Granted, you have a point in that people who test negative are unlikely to seek further confirmation that they are in fact HIV-negative, whereas designing a test with a high sensitivity but low specificity would result in many more follow-ups with more specific tests.
But where I think your argument treads on somewhat shaky ground is that (1) HIV is not the only STD out there, and there are lots of other very things you could catch through unprotected sex, such as hepatitis (which may lead to liver cancer); and HSV, which often leads to becoming a lifelong carrier. (2) Most everyone knows that there is a window in which one could be HIV-positive but the concentration of antibodies is below the detection threshold. (3) People who are responsible enough to bother getting tested AT ALL are also generally responsible enough to know better than to consider a potentially unreliable test as definitive justification for unprotected sex--that is, the ones who never get tested because of avoidant coping are the real high-risk group.
Basically, I'm not entirely convinced that the people who would go and purchase OraQuick OTC are the kind of people who would see a negative result as an excuse to subsequently engage in high-risk behavior. In any population, yes, you'll have some idiots. But to be able to test them at all is far more preferable than no test. The benefit of being able to reach those 11 out of 12 who do correctly test positive far outweighs missing the extremely small proportion of the population who might get a false negative, and the even smaller proportion of those who think a negative result is a license to become reckless.
Ultimately, frequent, widespread, and regular testing is the single best approach to HIV detection, even if the test has low sensitivity, because the more often you can test, the better chance you have at catching infection early enough to limit further transmission. And the easiest and safest test to administer at present is the oral swab--drawing blood through the arm is difficult, time-consuming, and carries risk of injury. Combined with prevention through education, widespread testing is the ONLY way we are going to reduce infection rates. Vaccines and cures are just too far off; we've been battling HIV for nearly 30 years now, and despite all the drug advances, all we have managed to do is to turn HIV into a chronic condition with lifelong complications, with the potential for multidrug resistance.
Anonymous HIV testing has long been available in the US. And approving OraQuick for OTC sale will make it even easier to be tested without your health insurer, or anyone else, knowing. But yes, in a single-payer system, we wouldn't have to be so guarded about pre-existing conditions, and one would be able to get the treatment(s) they need for preventing and transmitting disease without having to wonder if they could be blacklisted.
To review, sensitivity is the probability of a positive result given that the tested individual is actually positive; specificity is the probability of a negative result given that the tested individual is actually negative. The OraQuick swab test has a rather low sensitivity, meaning that there is a roughly 1 in 12 chance that an HIV-positive individual incorrectly tests negative (type II error). But it has a relatively good specificity, meaning that there is a roughly 1 in 5000 chance that an HIV-negative individual incorrectly tests positive (type I error).
The value in granting FDA approval for OTC sales of OraQuick, then, is to address the need for the vast majority of the population, which is HIV-negative, to feel reassured that they are in fact negative. Historically, one of the biggest challenges in HIV education has been overcoming the fear and stigma of testing. Making testing available OTC greatly improves the likelihood of getting regularly tested.
But what of those pesky type II errors? Yes, given that an individual is actually HIV-positive, the chance that the test fails to detect is is 1 in 12. But that is NOT the same thing as saying that given a negative test result, the chance the person is actually HIV-positive is 1 in 12. For the general population, that probability is much smaller. In fact, I leave it as an exercise for the reader to calculate the negative predictive value (which would require the prevalence of HIV in the US population). Now, if we were talking about using OraQuick on a very high-risk group, we would expect many more false negatives, so a more appropriate test would be the standard ELISA blood test, followed by a confirmatory Western Blot. But remember, FDA approval of OTC OraQuick is targeted at the general population. If you know you're in a high-risk group, you presumably would be getting regularly tested at a public health clinic, and OraQuick isn't necessarily your best choice. But it's still better than not getting tested at all.
Finally, remember that any reasonable person who tests positive with OraQuick would want a follow-up test to be sure. (Someone who tests negative, however, is much more unlikely to want a follow-up test.) So we don't really need to worry about type I errors, except for the panic and anxiety such a rare outcome might cause.
That is, do the things you would normally do to secure your own machine from malware, intrusive advertising, and vulnerabilities.
Use the hosts file to block certain domains from being accessible. Install ad-blocking extensions for your web browser. Install NoScript or some other JavaScript blocking extension. Don't give the kids account administrative privileges. If possible, run an operating system that doesn't permit them to install their own software. Turn on whatever parental controls are available in the OS. Keep it patched and up-to-date.
Beyond that, the question is really a matter of sitting down and having an honest discussion with your kids. You can supervise them if you want to come across as overbearing, but really, the single best thing you can do is to be someone they feel they can trust and share whatever questions they may have. The reality is that the world is full of weird and disturbing and dangerous shit. It's not possible, or even desirable, to try to protect them from being exposed to such things forever. Rather, teach them how to judge for themselves, and encourage them to come to you for advice. If you cannot build trust and respect, you have already lost. They will simply learn to hide things from you.
Finally, there's something to be said for simply not giving them unsupervised network access. When I was that age, I didn't play online video games. I didn't have the luxury of playing Minecraft or whatnot. And I was happy to have what I did. The more quality time you spend with your kids, the less they will feel a need for things like television, mobile phones, iPads, and the internet. It means bringing them up to read paper books. Going outside and getting exercise. Getting them interested in crafts or other creative pursuits that build fine motor control and dexterity. Teaching them how to use their imaginations and developing their critical thinking skills. Could you do these things with computers and modern technology? Sure. Is it easier? Not necessarily.
And despite all the criticisms of the details of NDT's claims, I strongly believe that the underlying theme remains valid. Americans did in fact stop dreaming. The pursuit of science, engineering, and technology, the VALUATION of these things as a foundation for a competitive, progressive, and forward-looking society, is now almost entirely lost upon the American public, replaced by willful superstition, fear, and ignorance. Replaced by doubts about man-made climate change, irrational religious fervor for creationism and other Biblical dogmas, and indeed, an active distrust and suspicion of scientific and critical thinking.
This is not about what China is doing, folks. This is about what America once did on the belief that anything was possible, and about what America no longer does because that attitude has been replaced by a sense of complacency.
"Fascism" isn't really the most accurate term for what passes for government in the US. "Plutocracy" is much, much more appropriate, because at least in fascism, there is no pretense of a two-party system, in which dissent is superficially tolerated as a means to divert attention from those who are actually in control. Governance by the wealthy, for the wealthy is what we have had for quite some time now, and a true republic under the principles set forth in the Constitution that establishes equal representation, has really been a pretty fantasy repeated to the electorate in order to give them the illusion that they have any actual power. In the meantime, you have plenty of folks waving their flags and embracing their Bibles, calling out anyone who exhibits even the slightest criticism of their blind nationalism as a turban-wearing terrorist (or back in the McCarthy days, the term of art was "pinko/commie").
