|
PremiumSupport posted:I think you'll find that in a corporate environment (in the United States at least) the computer and everything on it, including any personal login credentials that may or may not be there, is considered to be company property and no right to privacy exists. If the said harassment was sent from a work machine, company IT is well within it's rights, and possibly even obligated by law so search their own computers for evidence. I don't know where this belief comes from, but in what way can you possibly believe that ownership of personal accounts is transferred by logging in on a work machine? Most companies i've worked with even have personal use policies, and even if they don't, there isn't some magic clause that would stand up in a court that says "If you log in on this PC we own your facebook". I mean you guys gotta see how ridiculous that sounds. Basically everyone in this thread that is in the US would have to relinquish their SA account to their employer because obviously they own it.
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2017 15:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 12:34 |
|
|
Nerdrock posted:this. I don't see where the distinction is, you are accessing data for a reason that is not justifiable (Since you are accessing everyones data to find a match) in a store that you have no business accessing (no matter if its the password store or cookies, these are both credential storage). I only know tidbits about the american federal computer hacking laws but I am fairly positive that this easily falls within their jurisdiction. Accessing these stores in order to diagnose a technical issue is a special case where a lot of privacy can be circumvented, doing so for forensic HR purposes certainly isn't. Don't forget that you are performing the same actions as if stealing a stored password/hijacking a cookie. I haven't read a law that cared if you stole 'just' a username or the actual password. It's as if you were handling medical records and looked at every employees records 'just to see if they have cancer' because you found a hint at such a thing. Like, do none of you guys use signing certificates? Impersonating someone by use of a personal certificate by signing with it is a crime, regardless of who provided that cert. The private key can't be property of the company, because the signature has to prove the identity of the user. Same goes for passwords IMO. Anyway, I'll shut up about this since apparently privacy/security isn't a concern for you guys. SEKCobra fucked around with this message at 15:56 on Jul 18, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2017 15:54
|
|
|
Avenging_Mikon posted:I can't remember; are you US-based? For some reason it's in my head that you're in the UK, not US. If that's so, you're 100% correct, but for the US it's definitely different in that a company is within their rights to check browsing history on company machines. I wouldn't do it without a printed and signed copy of the order from my bosses though. I am indeed not based in the US, defacto you'd get into so much trouble in my country for even thinking about doing this aloud that you could probably shut your company down on the spot. But having touched bases with US companies, it just seems unlikely this extent of invasion can be legal even in the US. But obviously IDK, my main point still stands to CYA to hell and back.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2017 17:04
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted:That's needlessly passive aggressive. It's not meant to be, the responses here just give me the feeling that not only are your laws weak (which I knew before) but you guys actually seem ok with it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2017 17:05
|
|
|
Zero VGS posted:You're responsible if you leave your laptop unsecured, and I can still wreck your day over it. I'm pretty sure it was the IT guy who just showed us that he has the means to remotely access everything, he probably planted the evidence! (This is joke, pls no hurt) Also, this is the sorta thing I would CMA with more than just an email.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
First thing I did when I started was close the oldest tickets no one could solve. Not sure how to fix that tho.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
Steakandchips posted:Why did you even take the meeting? I don't consider it a meeting when someone just comes into my office.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2017 17:05
|
|
|
I wish I could get a nightshift in some critical infrastructure but there really isn't anything like that  Working at night is just so very nice, if for the fact that no idiots are at work to call you alone.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2017 14:43
|
|
|
Things regularly reported as fires here: Sonicwalls with a yellowed case when the power supply is dead, obviously the sonicwall 'was burning'. Smoke coming out of any device. I have had more than 5 reports of devices burning and not once has there been a flame.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2017 15:50
|
|
|
ConfusedUs posted:To be fair, unless it has an internal combustion engine, smoke should not be coming out of any device. Even if there's not an open flame, smoke is the result of something burning! Not really, 90 % of the time smoke coming out of electronic devices is from capacitors.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2017 16:05
|
|
|
ChubbyThePhat posted:Please tell me this is real. You know this is real, it's Linus.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2017 09:02
|
|
|
Don't blow this out of proportion, most people feel the need to tell you why they are on sick leave, so she probably just wrote "I'm going to be out from x to y for my hemorrhoid surgery". I think I am the only person that just calls in and says 'SIck until at least x' at my company, instead of saying "I did stupid thing z, broke my leg, got aids and then also contracted the flu".
