RealPage is one of the great unrecognized villains of the modern age.
Fun story, a few years back I caught my landlord overbilling me on utilities. I said hey I did the math and you owe me back $X and I'm not paying any more utilities until that amount I'd been overpaying has been used up. My landlord used Realpage for billing, and Realpage said no that's not how it works, we'll get it corrected but you need to keep paying what's in the system or you'll be delinquent. I said go fuck yourself, I have no reason to trust that you and the landlord will adjust it accurately if I give you more money, I'm not obligated to wait until your system figures it out, your system is your problem, not mine. I plan to pay amounts I actually owe and not amounts I don't. They said you really have to. I said hey check it out I think I don't, let's see which one of us is right.
We went back and forth about it for quite some time, including me telling my bank not to accept withdrawals from RealPage (since they started charging me even with emails expressly explaining that they were not authorized to), which made them even more irritated at me and charging me extra fees. I said dude I am more than happy to explain this all to a judge if you want to go that route. They said you really have to pay though, we've worked out the overbill and corrected it but you still have late and returned-payment fees. I said we went over this, go fuck yourself, did I stutter.
When I moved out my landlord tried to not give me back my security deposit until RealPage was happy with my utilities balance. I waited 31 days and then sent them a formal notice that if they didn't return my security deposit I was within my rights to take them to court and get paid triple and planned to do so in 7 days. They said it had all been a big misunderstanding and was there really a need for all this and gave me back my security deposit.
Just talking about it now again makes me amped-up and irritated.
I mean I'm glad it worked out right in the end. At the time I was just pissed, though.
Also, holy shit, I went back to look up some of the saga in my old emails, and there were definitely parts that were entertaining that I'd totally forgotten about. If you liked reading the summary check this out -- this is a short excerpt from one of some very long email exchanges I had about the whole thing:
Hey, I just logged in to look at sending a check for this month and I still see a balance for last month. Did you decide not to cash my check?
I'm not paying additional fees. I'm fine paying for my utilities. Charging me a late fee when I had a credit, that you didn't decide to apply until after the bill was due, is ridiculous. Charging me a fee to store my credit card, when you're refusing to un-store my credit card when I ask you to, is ridiculous. Again my bank's take on it when I talked to them about it was that it "sounds illegal." I'm sorta shocked that people put up with this + do business with you. Anyway let me know - just like last month, I'm fine sending you a check for what I actually owe you.
We have not received a check for your previous balance at this time. Once your check has been applied to the previous balance, you will receive an email notification. Until then, the full balance is still due on your account.
Okay, sure. I just sent via certified mail a check for $248.93. That represents:
$299.96, the amount currently on my account according to you for the past 2 months.
-$4 for the card storage fee from this bill (again, please stop storing my card; your system will not allow me to remove it)
-$4 for the card storage fee from March's invoice
-$8.11 for late fee from March's invoice
-$5.08 for late fee from February's invoice
-$4.84 for late fee from January's invoice
-$25 for returned item fee from January's invoice (I told you not to bill me, because I didn't owe you money - I'm happy that you eventually applied my credit to this balance instead of trying to collect more without authorization, but me putting a stop on you trying to bill me without authorization for money I don't owe you is 100% legitimate)
So in total $248.93. If there's anything above you feel like is justified let me know ... if (management agency) tries to take collection action against me for any of the nonsense above I plan to defend myself. I'm happy paying utilities and will not be paying random additional amounts of money. Hopefully that seems reasonable but whether or not it's acceptable to you, it's what I'll be doing. IDK why you guys do business this way, but best of luck with it I guess.
So the check, I sent to this address:
(photo)
Like this:
(photo)
The post office said they couldn't find your address. The best they could find was this (and I swear this is what they showed me, I'm not being funny):
(photo - their address is on Ritchie Road, but the post office I swear to God corrected it to "Bitchie Road")
So, that's where I sent it, certified mail. They said expected delivery is May 25th.
Again, best of luck.
