July 26, 2006

This sounds like politicians who want to point to numbers indicating they “did something”

http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/25/1853237&from=rss

Air Marshals Place Innocents on Secret Watch List

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Tuesday July 25, @04:15PM from the just-wait-till-a-system-upgrade-mistake dept. Security Politics

An anonymous reader writes "The Denver Channel 7 News reports that federal air marshals are operating under a quota for reporting a minimum number of suspicious travelers which is resulting in innocent people being placed on a secret government watch list. From the article: 'These unknowing passengers who are doing nothing wrong are landing in a secret government document called a Surveillance Detection Report, or SDR.'"

Bad strategy. They picked the wrong court.

http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/25/2358201&from=rss

Wiretapping Lawsuit Against AT&T Dismissed

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Tuesday July 25, @09:42PM from the hollow-sound-of-justice dept. Security The Courts

BalanceOfJudgement writes "A major victory by the federal government was won today when a federal judge dismissed the lawsuit against AT&T for providing phone records to the federal government. From the article: 'The court is persuaded that requiring AT&T to confirm or deny whether it has disclosed large quantities of telephone records to the federal government could give adversaries of this country valuable insight into the government's intelligence activities'" Not to be confused with the EFF case, this case was filed by the ACLU on behalf of author Studs Terkel and other activists who argued that their constitutional rights had been violated by the actions of AT&T and the NSA.

How about an article titled “What you can't say in corporate email?” Perhaps a traveling seminar?

http://news.com.com/2010-1022_3-6098366.html?part=rss&tag=6098366&subj=news

Why employers are cracking down on e-mail

By Eric J. Sinrod Story last modified Wed Jul 26 04:00:04 PDT 2006

Employers are quite concerned about the legal and financial risks caused by inappropriate employee electronic communications. In fact, they are firing employees who violate workplace computer policies.

I recently wrote about how employers face considerable challenges figuring out to handle employees' electronic communications, such as blogging and instant messaging.

According to the 2006 Workplace E-Mail, Instant Messaging & Blog Survey by the American Management Association and the ePolicy Institute, 26 percent of employers have fired employees for misuse of e-mail. Another 2 percent have terminated workers for inappropriate instant messaging chat; while yet a further 2 percent have dismissed employees for offensive blogging content, including content posted on employees' personal home computers.

Why are employers fighting back so hard against their own employees? The AMA and the ePolicy Institute believe that this backlash follows a wave of lawsuits caused by employee e-mails. The survey points out that 24 percent of companies have been served with subpoenas for their employees' e-mails. About 15 percent of companies have gone to court to battle lawsuits triggered by e-mails from their employees. The failure by employees to retain certain e-mails, as required, has led to significant financial sanctions in some cases.

... Also, some employees cling to the mistaken belief that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects all forms of their speech, including their electronic speech. Not so.

... On top of all of this, many employers have employees sign company business equipment policies that make plain that workers have no privacy interests in their workplace communications and that provide the do's and don'ts of communications. However, while 76 percent of employers have policies that address workplace e-mail usage and content, only 2 percent of employers have educated their employees with respect to blogging.

... While 34 percent of surveyed companies have in place written e-mail retention/deletion policies, fewer than 34 percent of employees understand the difference between e-mails that must be saved and insignificant e-mails that should be purged.

Detroit CEO declares Bishop “Illegal, immoral and fattening!”

http://digg.com/environment/Bishop_of_London_SUVs_are_sinful

Bishop of London: SUVs are sinful

dirtyfratboy submitted by dirtyfratboy 21 hours 25 minutes ago (via http://www.guardian.co.uk/cars/story/0,,1827412,00.html )

An executive from one of the country's leading motoring groups yesterday told religious leaders to "stick to what they know best", after a senior bishop suggested that driving a fuel-hungry car was a "symptom of sin".

Why should we help you? Your license is invalid!

http://digg.com/software/WGA_and_Activation_Failures_Don_t_Faze_Redmond

WGA and Activation Failures Don't Faze Redmond

schestowitz submitted by schestowitz 1 day 6 hours ago (via http://www.gripe2ed.com/scoop/story/2006/7/24/8477/16185 )

"..Now, all of a sudden, Microsoft is saying that their licenses are invalid. And - to make things more exciting - they've dimmed the Automatic Updates settings so we can't change them to Manual. One by one, all of the machines are becoming unusable."