Money--and we're not talking a few dollars here or there, but mind-numbingly enormous sums--is an inherently corrupting force in any political system. Citizens United was only the latest example of how corporate power has so flagrantly rewritten the rules in their favor. It is the coordinated collusion of financial corporations, mainstream media, elected officials at the state and federal levels, local and federal law enforcement, and the military industrial complex that has successfully stripped citizens of their rightful and primal role in governing a just society.
In a sense, a fascist state may be preferable to what the United States has become--for at least a fascist state would be more likely to incite a revolution, rather than perpetuate this sickeningly cowed, brainwashed, and indentured so-called "American public," fattened on a steady diet of processed foods to make them weak, 'popular entertainment' that doesn't invigorate their passions, and propaganda designed to curtail critical thinking. In this context, then, a "digital Citizen's Bill of Rights" is about as absurd as demanding that the rights nominally codified in that thing we call the Constitution actually be respected in the first place.
"IT positions some of the toughest jobs to fill in the US...because employers can't get enough cheap H1B foreign labor." This is not about finding Americans with enough technical expertise, of which there are plenty--it's about employers who aren't willing to pay for it, and want to hire cheap labor from India/China visa holders.
So what it if it costs you money? It's your error, and your responsibility to fix it. We're not talking about a version that you stopped selling years and years ago. We're talking about a version that stopped selling only recently--in fact, more recently than when the security flaw was reported.
What are you doing with the several hundreds of dollars each licensee pays you for a copy of Photoshop? Or the $2000 that they pay for an edition of CS? Wiping your asses with it? Rolling it into a joint and letting your developers smoke it?
Adobe (like another tech company that starts with an "A") was once a stand-up company. Ironically, the CEO of that "other company" accused Adobe of being LAZY. And he was 100% correct. Lazy and bloated and coasting on their monopoly success. Again, the principle holds: the more trust and power the consumer gives to a corporation, the more they will abuse it.
The biggest insight I gleaned from the article was when the author described da Vinci's approach to anatomy as being that of an engineer's and an architect, and how that perspective allowed him to interpret the body structures he saw. Remember high school biology dissection labs? Or if you studied anatomy in college, remember the profound disconnect between seeing a perfectly laid-out diagram of an organism, versus actually going in and dissecting one in reality? You think that when you cut a creature open, that you'll see some version of those drawings just sitting there in front of you, labeled and color-coded and all structures clearly defined. Instead, I acutely remember my surprise when cutting open a rat, a frog, and an earthworm, that all I really saw at first was a jumbled pink/brown mess of innards. Things moved around, didn't have the shape I thought they would, and if someone hadn't already drawn the diagrams I would've been at a complete loss as to how to describe what I saw, let alone try to make an anatomically faithful reproduction of it.
That should give you a better understanding of just how amazing da Vinci's observational skills were.
You conveniently seem to have forgotten that corporations using some of the money they save by minimizing their tax burdens to lobby the government to pass legislation that continues to facilitate their avoidance of taxation. This is a worldwide practice, but in the US in particular, this is clearly a case of disproportionate representation--for the amount of tax these companies pay, they get enormous power to influence policy.
Looking at the bigger picture, it's also evident that different nations do not act in concert to prevent tax loopholes, because each has its own unique economic interests and concerns. One might even go so far as to say that the competition among nations to attract business promotes the act of undermining corporate taxation and regulation in other countries. This is something the corporations have long understood, and hence is one of the major reasons why they have been so staunchly supportive of economic globalization. If they don't like the demands of one country, they just pick up and move to a different one.
So you see, in fact it is not governments that are able to exert control over corporations, but in fact, it is entirely the other way around. Corporations leverage their profits to manipulate so-called "democratic" governments to favor their interests over the concerns of the electorate; in despotic, non-democratic regimes, they don't even have to do that much--they facilitate the government's grip on power by funding them or even installing their own people at high levels. I'm not necessarily talking about Google specifically, but rather, the underlying mechanisms that connect money to global political and economic influence.
It's nice to believe that corporations are merely profit-seeking entities that behave as rational actors in a free-market system. Yes, it's a nice fantasy that is completely and naively removed from the social and political ramifications of money's corrupting effects, one that is commonly espoused by so-called libertarian schools of thought. We're not talking about the kind of profits the common individual is able to generate, but enormous sums measured in billions of dollars per annum per company. The influence of that degree of financial leverage is almost impossible to overstate. The fatal flaw in characterizing the behavior of corporations in such simplistic terms, then, is that it assumes that they don't use their money to pay off policymakers to disenfranchise the electorate and spread disinformation. The consequences beyond avoidance of corporate taxes are numerous and severe: environmental pollution, extreme financial deregulation leading to economic collapse, and despotism, to name a few. The evidence is plain for anyone to see.
I think Mel Brooks understood it best. Ridicule and parody are really the most powerful weapons we have against tyranny, hatred, violence, and terror.
When someone or some group commits atrocities that are unbelievably horrific as a means to paralyze reason and incite fear, and when society reacts with predictable anger, disgust, and outrage, we play into their sick game, for that's precisely the response they hope for. That's what al Qaeda, Hitler, Charles Taylor, and Anders Behring Breivik all share in common. Sociopaths do what they do in order to provoke, knowing full well that no amount of justice or outrage could make up for what they've done, while their ascension in notoriety helps disseminate their cause.
But when we LAUGH at them, when we are able to rise above the hatred they wish to foment by turning their ideals into the butt of jokes (and you gotta admit, "Springtime for Hitler" from The Producers is a masterstroke of comedic genius), that's how we win. We win by taking their manifestos and turning them into fodder for stand-up comedy. To be sure, we aren't trivializing the destruction and deaths they cause, but rather, we mock the basis for their crimes, we take their self-importance and sense of empowerment and simply brush them aside with a dismissive sneer. That's what Breivik, for instance, would hate the most--not to be judged fairly under Norwegian law, or to be jailed, or even to be executed. He himself has stated he hates the idea of being labeled "insane." And the reason is because in his view, insane = not to be taken seriously.
If anyone is committing a fallacy, it's you. I never spoke of similar hypocrisies in other social arenas such as secular government, nor do I disagree that there exist such parallels as you speak of. Your fallacy has to do with the fact that, just because these other problems also exist, that does not mean the leadership of the Catholic Church is any less corrupt or that its followers any less cowed for permitting such acts. If a person commits a crime, you don't just tell them it's okay because other crimes are committed every day all over the world.
As for the meaning of "sanctify," your asking of the question reveals your ignorance. I chose this word deliberately and carefully, for the reason that it is intended to characterize the nature of Catholic doctrine as opposed to secular government (in which at least politicians are ostensibly elected to office, and we are not exhorted to accept their decisions as the infallible representatives of God on Earth). You would do well to study and understand what it means to be a Catholic in the context of what its church leaders tell its followers to believe about the status of the Pope, for then not only you would see why I chose to use this word, but also how the Holy See exploits religious devotion and dangles the threat of eternal damnation to further their own evil purposes.
