Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[blackmagechill]

It's not for trolling at all. Most of this is supposed to remain in a light, no hard feelings manner. Did you read the topic title? :p

[RedKing]

To me, the fact that phishing still apparently works against the US government says something about the state of network security and the average employee's ability to not completely screw over their own company or government by clicking on things. Sad.

Yeah, it's depressing. Especially given that everyone has mandatory annual training on basic information security. Which includes lessons on social engineering and phishing. And yet, there are always people who click before they think. Some of them highly placed in organizations. That's why phishing is still a popular and effective tactic.

I used to think this was a generational problem, and it would go away as the Boomers retired and younger, more savvy folks replaced them. Turns out, not so much. There are plenty of GenX'ers and Gen Y that fall for this shit just as easily. If anything, they're more prone because they're less paranoid. Older people have been scared into being afraid to click on anything they don't understand, lest they break the Intertubes.

[blackmagechill]

Yeah, Age doesn't determine competence. Our school's IT guy is about 65, and has kept the same shitty, Windows XP server running since the OS came out. And he fixes about six of the school's 2003 era computers a day, at least.

[G-Flex]

I'm going to flaunt my limited knowledge on this topic. In the court case 'Bethel School District v. Fraser' (1983), where a student sued after his school suspended him for giving a speech they considered lewd, the Supreme court ruled that a public school has the right to monitor and control what their students say. Public institutions (schools) are allowed to suppress their students rights to free speech.

(http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/firstamendment/bethel.html)

An excerpt from his speech:

"I know a man who is firm - he's firm in his pants, he's firm in his shirt, his character is firm - but most [of] all, his belief in you the students of Bethel, is firm. Jeff Kuhlman is a man who takes his point and pounds it in. He drives hard... "

This means that by the United States Justice System, Public Schools (Public Institutions) are allowed to take away their students Free Speech rights. Schooling is mandatory, which means that by being under 18 in the US, you have no rights to free speech during schooling.

However, in a later case 'Morse v. Frederick' (2007), this was contested. A student holding a banner reading "Bong hits for Jesus" off school property was suspended for the content on that banner in a public institution.

(http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06-278.ZS.html)

The case was between the student (Frederick) and the principal (Morse), and it went to the Ninth Circuit (which is a big deal, while less than Supreme Court), where the court ruled that schools were allowed to control their student's free speech wherever they wanted.

This invalidates any arguments that support Cyber-bullying as free speech. It is also another topic of discussion.

While I obviously agree to some extent with your points, you really ought to be more careful in your research.

This means that by the United States Justice System, Public Schools (Public Institutions) are allowed to take away their students Free Speech rights. Schooling is mandatory, which means that by being under 18 in the US, you have no rights to free speech during schooling.

Flimsy. The ruling isn't about all free speech, only free speech that is significantly disruptive to the school environment. Whether or not they draw the line in the correct place is definitely up for question, but this is not a case of free speech not existing at all, as it (in a more general sense) has been upheld in Supreme Court decisions.

The case was between the student (Frederick) and the principal (Morse), and it went to the Ninth Circuit (which is a big deal, while less than Supreme Court), where the court ruled that schools were allowed to control their student's free speech wherever they wanted.

No, not "wherever they wanted". The incident in this case was during a school-sponsored and supervised event, so effectively within the school's jurisdiction. Sorry.


There are definitely concerns here, but let's at least try not to be reactionary and misinformed about it.

[Pistolero]

I'm telling you guys, human communication isn't real.

[Cecilff2]

"Evil lurks in the datalinks as it lurked in the streets of yesteryear. But it was never the streets that were evil."

"The Social Networkers bland acronym FB obscures the true horror of this monstrosity.  Its inventors promise a new era of societal connections, but meanwhile unscrupulous forces wear away at their sanity and violate the sanctity of proper grammer.  They are creating their own private army of idiots."

-- Commisioner Pravin Lal

[G-Flex]

"The Social Networkers' bland acronym "FB" obscures the true horror of this monstrosity. Its inventors promise a new era of societal connections, but meanwhile unscrupulous forces wear away at their sanity and violate the sanctity of proper grammar.  They are creating their own private army of idiots."

-- Commissioner Pravin Lal

Sorry, the irony made it too tempting.

[bumblepuppy]

It's not for trolling at all. Most of this is supposed to remain in a light, no hard feelings manner. Did you read the topic title? :p

That's a weak defence. That is as if I had said to my friend, "I wish your parents died in a fire", and if he got upset over the remark, I would then reply "no hard feelings! It's supposed to be a joke!" Perhaps my reaction is quite strong, but I do feel quite strongly about the issue of bullying.

I won't say anything more since you've signalled serious discussion is pointless.

[blackmagechill]

Alright, have fun with your other high brow people of the internet, because this is clearly below you.