 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Yep, but even worse than that is that help desk personnel will tend to
> reset passwords for anyone who says they are the person calling in.
At university we had to actually go to the IT place and show our photo-ID
before they would reset the password. They would stick the ID into the
machine (after supposedly checking the photo), and then scan in the barcode
on the outside of an envelope. Inside the envelope was your new password
:-)
I'm pretty sure that here I could just phone the IT guys and they'd reset my
password - but saying that I think they pretty much know everyone's voice as
we're quite a small outfit.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> vt52, vt100, vt220 and vt240 (using its grahical modes to plot things
> IIRC) but I started on on a beehive terminal where you could edit one line
> locally and then use the 'send' button to send to the mainframe.
> No fancy full screen editors like VI yet.
> Output to be collected the next day at the front desk.
My dad got me a vt220 (IIRC) from work once when I was about 9 or 10. I
hooked it up to our BBC via serial link and would chat with my sister from
room-to-room after we were meant to have gone to bed! We even tricked a few
of our friends by me hiding in another room and my sister pretending to chat
to someone famous using this "amazing new technology".
Should have realised the potential of this usage and written an internet
chat program!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] laptop com> wrote:
> By using the internet you are effectively agreeing that everyone else can
> see what you are doing.
I see no law specifying this.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Of course, the bit of "let's watch everyone always who is in public, and
> record any data leaving or entering their private house" is also
> troublesome, but certainly easier to get around.
In Finland there are quite restrictive privacy laws.
For example, it's prohibited to create (and especially distribute) lists
which link numbers (such as social security numbers, car license plates,
student numbers in universities, etc.) to the persons assigned to those
numbers. For example at universities when they publish course results,
they can only print out to public view either the student number or the
student name, but not both. (Most prefer printing only the student number
because it's more "anonymous".)
Sometimes executing this law goes a bit to extremes. For example there
was a website which collected photographs of cars with amusing license
plates. It received a cease-and-desist order from authorities because
it effectively was a listing of license plates and photographs of the
cars they belonged to. This is a no-no.
I'm quite certain that likewise it would be prohibited to photograph
people leaving their homes, because such photographs would effectively
be a list connecting people with their homes.
I'm not sure what is the interpretation of the law with regard to the
police spying on internet traffic, though...
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> By using the internet you are effectively agreeing that everyone else can
>> see what you are doing.
>
> I see no law specifying this.
It's not a case of law or not, it's the fact that you signed an agreement
with the company that gives you access to the internet. If you don't agree
with their terms, then use another ISP, or if you can't find one that you
agree with then make your own ISP or don't use the internet.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> It's not a case of law or not, it's the fact that you signed an agreement
> with the company that gives you access to the internet. If you don't agree
> with their terms, then use another ISP, or if you can't find one that you
> agree with then make your own ISP or don't use the internet.
That doesn't automatically mean that the police can go and do whatever
it wants.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 09:01:15 +0200, scott wrote:
>> Yep, but even worse than that is that help desk personnel will tend to
>> reset passwords for anyone who says they are the person calling in.
>
> At university we had to actually go to the IT place and show our
> photo-ID before they would reset the password. They would stick the ID
> into the machine (after supposedly checking the photo), and then scan in
> the barcode on the outside of an envelope. Inside the envelope was your
> new password :-)
Yeah, some places are saavy enough to do this, but sadly not enough of
them.
> I'm pretty sure that here I could just phone the IT guys and they'd
> reset my password - but saying that I think they pretty much know
> everyone's voice as we're quite a small outfit.
Here they require you to show up in person to the security office (or the
help desk area, I don't know which) with your access card; but we also
have the ability to change our own passwords using a secret question/
answer and a PIN; the PIN is used by the phone system for voice mail
access as well, so most people remember that easier than their password.
Just don't lose your badge. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> In Finland there are quite restrictive privacy laws.
That's one of the areas in which the USA is rather backwards. :-?
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Remember the good old days, when we
used to complain about cryptography
being export-restricted?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 16:56:51 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> In Finland there are quite restrictive privacy laws.
>
> That's one of the areas in which the USA is rather backwards. :-?
Yeah - actually, been wondering what you think of the Governator's
reversal of the data protection laws in CA...?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Yeah - actually, been wondering what you think of the Governator's
> reversal of the data protection laws in CA...?
I fear I've been an Actioneer for the last couple of months. I haven't
really been keeping up with the news that doesn't directly affect me.
However, glancing thru a couple of news articles, and considering I've
worked in the payment processing arena for 15 years, I have to say I
agree with him. From the little I see, it's the payment processing
stuff he doesn't want to change. That's very different from the other
information.
I don't really care if someone steals my credit card info. It's not my
card. It's the bank's card. What I don't want is people selling all my
personal information without my consent. I can already stop people from
getting my payment history that don't need to know it. The payment
processing laws in the US are stronger (i.e., more consumer friendly)
than most of Europe, as I understand it. It's just the stuff that people
collect independent of actually payment information that's loose.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Remember the good old days, when we
used to complain about cryptography
being export-restricted?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