And again--just because governments and corporations exhibit corruption (albeit through varying mechanisms), does not mean its citizens or consumers are complicit; does not mean what the Catholic church or other religions do is any less corrupt; and does not mean all Catholics are complicit. It depends on what position you stake on the matter, either as a citizen, consumer, or adherent. As I said from the very beginning, I bear no ill will against any individual Catholics for their faith. But in my view, that faith does not require supporting or assisting to cover up child rape or systematic financial corruption. It does not require concepts such as papal infallibility. But if a Catholic somehow thinks that these are merely the small price to pay for what they consider to be the greater good performed by the church, then that's where I must vehemently disagree.
Let me clearly state from the outset that I bear no ill will against any individual Catholics who wish to abide by the religion of their choosing. But to look at the long history of the corruption and arrogance of the Catholic hierarchy and not feel completely outraged is to facilitate their wrongdoing.
Just two recent examples: First, the child rape scandal. It was going on for decades, while superior members of the clergy would help cover up the abuse of children by pedophile priests by shuffling them around, colluding with local law enforcement to intimidate families, and paying hush money. To this day they fight the allegations, trying to minimize the impact of what they did and frame their actions as that of a small number of isolated "deviant homosexual" priests, while complaining about paying money to victims that they could be using "for the greater good." They don't talk about making reparations or holding accountable the officials who turned a blind eye or even assisted in the systemic corruption of covering up these atrocities.
Second example: this case. So the Vatican has been shown to be corrupt in its financial dealings, and what is their reaction? Hunt down the whistleblowers, rather than punish the ones doing the actual crime! It's the same kind of thinking--what threatens the Church, in their view, is not the failure to do the morally proper thing. It's whomever exposes their leadership for the arrogant crimes they commit under the guise of being holy.
I don't understand how Catholics can sanctify these dirty old men as the self-appointed leaders of their faith. If that's what your spirit tells you, then maybe you should consider the possibility that you're being held spiritually hostage by these people as a way to further their power, and the reality is that if you truly want to be closer to God, there are far better ways to do that than through these morally bankrupt charlatans.
I don't have a TV. At some point, I simply stopped needing one. Don't really watch movies, and the few that I do, I watch on my computer because I'm not one of those folks who feels like they need to stare at a five foot wide display in order to enjoy it.
If anything, I'd be more worried about a future in which networking technology is built into cars or other devices that might actually have life-or-death consequences should they fall prey to malicious exploits. Some things just don't need to be online.
I did furnish my reasons. Read the grandparent post, from which I quote below for your convenience:
"Also, I find it highly ironic that he would point to other companies facilitating censorship by various governments, but then doesn't mention Microsoft or Google itself, which largely went along with China's censorship in order to gain market share. Furthermore, it's not as if Google makes me feel more free in terms of the information I have access too. If anything, I am constantly worried about what information they have about me, who they might allow to see that information, and whether I'm leaving a data trail on their servers that the FBI can issue a subpoena for without my knowledge. Google's ubiquity and interconnectedness across all of its services poses a risk to internet freedom through its ramifications on user privacy."
It cannot be denied that despite having been introduced to the marketplace much earlier than Android, iOS is not as frequently exploited when not jailbroken. It also cannot be denied that this is in no small part due to the fact that Apple keeps very tight control over iOS, whereas Android and the apps available for it, are not so regulated.
That said, you need to understand where I'm coming from, because a lot of people have criticized my grandparent post. I'm not saying I *support* closed platforms or even iOS in particular. I have not ever stated, nor do I state now, that I believe the decision to maintain iOS the way Apple has is ethically correct, or even technologically "better" than Android as a whole. What I am merely stating is that a very significant reason for Apple's decision does pertain to device security, and the truth of this is borne out by the evidence, of which there is plenty. Nor do I state that Apple does not have other motives for doing so, or that those other reasons are not detrimental to user freedom or choice.
Consumers are largely free to decide for themselves what they want. As I see it, both Android and iOS are sufficiently mature (and each hold enough market share) that consumers can choose on their merits rather than be forced or misled. I don't see Apple or Google coercing anyone to choose. Different consumers have different reasons to choose the products they do. Just because your valuation is different doesn't mean it is better.
Finally, your criticism, even if it were fully valid, still fails to nullify the argument I furnished, which is that if Sergey Brin were truly sincere about the threats to "internet freedom," I see very few threats greater than malware authors who, by their ability to commandeer devices, invade individual privacy, amass botnets, and commit large-scale fraud, cause everyone else--users, corporations, governments--to go to great lengths to lock down such devices. The user is not "free" because they're always worrying about whether some zero-day exploit is going to steal their banking info or their online passwords. In turn, various corporations and governments exploit this threat as justification for doing what they do, regardless of whether that justification is reasonable. The fact remains that Mr. Brin is selective in his criticism because he is not a neutral party--he never criticizes Google for its own transgressions with respect to violating the very same freedoms he purports to champion, and finds his own rationalizations for why Google behaves the way it does. Just like Apple, and just like any other influential tech company.
Saying that Windows is the sole (or even primary) platform for malware is like saying Apple products aren't threatened by malware. Both are stereotypes founded in their respective grains of truth.
The increasing ubiquity of mobile devices means that the platforms they run on have become increasingly exposed to the consequences of malware, often with more severe consequences due to the nature of the information stored in those devices. And the problem isn't necessarily confined to authors of rogue applications, or even black hats in general. As we observed with the CarrierIQ incident, mobile device carriers also bear responsibility for maintaining transparency and not installing software that poses a security or privacy threat. This is something that, despite Android's claims to be an open platform and thus superior to iOS, was allowed to happen without the consent of Android consumers.
Sergey Brin may be technically correct about the broad nature of threats to internet freedom, but I think that his is a straw man argument. "Freedom" means nothing without the proper context in which that freedom is exercised. That is to say, what good is your freedom to access and share information if those transactions are actively monitored, compiled, and analyzed in order to profile you? His vision of "freedom" basically boils down to the notion that you're free to do what you please online so long as Google is there to profit off of facilitating and observing your activities. That's why he cares about your freedom--because when you're allowed to leave that data trail on Google's servers, they get to find out more about you so that other entities (i.e. advertisers) can be "free" to pay Google for that data so they can sell you stuff. His motives are not altruistic--it's not about freedom of information for its own sake, but rather, freedom of a type of activity that is entrusted to Google for the purpose of profit.
Spelling error correction: "...information I have access to," not "too."
Also, some context: I think it goes without saying that I do not use Facebook. I've gone so far as to block all their domains in my hosts file, not to mention put email filters on anything that even mentions it, so I don't get invites. I absolutely despise it, not to mention Zuckerberg's holier-than-thou attitude (e.g., "don't put it online if you want to keep it private"). I'm also no fan of Apple--while I like some of their products, it's mainly because it's not Microsoft or Google.
