I would say, any item that you use for fun and/or enjoyment - whether it be an action figure/dolls, comics/books, role-playing games (CCGs,etc), climbing equipment, boat, model railroad, or RC vehicles, etc. I don't think we are limited to just "children's toys." Now especially with this crowd, computers could be a grey area - we probably all use them for work, but I'm sure we all use them for fun also.
I think we have all gotten too analytical and only view "the word of the law, rather than the spirit of the law." Let's be less concerned with what is/isn't and more concerned with what is fun.
Don't you recall, General Dodonna description of the Deathstar's defenses?
Well, the Empire doesn't consider a small one-man fighter to be any threat, or they'd have a tighter defense.
So clearly a one man fighter was not anticipated by the empire to be an appropriate attack vector - much the same way that Adobe doesn't consider Flash to be an attack vector, otherwise they would have a more secure product...
Geez, Rickrolled semi-old school fashion.....Would have been old school if it was all in CAPS....
I can completely agree with this. I've had both - the most disturbing had a background as an accountant, that would micromanage to the Nth degree. Giving crap about how I was wasting time by answering my phone (when it was the deputy minister (aka his boss's boss's boss's boss), who regularly called me directly when he had a technical problem or question - we were on a first name basis) for a measly 10 minutes. Yet would have no problem if it was him (the micromanager), discussing his trip down to Mexico with his new g/f for hours upon hours. \\shaking head\\
Yet, another great manager I had, it was - "Ok, they want us to do this. You have this much $$$ to do it... Can you make the 'car' go Vroom Vroom?" He would take our answers and was able to converse with the upper echelons that this project would be a failure given the amount of $$$ and resources. And the funny thing was, he was always able to get the appropriate resource and money for the projects. Don't know how he did, but he was always able to (except one time, where it was a complete incompatibility that would break the existing processes in place (was an old ancient piece of sw).
I tell you, I hope you can guess what manager was the best to work for?
Managers come in all shapes, sizes and abilities. The one with the abilities are the ones that you want - even if they only have limited technical knowledge.
Sometimes, the silence is deafening.
When that occurs, I know it is going to be some great times. I remember the first time I experienced it, I was camping, at least a hundred KM from any form of civilization, and being in the tent, I couldn't get over how loud the silence was. It was unnerving for that first night, but now it is something that I really miss, and when I get the chance to encounter it again, it is something I truly cherish.
Only a few people that I've discussed the experience with have "got it." Sounds like your one that appreciates it.
Especially with the governments overarching reach. Wonder how long communications would last when the gov't presses that internet kill switch (which they claim they don't have - yeah, perhaps a bit tinfoil hat wearing, but after all, we were all assured there were no illegal phone monitoring/data harvesting either). Guess we should all go back to shortwave radio - unfortunately it has become a lost art now a days.
There can be a problems with this, especially with tele/web-based/distance therapy. The resources to intervene within a crisis environment do not exist. For example, if someone is suicidal or homicidal, how does one intervene appropriately? What if a patient/client in a tough situation (ie divorice) and their coping skills are less than adequate, and they just terminate the session after stating "they hate their spouse. There is no way to ensure that the patient is safe. Even a 911 call to the police for a wellness check, the 10-12 minute response time is not immediate enough for crisis intervention. This could potentially setup any therapist using this type of session to have there A$$ sued off, even more than they already are.
Certain patients/clients would be appropriate for this type of delivery for therapy - Any of the various paranoid flavored diagnoses would likely not work well (after all, we all used to be called paranoid when we thought the NSA was tracking our internet usage eh?). Border-line personality disorder are extremely difficult to work with in the first place... they can go from I love you, to I hate you in seconds - try and deal with that over the web, when their first instinct will be to disconnect the session. Leaves the therapist in an extremely vulnerable situation.
The other issue is, as a therapist, you don't have control over the environment. What about the phone ringing during a session, or the young child that constantly wants to see mommie or daddy or the or the interruptions from the over-caffeinated teenager? Often people in therapy are lacking in coping skills and/or boundaries. That is where the office visit will be superior, because those boundaries are more clearly defined.
The security/confidentiality/privacy of sessions would be extremely difficult to keep under control. Most relevant code of ethics have specific rules (and not to mention federal and state regulations) regarding this. If you are cross-state, which laws apply? Those of the therapist, those of the patient, or a blending of the two? In this regard, the duty/responsibility generally falls onto the therapist - talk about a liability nightmare.
I'm not saying this method of delivery is not completely without value... there are circumstance that make it necessary or even desirable. Long distance, and/or limited access to mental health services, those that are constantly traveling for work, etc. would be some examples. In my own practice, this method of delivery would only be used in limited and very specific circumstances.
encrypted or not, with the access the bad-guys had, would it not be likely that the encryption keys would be the first things they would have harvested? A lock box is not good when the keys are stole with it.
It reminds me of my past information security officer, that would always call down in a panic, after watching CNN describing a security vulnerability and if we knew about it, and could this impact us. He just didn't seem to get it.... If he found out about it on the daily news, we knew about it for at least at week, typically a month, and often a year before.
I remember an auditor just showing up unannounced, requesting a new 'audit' account be setup with domain admin rights. I just loved telling him that would be a breech of security procedures, and he would have to go through the proper channels to get the account created. When I was told to just do it, I refused, stating that a security audit should not be able to by-pass in-place security procedures... and speaking directly to the auditor "would this not be something that you would be compelled to write on the final report as a security violation?" By the looks on both of their faces, neither of them had never considered that - which is pretty sad for an auditor.
Needless to say, almost getting me fired, saved me from almost getting fired. Irony loves company.
Yet again, the extent of government overreaching continues. Lie about what really is really being done, and with a subtle move along, nothing to see here... "Ohh, look over there,Kim Kardashian."
Simply amazing that what is being assured is not being done, is in reality being done.
And they also want you to include your mobile number - nothing better than being able to link separate data pieces from multiple sources with a phone number. Might as well call that a unique numeric identifier for yourself.
How about we pull a reversal and be permitted to monitor the FBI, NSA and CIA own internal network?
Considering that Kennedy wanted to do pretty much the same thing (and look where that got him), I have a feeling it's going to be kind of tough to pull off...
It was stated for argument sake, and to also illustrate the ineffectiveness of the existing 'checks and balances' along with 'Congressional oversight.' But that is stating the the obvious. It is more of a how would you feel if the same was done to you. I would be willing to bet they would have their knickers all up in a bunch too.