NotQuiteLeet.com

The brunt of my recent headaches has been with an AT&T policy that seems not only intrusive, but simply appalling.

Want a job with AT&T? You’ll have to give them your social security number before even being considered for an interview.

I receive emails from headhunters almost daily. In some of these emails I have responded with interest to an AT&T opportunity, but an interest that quickly evaporated. This happened when several head hunters from different agencies (that shall remain unnamed) requested that I *email* them my social security number. This was a requirement and one that was neither waived nor circumvented.

Upon questioning this method one head hunter sent me the confidential letter from AT&T to the Enterprise Contractor Acquisition and Management (eCAM) group which I suppose the head hunter agency is a member of.

Here is the letter in its entirety:

February 20, 2008

[name removed]
eCAM Vendor Liaison
675 West Peachtree Street
39M30
Atlanta, Georgia 30375
[phone number removed]

*I removed the name and phone number of the employee out of respect and privacy of that individual. It is my position that any change in this policy is above the head of this employee, and complaining etc directly to the liaison would not be productive nor fruitful. However if the readers of this site desire to contact AT&T, please use the mailing address provided in the letter.

I have two questions for AT&T representatives.

#1. “What the hell are you thinking?”

#2 “Who is actually stupid enough to email *anyone* their social security number?”

Aside from this issue AT&Ts ethical behavior in the telecommunications industry is almost, in my opinion, a bit abhorred. These behaviors include but are not limited to: consumer rights violations which has moved in to class action status, suppression of Internet based Civil Rights, “illegal” cell phone locking which is still very controversial, the huge whammy of illegal involvement in the NSA domestic wiretap campaign - of which Wired Blog Network had a huge contribution in publicizing this issue, and Im sure a myriad of other things I have neither the time nor patience to keep up with.

I appreciate the efforts of AT&T in the Net Neutrality campaign, a campaign I think is vital to the future growth and maturity of the internet. However I find a very conflicting and utterly confusing message when the Head of AT&T finds that Net Neutrality isnt necessary.

As you can see the issues I have spread across many markets, each equally as concerning as the other. For a company with the profile and influence such as AT&T, I can only hope that more ethical and *reasonable* policies come to fruition from this point forward. Until then this is why I won’t, and blatantly refuse to work for AT&T in any capacity.

In order to add Telnet access to the console and set the idle timeout, issue the telnet command in global configuration mode. By default, Telnet sessions that are left idle for five minutes are closed by the security appliance. In order to remove Telnet access from a previously set IP address, use the no form of this command.

telnet {{hostname | IP_address mask interface_name} | {IPv6_address interface_name} | {timeout number}}

no telnet {{hostname | IP_address mask interface_name} | {IPv6_address interface_name} | {timeout number}}

The telnet command lets you specify which hosts can access the security appliance console with Telnet. You can enable Telnet to the security appliance on all interfaces. But, the security appliance enforces that all Telnet traffic to the outside interface be protected by IPsec. In order to enable a Telnet session to the outside interface, configure IPsec on the outside interface to include IP traffic that is generated by the security appliance and enable Telnet on the outside interface.

Note: It is not recommended to access the security appliance through a Telnet session. The authentication credential information, such as password, is sent as clear text. The Telnet server and client communication happens only with the clear text. Cisco recommends to use SSH for a more secured data communication.

(more…)

Opening up the Cisco IOS of which has traditionally been proprietary is a huge push toward collaboration with competitors. Cisco has clearly taken a step in a different direction from its traditional position. This isnt just collaborative services between Cisco and its competitors, this is a full fledged effort to, shall we say, standardize infrastructure software.

Just imagine the benefit of your company to write API’s that can access the Cisco IOS services. This is a profound move to solicit competitors working together to provide a solution thats in the best interest of their customers. Service Providers should take more than a few notes from this mentality.

Cisco plans to “componentize” IOS – developing only one implementation of a specific function instead of several, depending on the image – dynamically link IOS services and move the software onto a Unix-based kernel. Cisco then plans to open up interfaces on IOS to allow third-party and customer-developed applications to access IOS services.