The problem I have is that nobody's hands are clean. I would summarize various companies thusly:
Microsoft: We became the only game in town because we bought out or threatened everybody else, but we've become bloated and hobbled by our own incompetence. Google: We'll talk your ear off about freedom and pledge to "do no evil," but underneath it all we're really just like everyone else, hellbent on world domination--but for your own good, of course! Apple: We want to deliver you the best user experience...on the backs of Chinese factory workers. And we know what you want better than you do, because we tell you what you want. Facebook: We exploit you and give you a half-hearted apology afterward. EA: We keep raping you because for some reason, you keep coming back. Yahoo: What just happened?
When the biggest tech companies all act this way, is it any surprise that there's going to be finger-pointing and mudslinging? Fact is, nobody looks good because each is amorally driven by one goal above all else: profit, rather than ethics. And then they go about rationalizing that the pursuit of such profit and power is so that they can then be ethical, when in all cases, the exact opposite has occurred--companies become LESS ethical the more powerful they get.
If Sergey Brin is lamenting Apple's restrictive iOS platform as a threat to internet freedom, then why not get to the root cause of that restrictiveness, which is malware? Spam and malware is a huge reason why companies and developers don't adopt an "anything goes" approach.
Also, I find it highly ironic that he would point to other companies facilitating censorship by various governments, but then doesn't mention Microsoft or Google itself, which largely went along with China's censorship in order to gain market share. Furthermore, it's not as if Google makes me feel more free in terms of the information I have access too. If anything, I am constantly worried about what information they have about me, who they might allow to see that information, and whether I'm leaving a data trail on their servers that the FBI can issue a subpoena for without my knowledge. Google's ubiquity and interconnectedness across all of its services poses a risk to internet freedom through its ramifications on user privacy.
So in short, Mr. Brin, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
The right thing to do is not necessarily the profitable or expedient thing to do.
To quote Richard Feynman, "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." Engineering must NEVER have its integrity compromised by issues of money, politics, law, marketing, religion, bureaucracy, or superstition. History repeatedly teaches this to us and yet we still obstinately refuse to learn. And the result is that people are injured or killed.
I would also like to clarify that an individual cardholder may be subject to a change in their contract terms or revocation of cardholder privileges if repeated instances of fraud are reported, because this is an indicator that a cardholder may be doing something that is increasing their exposure to fraud. One fraud report, even if it is for a series of large amounts, isn't going to set off any alarms. But if, say, you had three reports in a six-month period, that would definitely look suspicious to the lender. They would be entirely within their rights to wonder what you could possibly be doing that would cause your credit card information to be stolen on three separate occasions in such a short period of time. Unless you have a really good explanation, they may well decide not to lend you money at all.
On a personal note, I was a victim of credit card fraud some years ago. The physical card was not stolen--I was always in possession of it--but it could have been cloned or skimmed by an unscrupulous employee of one of the merchants I visited. I deliberately keep my credit limit low, so the thief could only charge a few hundred dollars before the card hit its limit. But they did it really fast, because in under 24 hours, my card was declined, which was my warning that something was wrong. I immediately contacted my bank and after filling out the paperwork, it was resolved and I was assigned a new card. While it didn't cost me any money, it was an upsetting and disruptive experience, one that left me feeling violated. I asked my bank if I could do anything to help them investigate, but they basically looked at the amount, shrugged their shoulders, and said it wasn't really worth it because the cost of their investigation would easily be many times more than the dollar amount of fraud.
If you want to prevent yourself from being a victim of credit card fraud, one thing you should do is to keep your limits low. It's better to have multiple smaller accounts (not too many, though, as opening too many accounts will decrease your credit score) than one large account. If you need to make large purchases from time to time, then have one account with a very low limit like $500 to be used for everyday purchases, and one account with a large limit that you only use for important things. Also, watch where you use your cards online, keep track of your balances, and try to sign up with a lender that will send you text alerts when you use your card. Avoid using a card in situations where it's out of your sight--restaurant staff are very common sources of fraud; pay in cash if possible. And don't lose your wallet or purse. Do your part to prevent rising costs of borrowing by being a responsible borrower and taking advantage of the security measures that your creditor offers.
Your response indicates you have entirely failed to grasp the meaning of my previous post.
Government regulation of the credit card industry prevents a lender from penalizing a fraud victim in the manner that you describe. A penalty in the form of a higher interest rate may only be applied if the borrower fails to pay an outstanding balance in a timely manner. A late fee may also be assessed. This is legal because a borrower's failure to repay the incurred debt is a reflection of their poor creditworthiness relative to other borrowers who pay their balance on time. However, a victim of fraud may not have had anything to do with the theft of the information that precipitated that fraud, which is the case with this data breach.
In relation to my previous post, then, the cost of insuring against losses due to fraud is passed on IN AGGREGATE to the entire pool of borrowers in the form of higher interest rates and/or fees, just like the way in which they factor in other costs of doing business (such as worker salaries, marketing, customer service, and legal representation). Competition between lenders exerts pressure to keep the interest rate low, but if the overall rate of fraud increases across ALL lenders, then the overall financial risk of lending money in this manner has also increased, and therefore the interest rate must also increase to reflect this risk trend.
To be absolutely clear, I am not talking about a scenario in which an individual borrower reports fraudulent activity on their account, and the lender then decides to punish that borrower by increasing their interest rate. What I am talking about is the big picture, in which the cost of credit card fraud and ID theft is spread out over the entire pool of borrowers because the risk of fraud is one component of the risk of lending money, and the risk of lending is part of why interest exists. Granted, this is a gross simplification of the way things actually work (as I do not discuss the role of merchants in this process, for example), but the basic point remains valid: the cost of fraud is eventually paid by the borrower. Even the merchants purchase insurance for their business, and factor these costs in the pricing of the goods and services they sell to consumers. All of it eventually falls on the shoulders of the consumer, who pays for it in the form of higher prices or higher interest.
Because all borrowers end up indirectly paying for the cost of fraud. As is the case with many forms of financial risk, a lender typically insures against identity theft and credit card fraud. The cost of that insurance is factored into their interest rate and fee calculations and is passed on to the borrower.
Granted, insurance doesn't completely absolve the insured of all responsibility, in as much as a driver with car insurance would not think to be totally careless about driving. Lending institutions still have an interest in preventing fraud despite being insured. The point is that when fraud increases, or if there's a catastrophic breach (as in this case, opposed to isolated small-scale instances of ID theft), the associated financial costs eventually reach the borrowers.
Ravi was caught and prosecute because Clementi killed himself, yes. But that doesn't make him a scapegoat. He is still guilty of the crime. It isn't about Clementi defining the crime. You just want to believe that that's the case, because of your homophobia.
Oh, and one last thing. He's going to jail or at the very least, be deported to India. You can bitch all you want, but you are just one puny, insignificant, hypocritical bigot who isn't going to change the outcome of this trial no matter how much you want to characterize it as a witch hunt. The jury's decision is vindication and you can go fuck yourself. The only thing that could be better is if someone killed you instead of Tyler killing himself.
Slashdot Mirror
Granted, you have a point in that people who test negative are unlikely to seek further confirmation that they are in fact HIV-negative, whereas designing a test with a high sensitivity but low specificity would result in many more follow-ups with more specific tests.
