In a bureaocracy, the way you get ahead as an individual is to increase the headcount reporting to you. These people do not have to generate profit or solve any problems, they just have to exist to justify your promotion and the creation of mutiple departments to report to the new manager/director/etc. The cost of running these organizations steadily increases over time, even without having any R&D, distribution or production cost increases.
I'm not saying this is a good thing, but it is real.
Most of the details exist to support agendas and perceptions that are wrong. It's perfectly reasonable to ignore irrelevant details.
I'm extrapolating from my software development experience. The user is often the least capable of defining the requirements because they hold many opinions and views based on what their current experience what they believe could be done. When it comes down to what they actually do and what problems they have (ie, it's all labor intensive and done on papers which get lost), that's a small part of what most people will write down as "requirements". On the other hand, developers often don't listen to users and push the solutions that they can provide. The devil is in the details. Not the real details, but all the ones that are there to make the clear solution much more opaque.
I've always wondered what kind of inflated ego it would take to believe that a physical characteristic would not exist without the observer. Sure, it's possible that sound is a major scam regularly perpetrated by nature, but that's like debating possibility with a person who uses "assume that anything is possible" as a premise. If the only way to justify something is to assume the conclusion, it's probably a load of crap.
Consider an alternative scenario: a gun is set to fire based on a unpredictable event, such as how long it takes for ambient wind to spin a windmill 10000 revolutions. The shot could be heard from at least a mile away. What we hear is the rapid escape of hot gas under high pressure. That's a physical characteristic. In order for the sound to not be made, there would have to be some characteristic about the sound generation that went out and detected any form of device that could hear the sound and used that detection to decide if the sound wave would be generated.
Alternatively, if a person were to fire the gun, is the presence of that individual the amplifier that makes it possible for someone very far away, unaware of that individual, to hear the shot?
On topic: fortunately, the scientists who found this double helix believe in observing science, not making it up. It's interesting to see something large like this that is a large scale, observable physical object that looks like something that's very small to us and is kinda important to our being.
It's not a completely unfair comparison. There are people on both sides whose beliefs are so strong that they refuse to consider the other side's perspective. The other side are considered heretics because they do not subscribe to The One True Way. In the end, the only concern is with winning converts to your belief system, regardless of how right your belief system is.
For example, GPL is touted as the ultimate in code freedom, but it's really about pushing a particular agenda. It's a constructive agenda for the community as a whole, but disallowing people to build proprietary products using GPL code means that the code is less free than BSD licensed code.
I'm not assuming a mathematic solution to the problem. The key would have a large cash value to organized crime. State employees have been caught in rackets where they created 'legitimate' fake ID's. I'm assuming that the key would be sold at some point, invalidating the system.
Why shouldn't they be able to see an ID? I don't mind when they do this because they're trying to protect themselves, with the side effect that if someone steals my credit card, places that ask for ID won't take it without the ID.
Using a credit card is making a promise that you'll pay, which is what entitles the merchant to be paid. Checking an ID is just a step to see if your face matches the one on your ID and the name matches the name on the card. In the case of credit cards with photos, asking for ID makes no sense. For all others, it's just a confirmation that you are allowed to make the purchase. Showing it for this purpose doesn't bother me.
Any token that can't be verified against a database is hard to trust. If someone finds a way to sign a fake ID, it's indistinguishable from a real ID. On the other hand, if an ID just has a number, it's of limited use without confirming the contents against the database. Keeping the ID cards secure is difficult because they can be manipulated. A database serves as a single point of reference where all access can be logged and controlled.
Solution - remember that customers are people
on
Combating Identity Theft
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
There are many simple things that could be done to make identity theft harder, but they won't be done because it also makes marketing harder. Everything that makes it more difficult to commit identity theft also makes it harder to grant people instant credit online. Making it difficult to establish new accounts is bad for the businesses, but it would be beneficial to security conscious customers.
In some countries, a company issuing a credit card has to send someone out to verify that the individual is who they say they are and applied for the account. I would like a system like that. At a minimum, it would require that people committing ID theft be local to their victims. Unlike now, it would be much harder for someone to try to set up numerous fraudulent accounts for victims all over the world.
If I could specify my preferences, I would like to require that all accounts being created or modified in my name required that the change be made in person. This would not be much of an additional burden for many of my accounts. There is no way for me to set up and enforce such a policy. The closest I can come is a fraud notice on my credit report that tells the issuer to call me before opening an account, but there are companies that will ignore that since there is no obligation to comply with that request.
