Microsoft Lync Server Gathers Employee Data Just Like NSA 207
coondoggie writes "Microsoft's Lync communications platform gathers enough readily analyzable data to let corporations spy on their employees like the NSA can on U.S. citizens, and it's based on the same type of information — call details. At Microsoft's Lync 2014 conference, software developer Event Zero detailed just how easy it would be, for instance, to figure out who is dating whom within the company and pinpoint people looking for another job."
Assume all MS products are spying on you. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Assume all MS products are spying on you. (Score:5, Informative)
People should assume that with any means of communication they use in the workplace. There is no guarantee and should be no expectation of privacy when using an employer's systems.
Re: (Score:2)
People should assume that with any means of communication they use in the workplace. There is no guarantee and should be no expectation of privacy when using an employer's systems.
Depends on what you mean by "expect".
I don't "expect" people to behave decently in any predictive sense, but I "expect" people to behave decently, as in I think that they should do so.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. You can't stick you nose in my asshole without my permission. It's private. No electronic devices have been hooked up to my blackhole.
Time for your colonoscopy, comrade!
Re: (Score:2)
You are not correct. AFAIK "expectation of privacy" is a legal term, and you DO have such an expectation at home.
I know its fun and all to throw hyperbole out there on slashdot, but lets try to stay in the realm of reality.
Can see how own network, messaging is being used!? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm shocked and amazed. A company running their own messaging server on their own network can see how it's being used?!
Next you'll tell me that my company's email administrator can see email I send at work, through the server they administer.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, and for the morons using company resources to look for a different job: don't. Use your personal cellphone, or something otherwise not funded by the company.
Re:Can see how own network, messaging is being use (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
We had an email go out saying that people were using Bittorrent from home over the VPN and to please stop since it's illegal and taking up bandwidth.
Re:Can see how own network, messaging is being use (Score:4, Informative)
We had an email go out saying that people were using Bittorrent from home over the VPN and to please stop since it's illegal and taking up bandwidth.
You guys need better network admins. Proper firewalling and proxying should block traffic like that.
Also, I shudder to think of the potential mess caused by allowing personal laptops to VPN in the first place.
Re: (Score:3)
Sometimes you do want all traffic on a work computer being sent through the VPN. There are a number of security reasons why it would be important to know that, for example, a user is connected to bittorrent simultaneously with being connected to corporate resources. Theres also a good reason for it to be against company policy.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, I shudder to think of the potential mess caused by allowing personal laptops to VPN in the first place.
Depends. With proper endpoint assessment tools, you can obtain some reasonable security. BYOD is kind of a rising trend, so a generally accepted method seems to be "Sure, you can connect your own laptop or tablet or whatever to the network, but you'll use Anyconnect and the HostScan has to report conformance". This mostly stems from the fact that in all the meetings folks are starting to use their fa
Re: (Score:2)
I would have expected better from the /. crowd.
Especially to understand the difference between a theoretical ability to look at individual data and systematic large-scale data analysis.
You know, one is someone giving you the looks on the street - and the other is 24/7 stalking. As a society, we pretty much agree that one is fine and the other isn't.
Re: (Score:3)
Next you'll tell me that my company's email administrator can see email I send at work, through the server they administer.
And the root problem here is that (thanks, FCC) email is *still* not considered a communication the way POTS or USmail is. If some company said "hey, you dropped your US mail envelopes in an Out box that we own, so we can open all your mail," they'd go to jail. Same goes for voice comms. But e-mail somehow magically belongs to the owners of the server? That's crap and the law should be changed. In the meantime, I'll just point out that the ethics (Hey, United Technologies Ethics Officer, I'm talking
work telephones have always had the same (Score:2)
> And the root problem here is that (thanks, FCC) email is *still* not considered a communication the way POTS or USmail is. ...
> they'd go to jail. Same goes for voice comms. But e-mail somehow magically belongs to the owners
When you use the company's telephone network, the same information is logged. Since virtually all systems do so, there's a standard data format they use, called CDR (call detail record). This has been the case for at least 40 years. You need logs to debug problems in the syst
this is why they have cell phones (Score:3)
i work in the same building with a huge Tommy Hilfiger presence and always see people talking on their cellphones in a corner about what they do at their job
today. (Score:2, Insightful)
So, as corporate policy becomes more like that of highschool, and highschool policy becomes more like prison, we're all kept in adolescent, fear-driven hell just a little more, already well past the sell-by date. Meanwhile, lawyers and software vendors write laws and software to profit from this stunting of society. More at 11.