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2017 09:40
|
|
|
Why can't a single vHost on Apache have multiple SSL certs? Shouldn't it be possible to server a SSL cert basked on the ServerAlias? We have a website that has 5 different domains that go to one Typo3. We are planning to activate HTTPS and I'm wrecking my brain trying ti figure out if this is possible without redirecting the other 4. Can anyone break this down for me?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2017 13:11
|
|
|
nielsm posted:You can put multiple Subject Alternate Name into a single certificate. Remember that all domain names that can serve the site need to be listed there, including the "primary" name, otherwise some recent browsers will reject it. I know that, but I'm trying to wrap my brain around why I can't just have 3 certs for example.com example1.com and example2.com and server them depending on which site the user goes to. With SNI this seems perfectly doable.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2017 13:25
|
|
|
spankmeister posted:You can with SNI but you need separate vhosts for that. I don't see the problem, really I was thinking aobut pointing multiple vHosts at the Typo, but I can't find anything reassuring me that this won't lead to issues because of the instances interfering.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2017 13:40
|
|
|
spankmeister posted:Why not set up a few reverse proxies pointing to the one instance? This is the only clean-ish solution I could think off but really I'll just force them to use redirects because what they have built is a horrible abomination anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2017 14:33
|
|
|
IDK, my problem with Linus is his pretending to be scientific and acting like he is an authority on things when just about everything that company produces is SO loving WRONG.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2017 08:08
|
|
|
I always make sure to provide a detailed explanation of what the problem was and how to fix it and it pissed me off so much when I fixed my own ticket with MS (Convergys) and this was their response when I asked for an explanation and why they couldn't figure it out: "Unfortunately on Professional level of support we can’t work on root cause analysis or the observed problems, because of that we can’t provide you an explanation "
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2017 08:40
|
|
|
I just watched the Linus video and I just dont get why they painted rgb components instead of building a pc that isnt rgb. They didnt play the joke up enough to do it just for the lulz i feel
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
Good on you if you are ok with installing spyware on your pc for random testing. I now know what my online security exam would look like.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2017 15:52
|
|
|
I'm assuming those are all work details and not private email or phone, those can obviously be published. I don't think you can stop your company from publicly acknowledging that you work there under privacy laws. 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2017 10:06
|
|
|
Collateral Damage posted:Under GDPR you can, because your name is still personal information. Our legal and HR department are both busy as hell chasing down and deleting personal information from places where it's been carelessly stored, and it's only 8 months until it starts getting enforce. I am in the EU and I've never heard of such an asinine interpretation, I don't see how you can construct a case where an employee working at the company can be constructed as being privileged personal data. Foxhound posted:It's still dumb to put them all up there because you just know a lot of people will google "<company> phone number" or "<company> email address" and call/mail the first number/address they see. You can also just email firstname.lastname@example.com at 90 % of all companies to reach the CEO, what's your point?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2017 12:25
|
|
|
Ursine Catastrophe posted:So since linkedin shows people's names and their previous/current work history, is just straight illegal now? I mean, there's either gotta be something else going on there, or someone's done something real dumb with a law without thinking about how that's actually gonna affect things Well on linkedin everyone agreed to that so it's unquestionably OK. This isn't a law that forbids personal data from being public or used or whatever, it just adds some structures that have to be implemented if you do handle 'sensitive' data.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2017 12:37
|
|
|
Even that site specifies what “sensitive personal data” is, names are not that and the burden for handling that stuff is far lower.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2017 13:38
|
|
|
I actually regret rooting this phone, it has made things (updates) much more complicated and I didnt need to transfer that much actually. Although, apparently the new firmware introduces problems so 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2017 06:58
|
|
|
Inspector_666 posted:Don't try to tape a breaker into the ON position please. Do american breakers not fail regardless of switch blockage?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2017 16:18
|
|
|
Sounds to me like the internal IP is for some reason a public IP and they want a 172.16.0.0/12 Address on it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2017 14:47
|
|
|
All I can think is that someone got paid out of the rear end to come up with this crap.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2017 16:05
|
|
|
Everything is transient and putting labels like "finished" on our process messes with our mantra.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2017 06:41
|
|
|
RFC2324 posted:percussive maintenance is a thing. "Call our complaint department" in response to your phone not working is great advice.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2017 06:59
|
|
|
What argument is made against 2.4 GHz?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2017 11:53
|
|
|
Methanar posted:I'm curious what you appeared to be logged in as after doing that. That's the one where you change the filesystem before booting, right? Not really a hack when you have full file level access to a system.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2017 08:25
|
|
|
Well honestly, if 55 % is what he needs and he has 54,49999 % I don't see any good reason not to round even just the last digit, I mean come on.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2017 23:19
|
|
|
Someone help me out, is it possible to put a second router on a Subnet, have certain PCs use that as gateway and then just forward internet traffic to the "real" router? I'm thinking no because the reverse IP would be a mismatch but I can't wrap my brain around it right now. Background is trying to get an easy solution to have our admin PCs be able to work with customer networks we are setting up at our location before deployment without having to set them up on our clumsy main routing infrastructure that makes this needlessly complicated. I wanna just insert an edgerouter. and have it 'split' the management traffic to the network of the day.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2017 15:59
|
|
|
EoRaptor posted:I'm betting (hoping) that you guys are using 7.0.0.0/8 for that extra range. Although it's assigned to the U.S. DoD, they've said it's okay to use for internal private networks, as the IP space will never appear on the public internet. It gives people a whole other Class A block that is 'safe' for network management purposes if you can't deploy IPv6. Then why don't they donate it for that purpose?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2017 23:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 12:34 |
|
|
anthonypants posted:What part of that post made you think they didn't? The fact that I haven't seen a RFC stating this.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2017 01:04
|
|