It's a reference point that suggests that this scientific discovery is more of an appetizer than a full meal. Even scientists are humans first. That means when we discover something new, we have to give it a location on the food chain.
You can't make them unfreeze your account. However, if you go down there and tell them you're closing your account, they better have a really good, leagal reason to keep your money. One of my friends used the "I want to close my account" tactic to release a hold on a large check. The new bank was glad to get the business.
Word on the street is that Area 51 was decommissioned for top secret projects about 20 years ago. Everyone knows about it, so it's not a very good place for secrets. However, if they keep it well guarded and use it for classified research projects, they can create the illusion of it still being active without potentially giving away too much information. They can also use it for disinformation by working on things that are not the primary focus of current projects.
Or maybe they just want everyone to think that's true so they can conduct their projects with the knowledge that the people who pay attention will believe that what happens is just what the government wants people to know is happening.
Either way, Area 51 is a disinformation campaign. </crackpot>
I am also a programmer. I have been a programmer for over 25 years, I've been a sysadmin for over 15. I do many related but different things. I didn't mention being a security expert either, because it didn't seem relevant.
In the context of my reply, the sysadmin roles were relevant. I do pretty much everything with Unix systems but design hardware. It was only a year ago that I was most recently part of a development team. That project was based in the US with us citizens writing programs to replace a commercial application written in India. Price isn't so important to the business when the product just doesn't work. Right now, I'm working for a development team doing system architecture. That may or may not require me to write code to make things work. I can relate to the programming side. I can't relate to the idea that people shouldn't develop their capabilities to be able to offer various services to their employers.
I haven't worked on commercial software for over 15 years. I primarily program for internal applications. If there was an open source program that fit the needs, that might be used. But most large companies have weird enough requirements that they have a bunch of programs to write and maintain these specialized applications.
I get to keep working longer because I keep learning new things and provide value to my employer. They keep paying me because it would cost more to get a handful of other people to do all the various things I do. If you want job security, be versatile enough to still be useful as priorities and projects change.
Programmers lose their jobs because they don't have other skills that are useful to the organization. Once you become a commodity, you can be easily replaced. If you want to find things to complain about, there's plenty to choose from. If you want to maintain your lifestyle by having a decent job, make sure you're providing enough value to your employer that your salary makes sense.
For example, a programmer can load Linux on a machine at home. Get comfortable with what it takes to install it, add disks, manage filesystems, do backups, and then call yourself a Jr. System Administrator. Talk to the other sysadmins at your company and find out what they spend most of their time doing and learn that. It's hard to justify having an extra programmer and extra sysadmin on staff for the busy times, but it's easy to keep the guy who can do some of each. Even through budget cuts, versatile people are harder to let go.
Yes, some Oracle employees could be displaced. If somone can only sell Oracle products, can't get a job in another part of Oracle, and can't get a sales job with another company, they may be lucky enough to work as a Walmart greeter. There are no guarantees that any particular skills are marketable. This is especially relevant to people who have highly specialized skills that are only useful in one environment. Twenty years ago, I used to program in Turbo BASIC on an Atari 800. I don't think I could get a decent job if that's all I could do. Fortunately, I have developed other skills which are valuable in the current job market.
The workers are displaced because they are not providing the benefit to the company that would justify continuing to pay their wage. If they do not provide enough benefit for one company to pay that wage, why is it reasonable for them to expect a comparable wage from another company?
In the dot com era, a lot of people were paid more than they were worth. Many of them realized that they had to accept wages more in line with their level of expertise when the bubble burst. There are a good number of those people who are now making less than half of what they were previously. There's no rule that says that people deserve their current wage.
I am totally confused by this kind of thinking. I am a Solaris system administrator. I'm also a Linux system administrator. People can pay me for setting up and running big expensive hardware, the little cheap stuff, or to migrate inbetween them. I admin a group of Sun machines at work and am working on implementing a Linux grid. The only way to be adversely affected by LAMP is if your company is migrating in that direction and you're not helping.
Are you saying that there are people who buy stuff that doesn't benefit them? Please tell me more about this market segment of people who spend their money on stuff they don't want.
A boycott is just free advertising for an adversary. The worst thing you can do is ignore them and find others who will do the same.
One product I'd like to purchase less of is protection from the government in the form of income taxes. Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure my government can kick the butt of anyone who wants to compete with their protection racket.
If you couldn't make money from the labors of others, there would be no employees. The only reason to have employees is that they provide more benefit than the expenses incurred. Outsourcing occurs because it's possible to get the same benefit and lower the expenses.