Re:today. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:today. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The constant threat of lawsuits is extremely damaging to society as a whole.. Not just in the workplace, but everywhere. People file lawsuits for all kinds of stupid things, like tripping over a loose paving stone or scolding themselves on a cup of coffee.
What ever happened to personal responsibility?
Everyone now has to pay, not just the cost of the lawsuits but the cost of organisations trying to cover their asses to reduce the number of lawsuits. This results in higher prices, higher taxes, and a much hig
Re: (Score:3)
Bad me! Naughty me!
Re: (Score:2)
...Until one of your employees does something that could bring liability on you (like bringing proprietary information over from their last job, especially if it was federal --> private sector), and you have no way to prove that you werent complicit.
This stuff happens ALL OF THE TIME. Chris Christie is dealing with it right now. "Non-repudiation" is a pretty important thing when it comes to business communications.
Re: (Score:2)
There could be a lot of valid reasons for that, particularly if any of the work you do involves clearances.
I love it when slashdotters complain about how boneheaded policies are without having the faintest clue of the reasons behind them.
And why should you expect anything different? (Score:5, Informative)
If you're instant messaging someone on the company's IM platform on the company's time why the fuck would you have any expectation of any sort of privacy?
I know my company can see everything I can do when I'm logged on to their computer. This is part of the agreement I signed with them. It's also the reason why I don't do stupid shit on my company's network like look for another job or send out resumes from my company email address.
Oh wait, the outrage is because it's Microsoft. Got it.
Re:And why should you expect anything different? (Score:5, Interesting)
If you're instant messaging someone on the company's IM platform on the company's time why the fuck would you have any expectation of any sort of privacy?
Because you're a human being and don't leave your humanity at the door when you show up for work. Yeah, I know that is a strange concept for americans, but in many other parts of the world, it is very much still alive. Employees are also humans - wow, what a revelation.
Your expectation of privacy should certainly be different, but there's no sane reason it should automatically be zero.
Real-world example: In a company I worked for a few years ago I helped write the policy on this very topic. The final agreement was that the company could look into your e-mail and stuff, but only if they went to the workers council (elected representatives of the employees) and made their case. So if they suspected you of wrongdoing, or you were ill and had crazy important documents in your mail or personal folders, the company could look through it - in the presence of someone representing your interests.
The important difference is the same as in real-life criminal cases: With a system like this or the real world "must get a court order first" approach, you are innocent until proven guilty and it requires at least some reasonable suspicion before someone can breach your privacy. In a blanket surveilance environment, we're all guilty, period.
Re: (Score:2)
This.
If I ever went through someone's emails, documents, IM logs or anything else private on the company network without someone from HR physically sitting with me, I'd be fired on the spot.
I feel really sorry for anyone who works somewhere where IT are allowed to gain indiscriminate access to all your stuff just because they're bored on a Friday afternoon.
Re: (Score:2)
Because you're a human being and don't leave your humanity at the door when you show up for work. Yeah, I know that is a strange concept for americans, but in many other parts of the world, it is very much still alive.
Not strange for this American.
Just because you can do something technologically doesn't mean that you should do it.
I can plant a listening device in my boss's office. But I don't.
Re: (Score:2)
Certain US government regulations require that electronic communications of publicly traded companies are logged. Once you have to log all that information, someone will get the idea to use it for something.
Where I work, we don't have an obligation to log our Lync conversations, and we have those features disabled.
Re: (Score:2)
[You know, like the programming language that --- aw nevermind
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, the innocence of youth.
Re: (Score:2)
Shouldn't it be considered perfectly normal and appropriate to look for another job?
On company time, company network, and computer? Id call that the height of foolishness, and the company would be right to throw a fit about it.
Internal Communications (Score:2)
Call Detail Records are an "attractive nuisance" (Score:2)
They're needed until the customer has paid their bill, and then should be deleted, just like library records of who borrowed what book are deleted when it's returned. Anyone keeping them longer is looking to make themselves a target for break-ins, subversion or court orders.
Telcos are often mandated to keep them, in the kind of "future crime" scenario that belongs in a movie like Minority Report (:-))
Re: (Score:2)
My mom says your troll is about 20 years out of date. (She's a retired public library director.)
Re: (Score:2)
The library community has been sensitive to this for a long while, and the library software vendors (eg, GEAC and friends) are careful to keep data for a short a period as possible, meeting the requirements of the most privacy-protective countries they sell into. As few countries either have or enforce library anti-privacy laws, the software is therefor saleable everywhere.
