 Duramax08To The Moon Premium Member join:2008-08-03 San Antonio, TX |
Todd spangler wrote the articleOh look Karl, Its your buddy Todd Spangler!  | |
|
 | |
To be fair"and the 38-year-old ex-Cox supervisor apparently thought it would be funny to instead deliver Wild Cherries 5 instead of the Arizona Cardinals for thirty eight seconds."
It was funny | |
|
 |  RockCake Premium Member join:2005-07-12 Woodbridge, VA |
RockCake
Premium Member
2011-Feb-7 9:34 am
Re: To be fairCox....porn...there's a joke there somewhere. | |
|
 |  | |
to Bill Neilson
Alot of funny things are illegal. Raping a clown for example.
Also, I'm not sure why the FBI is wasting its time on something so trivial and inconsequential. No one was ever in any sort of danger, even if it was an ongoing thing the FBI has enough things to do. Don't they have "terrorists" to catch?
This was at worst an investigation for the FCC to take care of, and at best should have been taken care of via civil lawsuits by offended individuals and an internal investigation to fire the person responsible.
I'm starting to agree that the intelligence services in the US are bloated and overlapping their mandates with other far less expensive branches of the government. | |
|
 |  |  | |
Re: To be fairIf computer hacking was involved then laws were broken. If laws were broken it's certainly an issue for law enforcement, not just a civil matter.
Might agree with you that the FBI has better things to be doing but some sort of law enforcement investigation was bound to happen. | |
|
 |  |  |  EdrickI aspire to tell the story of a lifetime Premium Member join:2004-09-11 Woburn, MA |
Edrick
Premium Member
2011-Feb-7 11:13 am
Re: To be fairThe article doesn't state that it was hacking. It says computer tampering, which if at the time he was an employee and had authorized access to the system. Then it wasn't hacking and wasn't a federal case. It's an employer issue if while on the company dime he changed the programming. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  | |
Re: To be fairWhat he did was against federal laws. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  | |
Re: To be fairhow do you claim that? he did NOT hack the system. He already had access to the system. That is NOT hacking. no crimes were broken. Not a Federal case. the FBI is waisting $$$ on this and the FCC as well. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  | |
Re: To be fairI don't think so.
He had access to Cox's systems, but he caused unwanted events on Comcast's systems, to which he was not authorized access. That's computer tampering, same as a virus writer can be charged with damage to other computer systems.
Also, he caused $800,000 of revenue loss for a business, that's where the fraud charge comes in.
This isn't a civil case, it's criminal, for sure. Whether the FBI or local law enforcement should be the investigating party might be up for debate, but once he caused damages that are in the criminal vice civil realm, it is beyond the jurisdiction of agencies like the FCC, and beyond something that can be handled with a civil suit in the courtroom. | |
|
 |  |  | |
to james1
Now THAT was funny. Unless you're a clown. | |
|
 |  |  TechieZeroTools Are Using Me Premium Member join:2002-01-25 Lithia, FL |
to james1
"To me, clowns aren't funny. In fact, they're kinda scary. I've wondered where this started, and I think it goes back to the time I went to the circus and a clown killed my dad." -- Jack Handey | |
|
 |  |  ArrayListDevOps Premium Member join:2005-03-19 Boston, MA ·RCN
|
to james1
said by james1:Alot of funny things are illegal. Raping a clown for example. not in Tennessee it isn't. | |
|
 |  |  | |
to james1
Add to that SuperBowl watch underage (under 18) teenagers and it is against federal law to show them porn, even if it was a softcore almost not showing anything.
The only kind of porn I saw on TV like Cinenamx was after midnight and it was not even hardcore. | |
|
 |  |  |  cdruGo Colts MVM join:2003-05-14 Fort Wayne, IN kudos:7 |
cdru
MVM
2011-Feb-7 2:07 pm
Re: To be fair | |
|
 |  N3OGHYo Soy Col. "Bat" Guano Premium Member join:2003-11-11 Philly burbs kudos:2 |
to Bill Neilson
This guy had to WANT to get fired. Literally had to WANT it.
In the end, they'll probably tag him with $800K worth of restitution, and drop him on some sort of probation. | |
|
 | |
Sounds like the supervisor enjoyed working for Cox.He won't have any lack of Cox in jail. | |
|
 peters4n6 Premium Member join:2002-10-11 Tucson, AZ |
Spelling pet peeveJeez...Tucson is spelled t-u-C-S-o-n NOT t-u-S-C-o-n. Almost as bad as the flight attendant who I heard recently upon landing stating, " Welcome to TUCK-sawn, "
Sorry for the pet peeve. | |
|
 | |
Cox and porn!Won't SOMEBODY think of the children!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sorry I had to do it. LOL | |
|
 |  bigfitch Premium Member join:2005-06-01 Aurora, IL |
bigfitch
Premium Member
2011-Feb-7 2:00 pm
Re: Cox and porn!To bad it wasn't in place of the half time show. The guy might be getting a raise. " No pun intended " Less people would have tuned to a diff channel when B.E.P. Was tone deaf.  | |
|
 AlphaOneI see Premium Member join:2004-02-21 kudos:1 |
AlphaOne
Premium Member
2011-Feb-7 2:06 pm
It took them this long?The guy left Cox "shortly after the Super Bowl incident". That's a red flag right there. Cox probably knew or already made aware of what happened. They probably fired the guy, or forced him to leave. If the guy just left to avoid any investigation, well he was wrong ... and shame on Cox for not noticing the red flag. Or are they just waiting for the investigators to sero in to the facts? I hope there's no cover up has been done.
And kids, I agree that FBI has other things that needs to be done. But Comcast did their share of investigation, and found out that the feed to them is at fault. They have to let FBI know, as there some sort of tampering involve, nobody knows exactly what really happened at that time.
It's a waste of resources, and Cox should have been proactive on the issue. Investigation shouldn't lasted for several weeks. | |
|
 JeffreyConnoisseur of leisurely things Premium Member join:2002-12-24 Long Island kudos:3 |
Jeffrey
Premium Member
2011-Feb-7 2:53 pm
Important sidenoteWild Cherries 5 wasn't even that good. Wild Cheries #1 and #2 were far better. | |
|
 |  AlphaOneI see Premium Member join:2004-02-21 kudos:1 |
AlphaOne
Premium Member
2011-Feb-7 6:40 pm
Re: Important sidenotesaid by Jeffrey:Wild Cherries 5 wasn't even that good. Wild Cheries #1 and #2 were far better. Please explain in detail.  Oh, pictures please. | |
|
 antdudeA Ninja Ant VIP join:2001-03-25 United State kudos:5 |
38?Seconds and Years? Weird. Why not 69? :P | |
|
 |  OmagicQPosting in a thread near you join:2003-10-23 Bakersfield, CA kudos:2 |
Re: 38?said by antdude:Seconds and Years? Weird. Why not 69? :P 38 seconds might be the threshold of comprehension time for the average cox subscriber (IE it would take 38 seconds for viewers to figure out what was happening and react) who knows. | |
|
 |
|