The majority of the wealth will always be concentrated in the hands of a small group of people. Even in a utopian society(unless pure communism is your idea of a utopia), there will be people who are willing to work very hard to be better off than most. There will also be a majority of the people who don't want to work, but have to. The majority will do what they have to in order to sustain their lifestyle, but are not likely to go far above and beyond to be part of the wealthy group.
Are you saying there are moral objections to outsourcing labor? The companies are trying to get something done at the best price. The people who aren't providing enough value to the company to justify their salary are not entitled to the company's money any more than the company is entitled to their customers' and investors' money.
I think it's unfortunate that a lot of jobs are leaving the US. I also think there will be some serious long term problems that come from people not having opportunities to work in some heavily outsourced fields. At some point, we will run out of experts if there is no way to develop that experience over time because learning is not cost effective.
Outsourcing to call centers that don't speak the language well enough causes a backlash. There are already some companies that have moved their call centers back to the US. There are also training programs to teach people to speak with more recognizable accents. Ie, in India, there are people who specialize in speaking with an American, British, or Australian accent to communicate more effectively with the customers in those countries. If you're not able to communicate with your vendors, you need to complain to them. The people with the big checkbooks can refuse to renew service contracts if the service being provided is worthless. That affects the bottom line more than the cost difference between phone support in the US vs India.
Human rights are a commodity. Do you take them into account when you purchase everything you buy? You pay a premium to not purchase Chinese products. Anyone who purchases solely on cost doesn't consider human rights to be a valuable free market commodity that they wish to purchase.
We are at an inherent disadvantage because we have a decadent lifestyle. Every time a person who is living in poverty in the US eats at McDonalds or buys a beer, they're taking advantage of something that is not available to the poor in many other countries. Next time you have ramen for dinner and think "woe is me", know that there are people who would kill you in a heartbeat for your $0.10 dinner.
If my services are a commodity that can be outsourced to a place where the wages are much lower, I'm not providing value to my employer. I'm ok with this arrangement, because it will exist whether I want to believe in it or not. No one is entitled to any particular job. We are a means to an end. If we are not doing something that helps someone generate profit, there will be no money for us to be paid with. It's just a harsh fact of life.
What you underestimate is the power of inertia. The current email system is free of charge. Moving to one that is not free isn't something that can be forced on everyone. That would require that the overwhelming majority of users in the world were switched to some new fee based email system. Some companies may try to force it on their users, but once that makes them incompatible with the rest of the world, their users get cut off. The reason we don't have a better email system already is because this inertia is incredibly powerful, even when a majority of the people who would implement a better system are in favor of it.
They don't do it because they don't have to. The goal is to maintain control over a large number of machines. Currently, the barrier to entry in this market is pretty low. If many of the control nodes are taken out, the botnet operators will change their methods to be more resilient.
Botnets are about numbers of machines. Destroying a node (ie, formatting the hard drive) lowers the number of machines. As long as the rate of compromise is greater than the rate of attrition, the botnet will continue to grow and that is good. In this case, doing harm to users is bad business for the botnet operators. Anyway, setting up the botnet as a series of cells means that any cell being compromised has a limited impact.
I don't assume that computer criminals are dumb. A single felony conviction for youthful stupidity can prevent an otherwise talented technical person from getting any job in many large companies. Organized crime doesn't discriminate against these people and can pay pretty well. There are a lot of security experts who are in their roles today because they never got caught and prosecuted for some of the things they did in the past.
I first heard of the idea of using spam as a communication medium 3-4 years ago. I wouldn't be surprised if this is already being done. There's so much spam that finding a signal in all that noise would be difficult. Unless you knew exactly what you were looking for, you wouldn't be likely to find it.
The problem here is that everyone is being punished equally by this paint. The situation that people are trying to address is people who leave their phones on ring and talk in the middle of a large room of people. The beating seems like a reasonable expression of democracy(mob rule against the person who elected himself a victim) in action. The people who may have a legitimate emergency interrupt them at any random time 24x7 often can take those calls without disrupting others. These people do not need to be punished. The paint does not differentiate between the two groups.
When my cell phone vibrates during a movie and I look at the number to determine if it should go to voicemail or if I should excuse myself, no one is inconvenienced. Of course, I'm also not leaving in the middle of a movie to talk to someone who wasn't polite enough to inform me ahead of time that they are planning an emergency, so I won't even stand up and bother anyone.
