Re: Such Hypocrisy
Absolutely, must be a troll. No one could be that stupid.
29 posts • joined 19 Jun 2018
Then you'd be wrong. If you don't know the people you serve then how do you know whether you are discriminating against them, intentionally or otherwise? Then, of course, you can also answer accusations of discrimination such as "You don't house gay black women" with "Well actually...".
The media didn't redefine troll as bully. A troll is a trouble-maker.
The origin of hacker, relating to technology, is from the 1950s and MIT, meaning anyone tinkering or working on tech. Intention is key. "Ethical" is not just necessary for "media reasons" but because there really are ethical and unethical hackers. If you intend to cause harm then you are unethical. The word hacker itself needs the adjective.
"If the court's IT department can't secure their network properly, that's their fault, not the judge's or the investigators'." If you leave your door unlocked and someone walks in an steals your belongings then your insurance company may not pay up but the perp will still be arrested for burglary. Carelessness is not a permit to do what you want.
"So it's perfectly legitimate for a firm to secretly hire someone to test the firm's security and practices to protect the firm, but it's not cool for an employee to hire someone to test whether their confidentiality is being breached by their employer / colleagues etc?" Yes, because they own the equipment!
Your logic is bizarre.
IF the network connected device is your own then yes, you can take it home and analyze it. What you don't have a right to do is connect it to the network owned by your employer and monitor that network in any way!
"Sounds to me like it was a bring your own device deal. " Very possibly. That is the case where I work.
"So if so she has every right to have her machine checked." If she had it checked outside of work, yes.
"Sounds like its a bullshit charge in an attempt to maybe get her off certain "Cases" shes refused to take brown envelopes for, maybe." Pure speculation.
Agree with the first part of your post but:
"Even if they are found guilty, they'll eventually serve their sentence and rejoin the community - so shouldn't we make it a bit easier by allowing them some privacy where possible?"
If they are found guilty then they deserve the publicity and no privacy - after being found guilty. Not only are they punished but the publicity acts as a deterrent.
But many organizations do make decisions at a higher level than IT. I used to work for a company that refused to lock USB ports - because it "caused inconvenience'. That was an organizational decision. You and I know it was wrong. The rest of IT knows it was wrong but the organization made that decision. The same does apply to firewalls. "Why can't I get out to X? Unblock it at once."
"If ICT lock down usb sticks and then an IT manager steals some data is the company still liable" Why does the IT manager have access to the data? Appropriate access should be maintained and monitored by someone other than the IT manager!
Wrong, clinical audit is carried out by CCGs, NICE and the NHS Counter Fraud Authority etc. Do you not want care commissioning bodies to confirm that GPs really are carrying out 200 minor operations per day, or that one of the patients in your area really did receive care in the Outer Hebrides? Shouldn't we check that a particular surgeon has a higher patient mortality rate or that particular treatments\medications actually work when we pay for them?
"In another and more straightforward rape case, where complainant and defendant met on Tinder and there were only two mobile phones to consider, 150 officer hours were required to examine 20,000 items of data,"
Perhaps, if the police had been able to review the 20,000 items more swiftly, there wouldn't be the need for a defence, as no charges would be brought?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020