There's more, including me threatening to charge them a late fee for the time when they owed me money and weren't willing to credit it back to me, but that's as much as I had time to dig back up right now.
When I stopped the payment with my bank in January, their system refused to let me use ACH payments anymore, and said I had to put in a credit card number in order to even log in and see my balance and history. Okay, sure. I put in a credit card number for a cash card that didn't have any money on it.
Then, their system said that I couldn't remove my credit card number from their system without putting in some other payment method (which had to be another credit card). But, in order to have a card number stored in their system (which I couldn't remove), I had to pay a $4 per month credit card storage fee.
This was when I started just mailing them checks and researching lawyers in Texas so I could take them to small claims court. I also sent the whole thing with documentation to the FTC explaining it as succinctly as I could.
Here in Brazil it’s much simpler because when you rent a place, basic services like electricity and water are transferred to you. So you get the bills, not your landlord.
And services like internet, you hire your own instead of using the ISP hired by your landlord.
That's usually the US system, but occasionally not. Like a lot of things, there's no consistency; it's just kind of a big freedom free-for-all for better or for worse.
That is incredible you were able to advocate for yourself that way.
It’s exhausting to have to fight like that for a fair shake. It makes me sad because I know how much energy and focus that takes.
Even if the victims can recoup some money, settlements almost never pay out commensurate with what was financially lost. What’s more is that company and the landlords who utilize it will never be able to repay the people whose effort, happiness, and opportunity they stole.
Yeah it was like my own little holy war. It went on for quite a while. Honestly it's partly that I just like being a pain in the ass and being hostile to people, and this was a golden opportunity where it was warranted.
Think about if all the vitriol that goes into internet political arguments could instead be turned outwards at the people who run the fucked up system. It was a brief moment where that energy was channeled in a productive direction and towards the source of the problem.
Fuck yea man. I don't understand how people can work for sleezebag companies. I know a lot of us have to work, I get it, but I worked phones (retention, the worst) for a credit card company for a bit and I was able to do it on the up, and be legitimately helpful for customers, all while I refused to upsell anything that they didn't want.
I'd get "talked to" about it but I never cared. What's a better experience for the customer? fuck your monthly metrics, the idea is to RETAIN customers, right? Well that starts by not fucking them off so you can make a bonus.
I never got a bonus, and I never cared. I'm of the mind that the product should sell itself, otherwise it's not ready for market. If it's not filling a need then it's a waste of time and frankly, a companies resources. People generally don't forgive corporations, nor should they. It still offends me that if sales weren't what they were expecting it's somehow the people at the bottoms fault, especially when the people writing the shit don't have any need for the product. I won't be moved from this rock. If my sales aren't to your specs, take that back to legal and your ideas guys and tell them to try harder. Weak links can be found in more than one place.
Fwiw, I left the company, they didn't let me go. To this day I refuse to carry debt or even own credit cards tho. Nope, doesn't sit well with me. On the same vein tho, I measure how successful I am by how little I need and how little I spend, not how much I earn. This monopolization of everything has turned me staunchly anti-consumer (in the sense of consumption in general, not heil corporate/anti-customer. Right to repair 100%, revoke charters of those that bad faith skirt the intention). I both rue the reactionary in me, even if came from biological imperative, and fucking LOVE where Ive landed at the same time.
All you need to do in this world to win is kill your internal sense of justice but that's a price too high. Team Rawls for life.
This article is weird. It spends a long long time hand-wringing over whether Tim Burke is a journalist, while not at all explaining whether he committed a crime.
Whether he did is slightly muddled -- it sounds like he used a username and password he didn't have permission to use, to log in to a web site, which sounds illegal (whether or not he's a journalist), which would make this whole article an exercise in creating a narrative that didn't happen to drive clicks. But, the credentials were sloppily exposed by a third party and were "demo credentials" in the first place, and the URLs that it gave him when he authenticated himself maybe weren't themselves password protected. So maybe there's some wiggle room. But I thought everyone prosecution and defense was in agreement that he used credentials that weren't his to log in to the web site to get the links to the videos in the first place (albeit in pursuit of a noble goal, embarrassing Fox News by airing something true about them.) I don't think being a journalist enters into it.