But where I think your argument treads on somewhat shaky ground is that (1) HIV is not the only STD out there, and there are lots of other very things you could catch through unprotected sex, such as hepatitis (which may lead to liver cancer); and HSV, which often leads to becoming a lifelong carrier. (2) Most everyone knows that there is a window in which one could be HIV-positive but the concentration of antibodies is below the detection threshold. (3) People who are responsible enough to bother getting tested AT ALL are also generally responsible enough to know better than to consider a potentially unreliable test as definitive justification for unprotected sex--that is, the ones who never get tested because of avoidant coping are the real high-risk group.
Basically, I'm not entirely convinced that the people who would go and purchase OraQuick OTC are the kind of people who would see a negative result as an excuse to subsequently engage in high-risk behavior. In any population, yes, you'll have some idiots. But to be able to test them at all is far more preferable than no test. The benefit of being able to reach those 11 out of 12 who do correctly test positive far outweighs missing the extremely small proportion of the population who might get a false negative, and the even smaller proportion of those who think a negative result is a license to become reckless.
Ultimately, frequent, widespread, and regular testing is the single best approach to HIV detection, even if the test has low sensitivity, because the more often you can test, the better chance you have at catching infection early enough to limit further transmission. And the easiest and safest test to administer at present is the oral swab--drawing blood through the arm is difficult, time-consuming, and carries risk of injury. Combined with prevention through education, widespread testing is the ONLY way we are going to reduce infection rates. Vaccines and cures are just too far off; we've been battling HIV for nearly 30 years now, and despite all the drug advances, all we have managed to do is to turn HIV into a chronic condition with lifelong complications, with the potential for multidrug resistance.
Anonymous HIV testing has long been available in the US. And approving OraQuick for OTC sale will make it even easier to be tested without your health insurer, or anyone else, knowing. But yes, in a single-payer system, we wouldn't have to be so guarded about pre-existing conditions, and one would be able to get the treatment(s) they need for preventing and transmitting disease without having to wonder if they could be blacklisted.
To review, sensitivity is the probability of a positive result given that the tested individual is actually positive; specificity is the probability of a negative result given that the tested individual is actually negative. The OraQuick swab test has a rather low sensitivity, meaning that there is a roughly 1 in 12 chance that an HIV-positive individual incorrectly tests negative (type II error). But it has a relatively good specificity, meaning that there is a roughly 1 in 5000 chance that an HIV-negative individual incorrectly tests positive (type I error).
The value in granting FDA approval for OTC sales of OraQuick, then, is to address the need for the vast majority of the population, which is HIV-negative, to feel reassured that they are in fact negative. Historically, one of the biggest challenges in HIV education has been overcoming the fear and stigma of testing. Making testing available OTC greatly improves the likelihood of getting regularly tested.
But what of those pesky type II errors? Yes, given that an individual is actually HIV-positive, the chance that the test fails to detect is is 1 in 12. But that is NOT the same thing as saying that given a negative test result, the chance the person is actually HIV-positive is 1 in 12. For the general population, that probability is much smaller. In fact, I leave it as an exercise for the reader to calculate the negative predictive value (which would require the prevalence of HIV in the US population). Now, if we were talking about using OraQuick on a very high-risk group, we would expect many more false negatives, so a more appropriate test would be the standard ELISA blood test, followed by a confirmatory Western Blot. But remember, FDA approval of OTC OraQuick is targeted at the general population. If you know you're in a high-risk group, you presumably would be getting regularly tested at a public health clinic, and OraQuick isn't necessarily your best choice. But it's still better than not getting tested at all.
Finally, remember that any reasonable person who tests positive with OraQuick would want a follow-up test to be sure. (Someone who tests negative, however, is much more unlikely to want a follow-up test.) So we don't really need to worry about type I errors, except for the panic and anxiety such a rare outcome might cause.
That is, do the things you would normally do to secure your own machine from malware, intrusive advertising, and vulnerabilities.
Use the hosts file to block certain domains from being accessible.
Install ad-blocking extensions for your web browser.
Install NoScript or some other JavaScript blocking extension.
Don't give the kids account administrative privileges.
If possible, run an operating system that doesn't permit them to install their own software.
Turn on whatever parental controls are available in the OS.
Keep it patched and up-to-date.
Beyond that, the question is really a matter of sitting down and having an honest discussion with your kids. You can supervise them if you want to come across as overbearing, but really, the single best thing you can do is to be someone they feel they can trust and share whatever questions they may have. The reality is that the world is full of weird and disturbing and dangerous shit. It's not possible, or even desirable, to try to protect them from being exposed to such things forever. Rather, teach them how to judge for themselves, and encourage them to come to you for advice. If you cannot build trust and respect, you have already lost. They will simply learn to hide things from you.
Finally, there's something to be said for simply not giving them unsupervised network access. When I was that age, I didn't play online video games. I didn't have the luxury of playing Minecraft or whatnot. And I was happy to have what I did. The more quality time you spend with your kids, the less they will feel a need for things like television, mobile phones, iPads, and the internet. It means bringing them up to read paper books. Going outside and getting exercise. Getting them interested in crafts or other creative pursuits that build fine motor control and dexterity. Teaching them how to use their imaginations and developing their critical thinking skills. Could you do these things with computers and modern technology? Sure. Is it easier? Not necessarily.
This should put things in context: "We Stopped Dreaming"
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6b4_1337136397
And despite all the criticisms of the details of NDT's claims, I strongly believe that the underlying theme remains valid. Americans did in fact stop dreaming. The pursuit of science, engineering, and technology, the VALUATION of these things as a foundation for a competitive, progressive, and forward-looking society, is now almost entirely lost upon the American public, replaced by willful superstition, fear, and ignorance. Replaced by doubts about man-made climate change, irrational religious fervor for creationism and other Biblical dogmas, and indeed, an active distrust and suspicion of scientific and critical thinking.
This is not about what China is doing, folks. This is about what America once did on the belief that anything was possible, and about what America no longer does because that attitude has been replaced by a sense of complacency.
"Fascism" isn't really the most accurate term for what passes for government in the US. "Plutocracy" is much, much more appropriate, because at least in fascism, there is no pretense of a two-party system, in which dissent is superficially tolerated as a means to divert attention from those who are actually in control. Governance by the wealthy, for the wealthy is what we have had for quite some time now, and a true republic under the principles set forth in the Constitution that establishes equal representation, has really been a pretty fantasy repeated to the electorate in order to give them the illusion that they have any actual power. In the meantime, you have plenty of folks waving their flags and embracing their Bibles, calling out anyone who exhibits even the slightest criticism of their blind nationalism as a turban-wearing terrorist (or back in the McCarthy days, the term of art was "pinko/commie").