Slashdot Mirror
In a bureaocracy, the way you get ahead as an individual is to increase the headcount reporting to you. These people do not have to generate profit or solve any problems, they just have to exist to justify your promotion and the creation of mutiple departments to report to the new manager/director/etc. The cost of running these organizations steadily increases over time, even without having any R&D, distribution or production cost increases.
I'm not saying this is a good thing, but it is real.
Most of the details exist to support agendas and perceptions that are wrong. It's perfectly reasonable to ignore irrelevant details.
I'm extrapolating from my software development experience. The user is often the least capable of defining the requirements because they hold many opinions and views based on what their current experience what they believe could be done. When it comes down to what they actually do and what problems they have (ie, it's all labor intensive and done on papers which get lost), that's a small part of what most people will write down as "requirements". On the other hand, developers often don't listen to users and push the solutions that they can provide. The devil is in the details. Not the real details, but all the ones that are there to make the clear solution much more opaque.
It's actually much simpler - yes, it does.
I've always wondered what kind of inflated ego it would take to believe that a physical characteristic would not exist without the observer. Sure, it's possible that sound is a major scam regularly perpetrated by nature, but that's like debating possibility with a person who uses "assume that anything is possible" as a premise. If the only way to justify something is to assume the conclusion, it's probably a load of crap.
Consider an alternative scenario: a gun is set to fire based on a unpredictable event, such as how long it takes for ambient wind to spin a windmill 10000 revolutions. The shot could be heard from at least a mile away. What we hear is the rapid escape of hot gas under high pressure. That's a physical characteristic. In order for the sound to not be made, there would have to be some characteristic about the sound generation that went out and detected any form of device that could hear the sound and used that detection to decide if the sound wave would be generated.
Alternatively, if a person were to fire the gun, is the presence of that individual the amplifier that makes it possible for someone very far away, unaware of that individual, to hear the shot?
On topic: fortunately, the scientists who found this double helix believe in observing science, not making it up. It's interesting to see something large like this that is a large scale, observable physical object that looks like something that's very small to us and is kinda important to our being.
It's not a completely unfair comparison. There are people on both sides whose beliefs are so strong that they refuse to consider the other side's perspective. The other side are considered heretics because they do not subscribe to The One True Way. In the end, the only concern is with winning converts to your belief system, regardless of how right your belief system is.
For example, GPL is touted as the ultimate in code freedom, but it's really about pushing a particular agenda. It's a constructive agenda for the community as a whole, but disallowing people to build proprietary products using GPL code means that the code is less free than BSD licensed code.
You believe so strongly that you've developed a stigmata in your eyes?
I'm not assuming a mathematic solution to the problem. The key would have a large cash value to organized crime. State employees have been caught in rackets where they created 'legitimate' fake ID's. I'm assuming that the key would be sold at some point, invalidating the system.
Why shouldn't they be able to see an ID? I don't mind when they do this because they're trying to protect themselves, with the side effect that if someone steals my credit card, places that ask for ID won't take it without the ID.
Using a credit card is making a promise that you'll pay, which is what entitles the merchant to be paid. Checking an ID is just a step to see if your face matches the one on your ID and the name matches the name on the card. In the case of credit cards with photos, asking for ID makes no sense. For all others, it's just a confirmation that you are allowed to make the purchase. Showing it for this purpose doesn't bother me.
Any token that can't be verified against a database is hard to trust. If someone finds a way to sign a fake ID, it's indistinguishable from a real ID. On the other hand, if an ID just has a number, it's of limited use without confirming the contents against the database. Keeping the ID cards secure is difficult because they can be manipulated. A database serves as a single point of reference where all access can be logged and controlled.
There are many simple things that could be done to make identity theft harder, but they won't be done because it also makes marketing harder. Everything that makes it more difficult to commit identity theft also makes it harder to grant people instant credit online. Making it difficult to establish new accounts is bad for the businesses, but it would be beneficial to security conscious customers.
In some countries, a company issuing a credit card has to send someone out to verify that the individual is who they say they are and applied for the account. I would like a system like that. At a minimum, it would require that people committing ID theft be local to their victims. Unlike now, it would be much harder for someone to try to set up numerous fraudulent accounts for victims all over the world.
If I could specify my preferences, I would like to require that all accounts being created or modified in my name required that the change be made in person. This would not be much of an additional burden for many of my accounts. There is no way for me to set up and enforce such a policy. The closest I can come is a fraud notice on my credit report that tells the issuer to call me before opening an account, but there are companies that will ignore that since there is no obligation to comply with that request.