According to Burke, the video of Carlson’s interview with Ye was streamed via a publicly available, unencrypted URL that anyone could access by typing the address into your browser. Those URLs were not listed in any search engine, but Burke says that a source pointed him to a website on the Internet Archive where a radio station had posted “demo credentials” that gave access to a page where the URLs were listed.
The credentials were for a webpage created by LiveU, a company that provides video streaming services to broadcasters. Using the demo username and password, Burke logged into the website, and, Burke’s lawyer claims, the list of URLs for video streams automatically downloaded to his computer.
And that, the government says, is a crime. It charges Burke with violating the CFAA’s prohibition on intentionally accessing a computer “without authorization” because he accessed the LiveU website and URLs without having been authorized by Fox or LiveU. In other words, because Burke didn’t ask Fox or LiveU for permission to use the demo account or view the URLs, the indictment alleges, he acted without authorization.
Yeah. If we can say it's relevant when their videos got stolen that the video distribution site had very poor OPSEC, I think we can say it's relevant when he gets prosecuted that this guy had pretty poor journalistic OPSEC.
Use Tor. Download videos. Hey buddy where'd you get the videos? From a source, a journalistic source I'm not divulging, GFY, if you think something bad happened then prove it.
(I'm sitting in judgment when I don't really know; for all I know he did everything right and his lawyer decided that this would be the best tack to take to defend the case, just to lay out what happened and argue that it wasn't a crime.)
To me it sounds like they should be going after LiveU for not properly securing their videos, and going after the journalist is retribution. But that would also require the government to acknowledge that their own security isn't a joke.
(It would also require them to stop supporting fascists, which America is seemingly unable to do)
This law has been out there for decades now and It's never mattered HOW you came into possession of credentials, only whether or not you have permission to access the system that they unlock.
If he used those credentials to get into a system he wasn't authorized to use then its a crime. If the video's were publicly available, even unintentionally, then he should be clear on those charges but that doesn't change the first part.
Unauthorized access to computer and information systems is still a crime punishable under the law. Kevin Mitnick was being prosecuted for this clear back in the 1980s.
IF the guy accessed the system, irrespective of the videos, then this is another case of a Journalist either being ignorant of the law or ignoring it because they believe the law doesn't apply to them.
And that, the government says, is a crime. It charges Burke with violating the CFAA’s prohibition on intentionally accessing a computer “without authorization” because he accessed the LiveU website and URLs without having been authorized by Fox or LiveU. In other words, because Burke didn’t ask Fox or LiveU for permission to use the demo account or view the URLs, the indictment alleges, he acted without authorization.
There's no discussion about if it's a crime, because according to the law it's 100% a crime. The law is extremely broad and doesn't really take into account how computers work. It doesn't matter if there were access controls or not, if you access something that the owner hasn't given you explicit authorization to access, then it's a crime under the CFAA.
This is the same law Aaron Swartz was facing trial for before his suicide. In his case he had legitimate credentials, but used them in an unauthorized way. Also Andrew "weev" Auernheimer, who just changed a number in a url to access other people's information.
Same thought I had. Journalism seems entirely unrelated to the situation. From my reading of the facts, I don't think criminal prosecution is warranted, but it's not some 1st amendment violation it's just a too-vague law.
“They’re like, ‘Nah, I’m not feeling it today, I’m gonna come in at 10:30 a.m,’” Foster said of her younger colleagues in an interview with The Guardian.
Every single generation has thought this about the younger generation. Every single one.
In this case, I think the whole issue is exacerbated by the fact that giving sincere effort at work is so clearly a mug's game. It used to be that being disciplined about showing up and doing your job was difficult, but at least there was a reason to do it and develop the skill over time. Now? Unless you have some sort of unusual job where the management gives a shit about you, why would you?
They simply don’t remember how much time they spent screwing around at their desk, chatting with colleagues, taking long lunches, etc. Obviously, I’m speaking mostly about corporate/Office jobs. More physical/shift work is a bit of a different beast.