Money--and we're not talking a few dollars here or there, but mind-numbingly enormous sums--is an inherently corrupting force in any political system. Citizens United was only the latest example of how corporate power has so flagrantly rewritten the rules in their favor. It is the coordinated collusion of financial corporations, mainstream media, elected officials at the state and federal levels, local and federal law enforcement, and the military industrial complex that has successfully stripped citizens of their rightful and primal role in governing a just society.
In a sense, a fascist state may be preferable to what the United States has become--for at least a fascist state would be more likely to incite a revolution, rather than perpetuate this sickeningly cowed, brainwashed, and indentured so-called "American public," fattened on a steady diet of processed foods to make them weak, 'popular entertainment' that doesn't invigorate their passions, and propaganda designed to curtail critical thinking. In this context, then, a "digital Citizen's Bill of Rights" is about as absurd as demanding that the rights nominally codified in that thing we call the Constitution actually be respected in the first place.
"IT positions some of the toughest jobs to fill in the US...because employers can't get enough cheap H1B foreign labor." This is not about finding Americans with enough technical expertise, of which there are plenty--it's about employers who aren't willing to pay for it, and want to hire cheap labor from India/China visa holders.
So what it if it costs you money? It's your error, and your responsibility to fix it. We're not talking about a version that you stopped selling years and years ago. We're talking about a version that stopped selling only recently--in fact, more recently than when the security flaw was reported.
What are you doing with the several hundreds of dollars each licensee pays you for a copy of Photoshop? Or the $2000 that they pay for an edition of CS? Wiping your asses with it? Rolling it into a joint and letting your developers smoke it?
Adobe (like another tech company that starts with an "A") was once a stand-up company. Ironically, the CEO of that "other company" accused Adobe of being LAZY. And he was 100% correct. Lazy and bloated and coasting on their monopoly success. Again, the principle holds: the more trust and power the consumer gives to a corporation, the more they will abuse it.
The biggest insight I gleaned from the article was when the author described da Vinci's approach to anatomy as being that of an engineer's and an architect, and how that perspective allowed him to interpret the body structures he saw. Remember high school biology dissection labs? Or if you studied anatomy in college, remember the profound disconnect between seeing a perfectly laid-out diagram of an organism, versus actually going in and dissecting one in reality? You think that when you cut a creature open, that you'll see some version of those drawings just sitting there in front of you, labeled and color-coded and all structures clearly defined. Instead, I acutely remember my surprise when cutting open a rat, a frog, and an earthworm, that all I really saw at first was a jumbled pink/brown mess of innards. Things moved around, didn't have the shape I thought they would, and if someone hadn't already drawn the diagrams I would've been at a complete loss as to how to describe what I saw, let alone try to make an anatomically faithful reproduction of it.
That should give you a better understanding of just how amazing da Vinci's observational skills were.
You conveniently seem to have forgotten that corporations using some of the money they save by minimizing their tax burdens to lobby the government to pass legislation that continues to facilitate their avoidance of taxation. This is a worldwide practice, but in the US in particular, this is clearly a case of disproportionate representation--for the amount of tax these companies pay, they get enormous power to influence policy.
Looking at the bigger picture, it's also evident that different nations do not act in concert to prevent tax loopholes, because each has its own unique economic interests and concerns. One might even go so far as to say that the competition among nations to attract business promotes the act of undermining corporate taxation and regulation in other countries. This is something the corporations have long understood, and hence is one of the major reasons why they have been so staunchly supportive of economic globalization. If they don't like the demands of one country, they just pick up and move to a different one.
So you see, in fact it is not governments that are able to exert control over corporations, but in fact, it is entirely the other way around. Corporations leverage their profits to manipulate so-called "democratic" governments to favor their interests over the concerns of the electorate; in despotic, non-democratic regimes, they don't even have to do that much--they facilitate the government's grip on power by funding them or even installing their own people at high levels. I'm not necessarily talking about Google specifically, but rather, the underlying mechanisms that connect money to global political and economic influence.
It's nice to believe that corporations are merely profit-seeking entities that behave as rational actors in a free-market system. Yes, it's a nice fantasy that is completely and naively removed from the social and political ramifications of money's corrupting effects, one that is commonly espoused by so-called libertarian schools of thought. We're not talking about the kind of profits the common individual is able to generate, but enormous sums measured in billions of dollars per annum per company. The influence of that degree of financial leverage is almost impossible to overstate. The fatal flaw in characterizing the behavior of corporations in such simplistic terms, then, is that it assumes that they don't use their money to pay off policymakers to disenfranchise the electorate and spread disinformation. The consequences beyond avoidance of corporate taxes are numerous and severe: environmental pollution, extreme financial deregulation leading to economic collapse, and despotism, to name a few. The evidence is plain for anyone to see.
I think Mel Brooks understood it best. Ridicule and parody are really the most powerful weapons we have against tyranny, hatred, violence, and terror.
When someone or some group commits atrocities that are unbelievably horrific as a means to paralyze reason and incite fear, and when society reacts with predictable anger, disgust, and outrage, we play into their sick game, for that's precisely the response they hope for. That's what al Qaeda, Hitler, Charles Taylor, and Anders Behring Breivik all share in common. Sociopaths do what they do in order to provoke, knowing full well that no amount of justice or outrage could make up for what they've done, while their ascension in notoriety helps disseminate their cause.
But when we LAUGH at them, when we are able to rise above the hatred they wish to foment by turning their ideals into the butt of jokes (and you gotta admit, "Springtime for Hitler" from The Producers is a masterstroke of comedic genius), that's how we win. We win by taking their manifestos and turning them into fodder for stand-up comedy. To be sure, we aren't trivializing the destruction and deaths they cause, but rather, we mock the basis for their crimes, we take their self-importance and sense of empowerment and simply brush them aside with a dismissive sneer. That's what Breivik, for instance, would hate the most--not to be judged fairly under Norwegian law, or to be jailed, or even to be executed. He himself has stated he hates the idea of being labeled "insane." And the reason is because in his view, insane = not to be taken seriously.
If anyone is committing a fallacy, it's you. I never spoke of similar hypocrisies in other social arenas such as secular government, nor do I disagree that there exist such parallels as you speak of. Your fallacy has to do with the fact that, just because these other problems also exist, that does not mean the leadership of the Catholic Church is any less corrupt or that its followers any less cowed for permitting such acts. If a person commits a crime, you don't just tell them it's okay because other crimes are committed every day all over the world.
As for the meaning of "sanctify," your asking of the question reveals your ignorance. I chose this word deliberately and carefully, for the reason that it is intended to characterize the nature of Catholic doctrine as opposed to secular government (in which at least politicians are ostensibly elected to office, and we are not exhorted to accept their decisions as the infallible representatives of God on Earth). You would do well to study and understand what it means to be a Catholic in the context of what its church leaders tell its followers to believe about the status of the Pope, for then not only you would see why I chose to use this word, but also how the Holy See exploits religious devotion and dangles the threat of eternal damnation to further their own evil purposes.