Almost ironically, privacy-protective code can be a business advantage.
United States Workplace (Score:3)
This sort of thing is ok in a workplace in the United States, mostly because everyone expects the lack of privacy with using employer's equipment.
Other places in the world offer more privacy in the workplace. Such capabilities could cause some real problems in those environments.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't care at all about it being private. I care only if my employer gives me shit about what I do on it. Maybe if they see me looking for work they'll give me a larger raise to make sure they'll keep me. But changes are, they don't care at all either - they keep records to respond to lawsuits, or purge them quickly if not required to keep them (keeping anything just makes lawsuits worse, so big companies keep only what the law requires).
Re: (Score:2)
My employer gives a shit and i'm glad they do. We have a moral and legal duty of care to protect an awful lot of sensitive data and monitoring communications channels is an important tool in providing that protection.
Lync can go beyond the corporate network; we really don't want someone copy - pasting sensitive data over IM.
um, yeah ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:um, yeah ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Be careful, you are dangerously close to implying that it is good employees and not obedient workers that are actually in demand.
Re: (Score:2)
Be careful, you are dangerously close to implying that it is good employees and not obedient workers that are actually in demand.
Maybe a company that finds lots of hits to Dice, Monster, LinkedIn, etc. could learn from that information and try harder to make their employees happy.
Re: (Score:2)
If you tell your employee to do something stupid or illegal then you'd better hope they know not to blindly do what you tell them.
Unless you're a stupid cunt, which I can't rule out..
Re: (Score:2)
Because employees should expect a company to keep tabs on all data/traffic going across their network - like all good companies should.
To quote myself elsewhere ...
Company computers, company network ... (Score:3)
Given that this is dealing with company computers on a company network, it is their right to know how it is being used. I would hope that there is a strong privacy policy in place regarding any personal information that they uncover that is not a violation of company policies, but that is a hope and not an expectation.
Overall though, I would suggest that it is best to avoid doing anything at work that would stir up office politics.
Re: (Score:2)
Overall though, I would suggest that it is best to avoid doing anything at work
FTFY
New levels of idiocy. (Score:2)
They get caught up? (Score:2)
"Lync does this no differently than any other enterprise communications system,” says Barry Castle". They are not lying. There have been better solutions for a long time. All of them integrate directory services (AD/LDAP) with information from everything, audio recording of phone conversations, video recording of desktop usage, real time network traffic information.
Regulated industries (Score:2, Informative)
Companies in the financial sector - stock brokers, mortgage dealers, financial advisors and the like - are REQUIRED to archive and monitor their employees' work-related electronic communications, and must be able to demonstrate to regulators that they are actively doing so, or they face stiff penalties. The regulations are deliberately vague, but a general rule of thumb is that if an employee says something they're not supposed to say and the company's own compliance team failed to catch it, then they were
Carve out one exception... (Score:3)
Once you claim "it's only metadata," then you open the floodgates for all abuse.
You can do exactly the same with Asterisk (Score:2)
Full call details can be logged from a asterisk server. Its pretty much std features for any PABX. Complete non story.
So? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, Lync integrates call, chat, and "are you at your desk" information nicely, so it would give more data to mine than any system that only does one of those. But then, assuming the employer has some sort of system for each, it's still the same data to mine.
It's just CDR records. It's not like it's a secret (Score:4, Informative)
Lync stores the info in two databases, LCSCDR and QoEMetrics. The first one has info on all sessions, other one has quality data. It's not like it's some super-secret database, MS has full specs in Technet, for example http://technet.microsoft.com/e... [microsoft.com] shows what's exactly stored in SessionDetails table.
Yes, such info *could* be used to do data-mining. Same info could be used to optimize least cost routing, gathering statistics on network performance, planning upgrades, and whatever you like. I've personally crafted a few reports from those DBs on how much folks are calling PSTN from Lync on various customer sites, so they can decide what is the priority in upgrading E1/T1 to VoIP-based PSTN connection.
It's not a conspiracy. Server admins can look at what kind of stuff you are doing on such servers.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Cisco's UC has the same capabilities. I'm sure all other UC by other vendors have the same features.
Nothing to see here.
I for sure hope so (Score:2)
There are even obligations of companies to keep records of communitcations of their employees. Helps to prevent corruption a little bit, or at least make it more clear when examining it.