Nobody at an office desk works 8hrs consistently. Hell they don’t most days. That has always been the case.
I'm in the highest paying workplace for my field in the country and it's still not worth putting in any extra effort.
Capital just fundamentally doesn't understand that monetary incentive has an inverse relationship with performance and that you can't hire 9 Women to have a baby in 1 month.
Every single generation has thought this about the younger generation. Every single one.
I think you’re right. My guess is that as companies get greedier and work offers fewer and fewer benefits, people are less and less willing to work as hard as their parents did. Employers that don’t understand this are either genuinely ignorant or just pretending to be ignorant.
Strategic ignorance. You can exert more pressure on someone if you genuinely believe the crazy self-serving things you're telling them with a straight face.
I was late to work last Friday, intentionally, because my cat fell asleep in my lap while I was eating breakfast. That moment meant more to me than making sure I was there in time, no matter what it may have impacted. Working to live, not living to work, is the rallying cry upper management needs to come to terms with.
I spent a over a year trying to get a promotion while an ex boss who's team I left was secretly sandbagging me.
I got an offer elsewhere and suddenly leadership asked "what number would keep you". That was exciting until they followed up that raises and promos were frozen so I'd have to wait indefinitely.
"Hey so I've been here a few years and I've learned a lot more and I'm much more productive in my role. I've also learned the business enough that I've applied the skills I brought with me to the point that that's now less than 10% of my workload, having become so efficient with it that you haven't had to fill the other opening you had for my role because I'm handling it all. What do you think my prospects would be for a raise or promotion?"
"Sorry, no budget for a raise this year beyond your 1.3% annual raise (in a year with 4% inflation). And sorry but we can't promote you either. You don't have the skills for the position above yours, and besides, if we promote you out of your role we'll be too under staffed in it."
"So hire someone, let me train them for my role while you train me for the role I could promote to?"
"Nah that's too expensive and we wouldn't likely get the performance from them that we get out of you. Great job by the way. But no, no promotion, no raise."
"Do you think that might change next year? Or like...where do you see my role here in the future?"
"We're really happy with the roles you're in and feel you're well suited to it. And we feel that your pay is in line with the work you're doing, so just keep up the good work."
...so they basically told me that they'd keep overworking me and that I could expect to never get a significant raise or promotion ever again.
Two months later I got a job offer doing less work, work that was much more in line with my skills and preferred work...and a 38% raise. When I gave my notice, immediately they wanted to make a counter offer. I said I'd hear them out but based on our last conversation I doubted they were going to be willing to retain me...but sure I'll listen.
Their offer:
No raise.
I could work a shift of mandatory 9 hour days to make more money (OT was always unlimited and freely available so this was literally just taking away my choice to work OT and forcing me into it).
No promotion.
But they would also start training me to assist another guy in the office with his work. Basically I could work longer hours and have more responsibilities for the same pay.
...and they were surprised when I refused.
They even had the gall to tell me how they felt betrayed that I only gave them 2 weeks notice, rather than agreeing to stay on until they could find my replacement and I could train them. When I pointed out that they literally told me they weren't hiring my replacement as long as I stayed their only response was that they would have if they knew I was going to leave.
The Houthi foreign ministry responded to the attacks with a statement that “the U.S. and U.K. must be prepared to pay a heavy price and face the serious consequences of their aggression.”
“We, the Yemeni people, are not among those who are afraid of America,” he said in a televised speech. “We are comfortable with a direct confrontation with the Americans.”
For the Biden administration, the decision to finally strike back at the Houthis was three months in coming. Despite the barrage of attacks from the Houthis, the administration had hesitated to respond militarily for a number of reasons.
There was a fear that strikes on Yemen could escalate into a tit-for-tat between American naval vessels and the Houthis and even draw Iran further into the conflict, officials said.
It's like the run-up to a fight where one guy is super wild and aggressive, and one guy is doing everything he can to deescalate and talk the other person down. Usually means the second guy has a lot more experience.