4 years, 578 engineers, $250 million, and 1,513 Cisco patents issued or pending. Those are the numbers behind what some say are Cisco Systems’ next flagship switching line.

This is the future of the Data Center. Cisco’s Nexus 7000 is a 10 slot or 18 slot chassis that can deliver up to 15 Terabits per second. So where do we begin?

(more…)

I was looking around for some type of reasoning or logic that would explain why Jobs is trying to force users to pay for ringtones. Well I found an answer on http://www.engadget.com (see below), it seems they had the same inquisitive attitude and have provided us all with the answer.

Now Steve, are you not making enough money already? Could you please elaborate what it actually means when we buy a song from iTunes? Do we own it, or do we “own” it?

If so to either of the aforementioned, what’s the true purpose, spirit, and function of iTunes DRM then? I dont have the time to look, but what does the iTunes EULA state about said purpose, spirit and function of DRM? What does the EULA state about ownership of a song and ability to edit as the owner, or “owner” sees fit?

These are questions that need answers.

Know Your Rights: Is it illegal to make my own ringtones?

Posted Sep 7th 2007 12:17PM by Nilay Patel

Know Your Rights is Engadget’s new technology law series, written by our own totally punk copyright attorney Nilay Patel. In it we’ll try to answer some fundamental tech-law questions to help you stay out of trouble in this brave new world. Disclaimer: Although this post was written by an attorney, it is not meant as legal advice or analysis and should not be taken as such.

So, is it illegal to make my own ringtones?

No!

Come on.

No, really!

What’s the catch?

Nothing!

You wouldn’t be doing this if there wasn’t a catch.

Oh, alright. But you’re not going to like it.

I knew it.

It’s really not so bad — it’s just, you know. You’re going to hate it.

Spit.

Well, you’re on the same side as the RIAA on this one. Hurts, doesn’t it?

Impossible! How can that be?

Well, the RIAA wanted to be able to distribute ringtones of its artists without having to pay them big money to do so (surprised?), and it won a decision last year before the Copyright Office saying that ringtones weren’t “derivative works,” meaning they didn’t infringe on the copyright of the songwriter. It’s a little more complicated than that, but essentially, if the RIAA hadn’t won, ringtones would cost even more, since no one would be able to make them without a license from the songwriter.

But I just want to make ringtones from the music I already legally own.

As long as you’re talking about music you’ve ripped from a CD, go ahead — no one’s trying to stop you. Since making a ringtone doesn’t count as a derivative work, you’re not infringing any copyrights. Just don’t sell or distribute anything, and you should be fine. Funny how this piece of advice keeps coming up, eh?

So why won’t Apple let me make ringtones inside iTunes with tracks I’ve ripped from CDs?

Judging from the fact that the iTMS EULA prohibits the use of downloaded files as ringtones, we’d say it’s more than likely because Apple’s contracts with the various labels represented in the iTMS specifically forbid it. We haven’t seen them, but we’d bet that ringtones — and the licenses for using songs as ringtones — have their own lengthy section in Apple’s contracts, and that Apple isn’t allowed to sell files for use as ringtones without coughing up more dough. Steve has said as much, after all. Otherwise the selection would include more than just the 500,000 songs you can get right now.

We’re still not exactly happy with Apple’s decision to lock out the consumer like this. For example, why can’t we use our own GarageBand compositions as ringtones? We obviously own the rights to music we create. But we can certainly see why the labels would insist on pricing ringtone rights separately, since it’s such big business.

So basically it’s legal to make ringtones for my own personal use, but only because of the RIAA — and I’m not allowed to use iTMS-purchased music, and I still have to jailbreak my iPhone or use something like iToner.

Yep.

Damn, why do even the good answers suck?

Hey, it could be worse — Apple could have dropped the price of the 8GB iPhone by $200 just two months after… oh, balls.