Not that employers are parents ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's a difference between knowing, and acting on that knowledge.
I expect my employer to know every instant message I've sent through their system. I expect them to monitor that for sensitive data (in the business sense). I don't expect them to mine that information to see which of the girls in finance I'm seeing outside of work, and I don't expect them to give a shit even if someone told my boss.
Which is why someone coming to me going, "Our records show that you have a relationship with her" won't result
Re:Looking for a job on company equipment? (Score:4, Insightful)
A company that has to spy on it's employees deserves, a better business model, new leadership and a tax audit.
Re: (Score:2)
An employee who doesnt expect it needs a reality check.
Heres some more shockers, from an IT consultant:
* Your firewall / IDS is probably proxying all of your connections.
* SSL is probably being intercepted to. You ever check who issues the SSL certs of your favorite sites?
* DNS lookups may well be monitored.
The biggest shocker: Its not your machine, or your network, or your electricity. Its not your time, either. Their job, their rules: Get over it. Of course, you generally do
Re: (Score:2)
An employee who doesnt expect it needs a reality check.
Heres some more shockers, from an IT consultant:
* Your firewall / IDS is probably proxying all of your connections.
* SSL is probably being intercepted to. You ever check who issues the SSL certs of your favorite sites?
* DNS lookups may well be monitored.
The biggest shocker: Its not your machine, or your network, or your electricity. Its not your time, either. Their job, their rules: Get over it. Of course, you generally do have the freedom to walk out if you dont like the whole "not your resources" angle, smaller companies tend to do this less.
I would but slashdot is won't give me ssl. :-(
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can't actually see a legitimate case for that,
There are certainly legitimate use cases for intercepting encrypted traffic. For example, many corporate networks use security devices that sit on the incoming and/or outgoing links to do things like scanning for malware or leaks of confidential data. Obviously they can't scan properly encrypted traffic.
In principle, the use of such tools can be in everyone's interests, including employees and customers whose sensitive personal information might be held within the network. In some contexts, use of this kind
Re: (Score:2)
"SSL accelerator" devices get you to accept their certificates so that it goes through the device in the clear instead of being "properly encrypted traffic". Such a MITM attack does require the users to trust it with their certificates but few understand the implications - such as the potential for a junior sysadmin in their workplace to clean out their bank account if they've made the mistake doing online banking from work.
I should add (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
With all the setups of this type I have heard of there is no opt out.
At my place, the company has an unencrypted, password-free WiFi network running in parallel, mostly intended for visitors, but obviously free to use for employees. Of course you can't get at any company resources from that network (except those that can be accessed freely from anywhere). Being unencrypted, it's your responsibility to use https.
Re: (Score:3)
My entire point is that these devices remove any advantage of using https. The device takes it, decrypts it, deals with the data as plain text, then ecrypts it again to send out. Whoever has control of the device gets to decide what to do with that data. It's a very stupid situation for almost zero extra convenience. If I was the NSA or similar I would love to have a lot of these things out there with only a small number of vendors to lean on about
Re: (Score:2)
My entire point is that these devices remove any advantage of using https.
Obviously, if you used the guest Wifi, you'd use your own device, which would not be infested with the fraudulent root certificate of your employer.
Re: (Score:2)
With all the setups of this type I have heard of there is no opt out.
Worse than, the "SSL accelerator" box would now be responsible to check the certificate of the server, in order to be sure that there isn't a second man in the middle further down the road. But the thing is, how would it react if it encountered a bad certificate:
- if it rejects the connection, suddenly lots of low sensitivity sites which just have expired certificates, or which rely on the user to manually verifiy the fingerprint become inaccessible,
- if on the other hand it accepts (or doesn't check in t
Re: (Score:2)
Such a MITM attack does require the users to trust it with their certificates
But "the users" in this case may well be a system administrator who installs an extra in-house CA as part of the standard image for a new employee's PC. The employee themselves probably never even sees it.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really think people should be trusted with that in your workplace?
Not particularly, but I understand that they want to know all of the activity on their network and don't want the increasingly prevalant use of encrypted connections to stop that. If an employee in the (rather large) company is doing something illegal and it's traced back to the corporate network, the company wants a CYA option. As a second point, they don't like sites that tend to be high-bandwidth. For myself, if I need to do something like online banking during a break, I usually bring my laptop and teth
Re: (Score:3)
While true due to all those "SSL accelerator" devices in people's workplaces which employees are supposed to allow to do an MITM attack, it's still an utterly insane situation that renders SSL almost entirely pointless in an increasing number of places.