“We, the Yemeni people, are not among those who are afraid of America,” he said in a televised speech. “We are comfortable with a direct confrontation with the Americans.”
Really? Wouldn't that look like a Teacup Poodle going up against a Great Dane?
Well, they can certainly cause a lot of trouble in the region that we really don’t need right now. That’s not nothing. And they kind of already are doing just that.
I mean... there's a saying in prison, "Anyone can kill you." Basically, don't get cocky just because you're stronger. Someone who's really determined can fuck up anyone's day, and the US has a lot to lose.
I think that's at the root of the carefulness the US is trying to display. However, all that said, yeah we can fuck 'em up. I think feeling like kings from winning some real holy-shit-they-can't-stop-us-taking-the-capital shooting wars, and the real injustice of the Palestinians' suffering in Gaza, and feeling like they have some serious regional backing from Iran, may have led them to not really be fully aware of how thoroughly drone strikes and cluster bombs could fuck up their whole country without the US even needing to take its eyes off the main events in Gaza and Taiwan.
It's easy to feel like a king while it's mostly other people on the receiving end of the bullets.
It's been increasing what with the guys who say "We speak for all jews" bombing a populace of mostly children.
Which in itself is wildly antisemtic, like zionists are doing two different antisemetic tropes at once with that one, duel loyalty and blood libel, and saying that their actions are representative of all jews.
But that's been Israel's strategy for ages, hence why they work with antisemites like Victor Orban to ensure that there is no safe place for diaspora jews.
But also zionists love to conflate anti-zionism with antisemitism so it's hard to tell how frequent incidents like OP are happening and how frequently non-violent anti-zionist protests are getting called antisemetic violence.
It’s been increasing what with the guys who say “We speak for all jews” bombing a populace of mostly children.
That's exactly what this guy initially objected to me saying. And then started arguing things like what I said above and how I'm not a Jew when I'm an atheist due to my DNA being "Mediterranean." He hasn't responded yet to my pointing out that the Holocaust happened before DNA was discovered. I'm curious to see how they respond.
The operations used OpenAI’s technology to generate social media posts, translate and edit articles, write headlines and debug computer programs, typically to win support for political campaigns or to swing public opinion in geopolitical conflicts.
Covert activity against other countries seems like an area where one might want to invest in one's own automated translation tools, or at least hire a human translator.
Maybe I'm too used to deciphering GovSpeak, but the report does not obsolve Israel of anything.
The article quotes the report in saying:
[The department does not] currently assess that the Israeli government is prohibiting or otherwise restricting the transport or delivery of US humanitarian assistance [in Gaza]
However, that is a very selective quote, that is not at all what the report says.
The actual quote reads:
While the USG has had deep concerns during the period since October 7 about action and inaction by Israel that contributed significantly to a lack of sustained and predictable delivery of needed assistance at scale, and the overall level reaching Palestinian civilians – while improved – remains insufficient, we do not currently assess that the Israeli government is prohibiting or otherwise restricting the transport or delivery of U.S. humanitarian assistance within the meaning of section 620I of the Foreign Assistance Act.
Which translates into: "Israel is definitely obstructing the delivery of humanitarian aid. However, since US law says that puts restrictions on us, we talked to our lawyers who found a way for us to say that they are not"
They are not even being subtle about it. The only way the state department could have been any clearer would be to say "current policy is a clear violation of the Foreign Assistance Act". And a US agency is never going to say that.
Win general elections; vote blue no matter who.
2 Primary out the corporatist candidates every chance there is, right down to the level of school trustee.
This actually works, as we've seen with the GOP and their turn to rabid fascism. It can also work for good.
This is hard in some races. I just had to do a bunch of digging to figure out which state supreme court candidates were secretly Republicans because they're all required to run as unaffiliated and pretend not to be biased. So they all make the same damn comments about judicial overreach but one is talking about preserving our democracy by preventing it and one is talking about imploding our democracy by doing it. My head hurts but I figured it out omfg.
News
Hot