It's a reference point that suggests that this scientific discovery is more of an appetizer than a full meal. Even scientists are humans first. That means when we discover something new, we have to give it a location on the food chain.
You can't make them unfreeze your account. However, if you go down there and tell them you're closing your account, they better have a really good, leagal reason to keep your money. One of my friends used the "I want to close my account" tactic to release a hold on a large check. The new bank was glad to get the business.
Word on the street is that Area 51 was decommissioned for top secret projects about 20 years ago. Everyone knows about it, so it's not a very good place for secrets. However, if they keep it well guarded and use it for classified research projects, they can create the illusion of it still being active without potentially giving away too much information. They can also use it for disinformation by working on things that are not the primary focus of current projects.
Or maybe they just want everyone to think that's true so they can conduct their projects with the knowledge that the people who pay attention will believe that what happens is just what the government wants people to know is happening.
Either way, Area 51 is a disinformation campaign.
</crackpot>
I am also a programmer. I have been a programmer for over 25 years, I've been a sysadmin for over 15. I do many related but different things. I didn't mention being a security expert either, because it didn't seem relevant.
In the context of my reply, the sysadmin roles were relevant. I do pretty much everything with Unix systems but design hardware. It was only a year ago that I was most recently part of a development team. That project was based in the US with us citizens writing programs to replace a commercial application written in India. Price isn't so important to the business when the product just doesn't work. Right now, I'm working for a development team doing system architecture. That may or may not require me to write code to make things work. I can relate to the programming side. I can't relate to the idea that people shouldn't develop their capabilities to be able to offer various services to their employers.
I haven't worked on commercial software for over 15 years. I primarily program for internal applications. If there was an open source program that fit the needs, that might be used. But most large companies have weird enough requirements that they have a bunch of programs to write and maintain these specialized applications.
I get to keep working longer because I keep learning new things and provide value to my employer. They keep paying me because it would cost more to get a handful of other people to do all the various things I do. If you want job security, be versatile enough to still be useful as priorities and projects change.
Programmers lose their jobs because they don't have other skills that are useful to the organization. Once you become a commodity, you can be easily replaced. If you want to find things to complain about, there's plenty to choose from. If you want to maintain your lifestyle by having a decent job, make sure you're providing enough value to your employer that your salary makes sense.
For example, a programmer can load Linux on a machine at home. Get comfortable with what it takes to install it, add disks, manage filesystems, do backups, and then call yourself a Jr. System Administrator. Talk to the other sysadmins at your company and find out what they spend most of their time doing and learn that. It's hard to justify having an extra programmer and extra sysadmin on staff for the busy times, but it's easy to keep the guy who can do some of each. Even through budget cuts, versatile people are harder to let go.
Yes, some Oracle employees could be displaced. If somone can only sell Oracle products, can't get a job in another part of Oracle, and can't get a sales job with another company, they may be lucky enough to work as a Walmart greeter. There are no guarantees that any particular skills are marketable. This is especially relevant to people who have highly specialized skills that are only useful in one environment. Twenty years ago, I used to program in Turbo BASIC on an Atari 800. I don't think I could get a decent job if that's all I could do. Fortunately, I have developed other skills which are valuable in the current job market.
The workers are displaced because they are not providing the benefit to the company that would justify continuing to pay their wage. If they do not provide enough benefit for one company to pay that wage, why is it reasonable for them to expect a comparable wage from another company?
In the dot com era, a lot of people were paid more than they were worth. Many of them realized that they had to accept wages more in line with their level of expertise when the bubble burst. There are a good number of those people who are now making less than half of what they were previously. There's no rule that says that people deserve their current wage.
I am totally confused by this kind of thinking. I am a Solaris system administrator. I'm also a Linux system administrator. People can pay me for setting up and running big expensive hardware, the little cheap stuff, or to migrate inbetween them. I admin a group of Sun machines at work and am working on implementing a Linux grid. The only way to be adversely affected by LAMP is if your company is migrating in that direction and you're not helping.
Are you saying that there are people who buy stuff that doesn't benefit them? Please tell me more about this market segment of people who spend their money on stuff they don't want.
A boycott is just free advertising for an adversary. The worst thing you can do is ignore them and find others who will do the same.
One product I'd like to purchase less of is protection from the government in the form of income taxes. Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure my government can kick the butt of anyone who wants to compete with their protection racket.
If you couldn't make money from the labors of others, there would be no employees. The only reason to have employees is that they provide more benefit than the expenses incurred. Outsourcing occurs because it's possible to get the same benefit and lower the expenses.
