David Brown wrote:
On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 12:13:47PM -0700, Andrew Lentvorski wrote:
The BSA expects that *some* idiot will be stupid enough to pull
something like this. Or that they will find someone's porn cache
during the audit.
Why would they care about someone's porn cache? Are they going to go after
them for copyright violations on the photos?
Often, this kind of thing would be against company policy, but that's
entirely the business of the person and the company they work for.
It's not about what the *BSA* cares about. It's about embarrassing the
user and extracting money from them. And users do *lots* of stupid crap.
My favorite story was when I worked at BigCo(tm). We had to transfer
large VLSI designs, and our big optic fiber connection was saturated. I
went to talk to the IT director about this to get priority.
His response: "Sigh. Yeah, it's been about a year since the last time,
so I need to do it again. Give me a few minutes and I'll have your
bandwidth."
I figured he was going to reconfigure the routers. About 4 minutes
later, he sent out a note announcing the "annual web cache audit" along
with the corporate guidelines. He made explicit mention about how they
were going to be searching for porn.
A 100% saturated OC-12 dropped to less than 5% utilization in minutes.
People are stupid.
-a
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
