neither strategy streamlines the government because both sides are statists before they are liberals or conservatives. They believe the government is the solution to the problem, they just disagree on what the problem is.
Did it have a 19th floor?
I don't know what a photon or gravity are, but I didn't say I did. I am saying that both investigations are still the subject of science, which they certainly are.
One question that is almost certainly philosophical is the quest to be able to describe a deity. That's almost certainly philosophical because the subject itself, by definition, has the power to avoid measurement if he wishes. While such a being could decide to demonstrate miracles in an rigorously controlled experiment to prove his capabilities, so far, no deity has stepped forward to do so.
You are confusing answering difficult questions with "philosophy". It may be that the answers will only ever be philosophical due to our inability to measure anything related to gravity or photons, but we're certainly not that far enough along yet to even suggest that we can know that. There are plenty of things that are waiting to be measured.
"The geeks shall inherit the earth." -- Karl Lehenbauer