And again--just because governments and corporations exhibit corruption (albeit through varying mechanisms), does not mean its citizens or consumers are complicit; does not mean what the Catholic church or other religions do is any less corrupt; and does not mean all Catholics are complicit. It depends on what position you stake on the matter, either as a citizen, consumer, or adherent. As I said from the very beginning, I bear no ill will against any individual Catholics for their faith. But in my view, that faith does not require supporting or assisting to cover up child rape or systematic financial corruption. It does not require concepts such as papal infallibility. But if a Catholic somehow thinks that these are merely the small price to pay for what they consider to be the greater good performed by the church, then that's where I must vehemently disagree.
Let me clearly state from the outset that I bear no ill will against any individual Catholics who wish to abide by the religion of their choosing. But to look at the long history of the corruption and arrogance of the Catholic hierarchy and not feel completely outraged is to facilitate their wrongdoing.
Just two recent examples: First, the child rape scandal. It was going on for decades, while superior members of the clergy would help cover up the abuse of children by pedophile priests by shuffling them around, colluding with local law enforcement to intimidate families, and paying hush money. To this day they fight the allegations, trying to minimize the impact of what they did and frame their actions as that of a small number of isolated "deviant homosexual" priests, while complaining about paying money to victims that they could be using "for the greater good." They don't talk about making reparations or holding accountable the officials who turned a blind eye or even assisted in the systemic corruption of covering up these atrocities.
Second example: this case. So the Vatican has been shown to be corrupt in its financial dealings, and what is their reaction? Hunt down the whistleblowers, rather than punish the ones doing the actual crime! It's the same kind of thinking--what threatens the Church, in their view, is not the failure to do the morally proper thing. It's whomever exposes their leadership for the arrogant crimes they commit under the guise of being holy.
I don't understand how Catholics can sanctify these dirty old men as the self-appointed leaders of their faith. If that's what your spirit tells you, then maybe you should consider the possibility that you're being held spiritually hostage by these people as a way to further their power, and the reality is that if you truly want to be closer to God, there are far better ways to do that than through these morally bankrupt charlatans.
I don't have a TV. At some point, I simply stopped needing one. Don't really watch movies, and the few that I do, I watch on my computer because I'm not one of those folks who feels like they need to stare at a five foot wide display in order to enjoy it.
If anything, I'd be more worried about a future in which networking technology is built into cars or other devices that might actually have life-or-death consequences should they fall prey to malicious exploits. Some things just don't need to be online.
I did furnish my reasons. Read the grandparent post, from which I quote below for your convenience:
"Also, I find it highly ironic that he would point to other companies facilitating censorship by various governments, but then doesn't mention Microsoft or Google itself, which largely went along with China's censorship in order to gain market share. Furthermore, it's not as if Google makes me feel more free in terms of the information I have access too. If anything, I am constantly worried about what information they have about me, who they might allow to see that information, and whether I'm leaving a data trail on their servers that the FBI can issue a subpoena for without my knowledge. Google's ubiquity and interconnectedness across all of its services poses a risk to internet freedom through its ramifications on user privacy."
You make a witty analogy but do not cite evidence to support it.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/245380/ios_safer_from_malware_than_android_security_firm_says.html
It cannot be denied that despite having been introduced to the marketplace much earlier than Android, iOS is not as frequently exploited when not jailbroken. It also cannot be denied that this is in no small part due to the fact that Apple keeps very tight control over iOS, whereas Android and the apps available for it, are not so regulated.
That said, you need to understand where I'm coming from, because a lot of people have criticized my grandparent post. I'm not saying I *support* closed platforms or even iOS in particular. I have not ever stated, nor do I state now, that I believe the decision to maintain iOS the way Apple has is ethically correct, or even technologically "better" than Android as a whole. What I am merely stating is that a very significant reason for Apple's decision does pertain to device security, and the truth of this is borne out by the evidence, of which there is plenty. Nor do I state that Apple does not have other motives for doing so, or that those other reasons are not detrimental to user freedom or choice.
Consumers are largely free to decide for themselves what they want. As I see it, both Android and iOS are sufficiently mature (and each hold enough market share) that consumers can choose on their merits rather than be forced or misled. I don't see Apple or Google coercing anyone to choose. Different consumers have different reasons to choose the products they do. Just because your valuation is different doesn't mean it is better.
Finally, your criticism, even if it were fully valid, still fails to nullify the argument I furnished, which is that if Sergey Brin were truly sincere about the threats to "internet freedom," I see very few threats greater than malware authors who, by their ability to commandeer devices, invade individual privacy, amass botnets, and commit large-scale fraud, cause everyone else--users, corporations, governments--to go to great lengths to lock down such devices. The user is not "free" because they're always worrying about whether some zero-day exploit is going to steal their banking info or their online passwords. In turn, various corporations and governments exploit this threat as justification for doing what they do, regardless of whether that justification is reasonable. The fact remains that Mr. Brin is selective in his criticism because he is not a neutral party--he never criticizes Google for its own transgressions with respect to violating the very same freedoms he purports to champion, and finds his own rationalizations for why Google behaves the way it does. Just like Apple, and just like any other influential tech company.
NOBODY is clean. I repeat, nobody.
Saying that Windows is the sole (or even primary) platform for malware is like saying Apple products aren't threatened by malware. Both are stereotypes founded in their respective grains of truth.
The increasing ubiquity of mobile devices means that the platforms they run on have become increasingly exposed to the consequences of malware, often with more severe consequences due to the nature of the information stored in those devices. And the problem isn't necessarily confined to authors of rogue applications, or even black hats in general. As we observed with the CarrierIQ incident, mobile device carriers also bear responsibility for maintaining transparency and not installing software that poses a security or privacy threat. This is something that, despite Android's claims to be an open platform and thus superior to iOS, was allowed to happen without the consent of Android consumers.
Sergey Brin may be technically correct about the broad nature of threats to internet freedom, but I think that his is a straw man argument. "Freedom" means nothing without the proper context in which that freedom is exercised. That is to say, what good is your freedom to access and share information if those transactions are actively monitored, compiled, and analyzed in order to profile you? His vision of "freedom" basically boils down to the notion that you're free to do what you please online so long as Google is there to profit off of facilitating and observing your activities. That's why he cares about your freedom--because when you're allowed to leave that data trail on Google's servers, they get to find out more about you so that other entities (i.e. advertisers) can be "free" to pay Google for that data so they can sell you stuff. His motives are not altruistic--it's not about freedom of information for its own sake, but rather, freedom of a type of activity that is entrusted to Google for the purpose of profit.
Spelling error correction: "...information I have access to," not "too."
Also, some context: I think it goes without saying that I do not use Facebook. I've gone so far as to block all their domains in my hosts file, not to mention put email filters on anything that even mentions it, so I don't get invites. I absolutely despise it, not to mention Zuckerberg's holier-than-thou attitude (e.g., "don't put it online if you want to keep it private"). I'm also no fan of Apple--while I like some of their products, it's mainly because it's not Microsoft or Google.
The problem I have is that nobody's hands are clean. I would summarize various companies thusly:
Microsoft: We became the only game in town because we bought out or threatened everybody else, but we've become bloated and hobbled by our own incompetence.