IMHO letting one of those boxes into a workplace should be a criminal offence since people do not understand that it is tracking details of their personal
Re: (Score:2)
Years of using MS product GUI's have conditioned people to do a quick click through and accept everything so the default ends up trusting some proxy box as if it is the bank.
If people behave in such a way, they'd be vulnerable anywhere (cybercafé, airport, hotel or even at home (thanks to the many router vulnerabilities)), not just at their place of work. Microsoft, and Microsoft-induced behavior carry security risks. Deal with it.
However, what sets the workplace situation apart from the other scenarios is that if done properly, the employee would see no warning. Because the IT department included the employer's certificate into the list of roots trusted by the browser.
Re: (Score:3)
Hence the malware epidemic which would have been written off as bad science fiction if it wasn't already happening.
Yes, that is a problem and doing such a thing without informing end users is actually illegal
Your reality check bounced (Score:3)
Its not your machine, or your network, or your electricity. Its not your time, either. Their job, their rules: Get over it.
Unfortunately, as long as employers are employing human beings rather than machines, the only people who think your position is tenable are HR, and Legal will do as much as they can to support it. Everyone else knows that occasionally you need to make a personal phone call during the working day, and everyone else thinks that listening in is creepy (not to mention illegal in many jurisdictions, at least if done as a blanket policy without reasonable grounds). Why should Internet access be held to a differen
Re: (Score:2)
Most of us have cellphones which we can use to make personal calls and even access the internet...
Re: (Score:2)
You might have that. Whether most people do is a different question, because standards of mobile technology and mobile network coverage vary widely from place to place. And even if most people do, there is still the need to look after those who do not.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of us have cellphones which we can use to make personal calls and even access the internet...
... and in an open plan office, your nosy neighbour on the other side of the cupboard still overhears you call...
Re:Your reality check bounced (Score:4, Insightful)
Most workplaces (at least those ive been to) have a computer use policy.
Yes, often the kind of warning you're talking about is included. And I have no problem with that, provided that it is made clear that the employer is also effectively hacking connections everyone is trained to think of as being secure, such as the on-line banking example a few of us have mentioned.
However, I don't think a typical "we might monitor this stuff" footnote is adequate disclosure in that context, because the point isn't the legal weasel words, it's whether the employee understands what the situation is and can choose to act accordingly. For example, an employee who understands the situation might decline to check their bank balance from a work computer when management responds to their question about a missing salary payment and says it should have arrived now.
And really, I dont see why you think you get to set the rules on someone else's equipment.
Don't make this about me personally. It's about employee rights as part of a healthy employer-employee relationship and, in this particular case, about the mutual trust that is fundamental to that relationship. I don't even work as an employee any more, BTW, so I have no personal axe to grind here.
The point is that employees are not slaves and do not forfeit all rights just because they're working for someone else for money. The entire legal field of employment rights and the entire union movement exist to balance the greater negotiating power of the employer, so the employer can't exploit their advantage to impose one-sided conditions. As a society, we've decided that we won't always let employers do what they want.
If you want to affect policy, you should probably get a degree or work experience in IT so that you can make informed recommendations. Otherwise I recommend you leave that to those who have done so.
Wow. It's a shame I'm posting pseudonymously here, because I'd enjoy seeing you discover the stunning irony of that suggestion.
Let me leave you instead with an alternative possibility to consider. Maybe I've actually worked with this kind of technology for a long time. Maybe I do understand the IT implications of what we're talking about, and I do know why IT departments might have a legitimate business need to use these tools.
But maybe I also see the legal/HR perspective. And maybe my position on this issue is motivated not by the arrogance of the naive young employee you seem to think I am but by observing the real consequences after deals were jeopardised because someone screwed this up. Maybe I've seen people find out the hard way that employees/unions/courts didn't support them as much as they assumed they would. It's actually not that unusual if you see, for example, a US business in an M&A deal with a European one, where the cultural attitudes and general legal stances on employees' rights are very different.
Maybe I've concluded that this is a silly problem that is almost entirely created by institutional arrogance and personal egos in management/IT, and that the problem could be almost entirely eliminated by more enlightened management/IT being up-front with their staff about what is going on and why it's being done, and sometimes by providing alternative mechanisms that avoid the problem without compromising security or compliance.
Re:Looking for a job on company equipment? (Score:5, Funny)
Imagine, a database. Storing data. That you can run reports on.