The majority of the wealth will always be concentrated in the hands of a small group of people. Even in a utopian society(unless pure communism is your idea of a utopia), there will be people who are willing to work very hard to be better off than most. There will also be a majority of the people who don't want to work, but have to. The majority will do what they have to in order to sustain their lifestyle, but are not likely to go far above and beyond to be part of the wealthy group.
Are you saying there are moral objections to outsourcing labor? The companies are trying to get something done at the best price. The people who aren't providing enough value to the company to justify their salary are not entitled to the company's money any more than the company is entitled to their customers' and investors' money.
I think it's unfortunate that a lot of jobs are leaving the US. I also think there will be some serious long term problems that come from people not having opportunities to work in some heavily outsourced fields. At some point, we will run out of experts if there is no way to develop that experience over time because learning is not cost effective.
Outsourcing to call centers that don't speak the language well enough causes a backlash. There are already some companies that have moved their call centers back to the US. There are also training programs to teach people to speak with more recognizable accents. Ie, in India, there are people who specialize in speaking with an American, British, or Australian accent to communicate more effectively with the customers in those countries. If you're not able to communicate with your vendors, you need to complain to them. The people with the big checkbooks can refuse to renew service contracts if the service being provided is worthless. That affects the bottom line more than the cost difference between phone support in the US vs India.
Human rights are a commodity. Do you take them into account when you purchase everything you buy? You pay a premium to not purchase Chinese products. Anyone who purchases solely on cost doesn't consider human rights to be a valuable free market commodity that they wish to purchase.
We are at an inherent disadvantage because we have a decadent lifestyle. Every time a person who is living in poverty in the US eats at McDonalds or buys a beer, they're taking advantage of something that is not available to the poor in many other countries. Next time you have ramen for dinner and think "woe is me", know that there are people who would kill you in a heartbeat for your $0.10 dinner.
If my services are a commodity that can be outsourced to a place where the wages are much lower, I'm not providing value to my employer. I'm ok with this arrangement, because it will exist whether I want to believe in it or not. No one is entitled to any particular job. We are a means to an end. If we are not doing something that helps someone generate profit, there will be no money for us to be paid with. It's just a harsh fact of life.
What you underestimate is the power of inertia. The current email system is free of charge. Moving to one that is not free isn't something that can be forced on everyone. That would require that the overwhelming majority of users in the world were switched to some new fee based email system. Some companies may try to force it on their users, but once that makes them incompatible with the rest of the world, their users get cut off. The reason we don't have a better email system already is because this inertia is incredibly powerful, even when a majority of the people who would implement a better system are in favor of it.
They don't do it because they don't have to. The goal is to maintain control over a large number of machines. Currently, the barrier to entry in this market is pretty low. If many of the control nodes are taken out, the botnet operators will change their methods to be more resilient.
Botnets are about numbers of machines. Destroying a node (ie, formatting the hard drive) lowers the number of machines. As long as the rate of compromise is greater than the rate of attrition, the botnet will continue to grow and that is good. In this case, doing harm to users is bad business for the botnet operators. Anyway, setting up the botnet as a series of cells means that any cell being compromised has a limited impact.
I don't assume that computer criminals are dumb. A single felony conviction for youthful stupidity can prevent an otherwise talented technical person from getting any job in many large companies. Organized crime doesn't discriminate against these people and can pay pretty well. There are a lot of security experts who are in their roles today because they never got caught and prosecuted for some of the things they did in the past.
I first heard of the idea of using spam as a communication medium 3-4 years ago. I wouldn't be surprised if this is already being done. There's so much spam that finding a signal in all that noise would be difficult. Unless you knew exactly what you were looking for, you wouldn't be likely to find it.
The problem here is that everyone is being punished equally by this paint. The situation that people are trying to address is people who leave their phones on ring and talk in the middle of a large room of people. The beating seems like a reasonable expression of democracy(mob rule against the person who elected himself a victim) in action. The people who may have a legitimate emergency interrupt them at any random time 24x7 often can take those calls without disrupting others. These people do not need to be punished. The paint does not differentiate between the two groups.
When my cell phone vibrates during a movie and I look at the number to determine if it should go to voicemail or if I should excuse myself, no one is inconvenienced. Of course, I'm also not leaving in the middle of a movie to talk to someone who wasn't polite enough to inform me ahead of time that they are planning an emergency, so I won't even stand up and bother anyone.
1. Other people speak English
2. People break the law