Google: We'll talk your ear off about freedom and pledge to "do no evil," but underneath it all we're really just like everyone else, hellbent on world domination--but for your own good, of course!
Apple: We want to deliver you the best user experience...on the backs of Chinese factory workers. And we know what you want better than you do, because we tell you what you want.
Facebook: We exploit you and give you a half-hearted apology afterward.
EA: We keep raping you because for some reason, you keep coming back.
Yahoo: What just happened?
When the biggest tech companies all act this way, is it any surprise that there's going to be finger-pointing and mudslinging? Fact is, nobody looks good because each is amorally driven by one goal above all else: profit, rather than ethics. And then they go about rationalizing that the pursuit of such profit and power is so that they can then be ethical, when in all cases, the exact opposite has occurred--companies become LESS ethical the more powerful they get.
If Sergey Brin is lamenting Apple's restrictive iOS platform as a threat to internet freedom, then why not get to the root cause of that restrictiveness, which is malware? Spam and malware is a huge reason why companies and developers don't adopt an "anything goes" approach.
Also, I find it highly ironic that he would point to other companies facilitating censorship by various governments, but then doesn't mention Microsoft or Google itself, which largely went along with China's censorship in order to gain market share. Furthermore, it's not as if Google makes me feel more free in terms of the information I have access too. If anything, I am constantly worried about what information they have about me, who they might allow to see that information, and whether I'm leaving a data trail on their servers that the FBI can issue a subpoena for without my knowledge. Google's ubiquity and interconnectedness across all of its services poses a risk to internet freedom through its ramifications on user privacy.
So in short, Mr. Brin, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
would be the nyan cat jingle
The right thing to do is not necessarily the profitable or expedient thing to do.
To quote Richard Feynman, "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." Engineering must NEVER have its integrity compromised by issues of money, politics, law, marketing, religion, bureaucracy, or superstition. History repeatedly teaches this to us and yet we still obstinately refuse to learn. And the result is that people are injured or killed.
I would also like to clarify that an individual cardholder may be subject to a change in their contract terms or revocation of cardholder privileges if repeated instances of fraud are reported, because this is an indicator that a cardholder may be doing something that is increasing their exposure to fraud. One fraud report, even if it is for a series of large amounts, isn't going to set off any alarms. But if, say, you had three reports in a six-month period, that would definitely look suspicious to the lender. They would be entirely within their rights to wonder what you could possibly be doing that would cause your credit card information to be stolen on three separate occasions in such a short period of time. Unless you have a really good explanation, they may well decide not to lend you money at all.
On a personal note, I was a victim of credit card fraud some years ago. The physical card was not stolen--I was always in possession of it--but it could have been cloned or skimmed by an unscrupulous employee of one of the merchants I visited. I deliberately keep my credit limit low, so the thief could only charge a few hundred dollars before the card hit its limit. But they did it really fast, because in under 24 hours, my card was declined, which was my warning that something was wrong. I immediately contacted my bank and after filling out the paperwork, it was resolved and I was assigned a new card. While it didn't cost me any money, it was an upsetting and disruptive experience, one that left me feeling violated. I asked my bank if I could do anything to help them investigate, but they basically looked at the amount, shrugged their shoulders, and said it wasn't really worth it because the cost of their investigation would easily be many times more than the dollar amount of fraud.
If you want to prevent yourself from being a victim of credit card fraud, one thing you should do is to keep your limits low. It's better to have multiple smaller accounts (not too many, though, as opening too many accounts will decrease your credit score) than one large account. If you need to make large purchases from time to time, then have one account with a very low limit like $500 to be used for everyday purchases, and one account with a large limit that you only use for important things. Also, watch where you use your cards online, keep track of your balances, and try to sign up with a lender that will send you text alerts when you use your card. Avoid using a card in situations where it's out of your sight--restaurant staff are very common sources of fraud; pay in cash if possible. And don't lose your wallet or purse. Do your part to prevent rising costs of borrowing by being a responsible borrower and taking advantage of the security measures that your creditor offers.
Your response indicates you have entirely failed to grasp the meaning of my previous post.
Government regulation of the credit card industry prevents a lender from penalizing a fraud victim in the manner that you describe. A penalty in the form of a higher interest rate may only be applied if the borrower fails to pay an outstanding balance in a timely manner. A late fee may also be assessed. This is legal because a borrower's failure to repay the incurred debt is a reflection of their poor creditworthiness relative to other borrowers who pay their balance on time. However, a victim of fraud may not have had anything to do with the theft of the information that precipitated that fraud, which is the case with this data breach.
In relation to my previous post, then, the cost of insuring against losses due to fraud is passed on IN AGGREGATE to the entire pool of borrowers in the form of higher interest rates and/or fees, just like the way in which they factor in other costs of doing business (such as worker salaries, marketing, customer service, and legal representation). Competition between lenders exerts pressure to keep the interest rate low, but if the overall rate of fraud increases across ALL lenders, then the overall financial risk of lending money in this manner has also increased, and therefore the interest rate must also increase to reflect this risk trend.
To be absolutely clear, I am not talking about a scenario in which an individual borrower reports fraudulent activity on their account, and the lender then decides to punish that borrower by increasing their interest rate. What I am talking about is the big picture, in which the cost of credit card fraud and ID theft is spread out over the entire pool of borrowers because the risk of fraud is one component of the risk of lending money, and the risk of lending is part of why interest exists. Granted, this is a gross simplification of the way things actually work (as I do not discuss the role of merchants in this process, for example), but the basic point remains valid: the cost of fraud is eventually paid by the borrower. Even the merchants purchase insurance for their business, and factor these costs in the pricing of the goods and services they sell to consumers. All of it eventually falls on the shoulders of the consumer, who pays for it in the form of higher prices or higher interest.
Because all borrowers end up indirectly paying for the cost of fraud. As is the case with many forms of financial risk, a lender typically insures against identity theft and credit card fraud. The cost of that insurance is factored into their interest rate and fee calculations and is passed on to the borrower.
Granted, insurance doesn't completely absolve the insured of all responsibility, in as much as a driver with car insurance would not think to be totally careless about driving. Lending institutions still have an interest in preventing fraud despite being insured. The point is that when fraud increases, or if there's a catastrophic breach (as in this case, opposed to isolated small-scale instances of ID theft), the associated financial costs eventually reach the borrowers.
Ravi was caught and prosecute because Clementi killed himself, yes. But that doesn't make him a scapegoat. He is still guilty of the crime. It isn't about Clementi defining the crime. You just want to believe that that's the case, because of your homophobia.
Oh, and one last thing. He's going to jail or at the very least, be deported to India. You can bitch all you want, but you are just one puny, insignificant, hypocritical bigot who isn't going to change the outcome of this trial no matter how much you want to characterize it as a witch hunt. The jury's decision is vindication and you can go fuck yourself. The only thing that could be better is if someone killed you instead of Tyler killing himself.