Simply amazing what computers can do these days.
Re: (Score:3)
No, it none of their business. If they run a business where the employees feel trapped into servitude by pre-employment agreements, local talent monopoly, overwhelming bills and bad economy, seniority w/no upward mobility, etc., the company has clearly overstepped the bounds of human decency with no regard for their most important asset. This is WHY we get corporate espionage, if you back someone in a corner without a reasonable choice, they will do whatever they need to in order to survive and prosper. Whe
Re:Looking for a job on company equipment? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, people really believe this sort of shit?
If it bother you that your employees are looking elsewhere for a job, perhaps try harder to retain them? I have standing offers to work for a couple of places, places that make the top paying employers lists. At this point in my career I don't really have to "look" for a new job, I just stop ignoring the offers. Yet I'm staying where I am - and not based on pay.
Want people to stay when they have plenty of choices? Try not pointlessly hassling them over shit like "using company equipment". You'd have to get pretty extreme with that sort of thing before you'd cost more than the cost of hiring someone new and them coming up to speed, even if you were such a dick that you even pay attention.
Re: (Score:2)
At the very least, looking for another job on company time is a waste of company time / resources. Yes, just about everyone goofs off @ work from time to time, but doing it to benefit yourself at the expense of your company is adding insult to injury.
Seriously, wait till you get home, theres really no justification for it.
Re: (Score:2)
You come across as very arrogant. Have you ever managed a group of low level employees who spent more time chatting, visiting facebook or conducting online personal shopping than they did actual work? How do I explain to the guy/gal across the hall that everyone is losing their jobs because the company is folding due to the other half just plain not doing their jobs.
I'm sorry but if I'm paying you, then you do what I pay you to do. If you're so valuable that you think you call the shots then I've got new
Re: (Score:2)
That sort of stuff is how you can go from replac
Re: (Score:2)
Working as a team cuts both ways... If the owners of the company are busy playing golf and rolling around in cash while the low level employees are on minimum wage while being watched and lorded over then it certainly doesn't feel like a team. If you treat employees well then they will feel some level of loyalty to the company and are far more likely to work harder.
And on another matter, regular breaks are key... You can't concentrate on the same thing for hours on end, especially something which is mundane
Re: (Score:2)
Re:lots of products already do this (Score:5, Insightful)
ALL PBX type software does this.
Anyone who wants to be able to bill internally HAS to keep this metadata to do internal billing.
Its also something that has been collected for the entire 30 years I've dealt with phone systems, and its not like it was new when I first started in telephony.
You're pretty fucking stupid if this is news to you.
Re: (Score:2)
Who would use a company phone to make personal calls in this day and age anyway? Doesn't everyone have a cellphone now?
Re: (Score:2)
If you work at a company that would care about who you're calling, then how happy can you re
Re: (Score:2)
[Your] wearing of a six-pointed star constitutes consent[1] to being gassed.
[1] "consents" doesn't work how you used it, you 'tard.
Re: (Score:2)
Desk phones are more reliable, almost never drop calls, and have a lot of features that either dont exist or suck on cellphones like transfer, hold, conference.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have problems with dropped calls on my cellphone, at least not at work (maybe if I go out in the boonies somewhere, but that's not often).
Why do I need features like transfer, hold, or conference if I'm making a personal call?
Re: (Score:3)
Email is free, so I do have a personal e-mail addres but I use my work e-mail for tons of personal correspondence just because it's a lot
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds like you have something to hide.
Let me be the first to say, "Fuck you. (And you're an idiot.)"
Nudist with a vow of povery? (Score:2)
What's a nudist with a vow of poverty doing here?
Re: (Score:2)
An excellent argument for living below your means. Quit first, find a new job second. Enjoy your relaxing savings-funded vacation / job hunt in the interim.
Re: (Score:2)
I've done this. Worked out well for me, and definitely helped on the mental health front too.
Re: (Score:2)
BZZZT, Wrong. Schools do not need a warrant to search their own property (it is owned by the school, even if the money came from taxpayers), and the supreme court has ruled that during the schoolday, several of the Bill of Rights protections do NOT apply to school children.
Not sure where you got your law degree, but maybe you should take a refresher course.
Re: (Score:2)
He is not wrong to call GP out on his ignorance. Just about everything in that post was completely wrong. If someone continues to post stuff that is factually wrong and trivially provable, theres very little point spending the time to prove it in every post; telling them to "shut up and sit down" is not a fallacy.