First of all, in theory forced detention is something that we only use once a person has been convicted of a crime. Secondly, big problem with your analogy is the information that can be inferred from telephone records and from IP records are very different. A telephone call is a two-way, dynamic communication. Recording such at best generates a record of those you have discourse with. Communication across the internet, at least what can be established via IP, is more static. Retaining IP records is more akin to the library keeping a record of any book you've so much as looked at.
Point in fact, I really don't give a damn what they're trying to find, it gives them little to no right to invade my privacy.
Based on your posts it seems that you executed your job as a Customs agent with integrity. However, you make the false assumption that all the other Customs agents did the same thing. If I really thought every police officer was an honest upstanding individual who executed their job with integrity, I'd have no problem answering a cop who asked me a few questions while I was walking down the street. Have met far too many (and I'm sure I'm not alone) who are in love with the power that's given to them, have the attitude that they can arrest as may people as they want, and go home at night an spank it while holding their badges </sarcasm> unless circumstances created understandable suspicion any question by law enforcement would be met with "you got a warrant?"
I understand Customs agents have a job to do but giving them a blank check of authority is just going to make sure fewer and fewer people visit the US.
Two items of interest (disclaimer: I'm a former employee of the banking industry):
Banker's aren't trained to look for suspicious items in the invasive sense that you're suggesting. They don't check to see if you've made any purchases to "ImprovisedExplosiveSupplies.com". The suspicious activity they're looking for are related to money laundering. The "know your customer" campaign at most banks was related to some of the PATRIOT Act requirements imposed post 9/11 (and unlike most of the PATRIOT Act the requirements were relatively reasonable). After 9/11 all banks had to keep records of how you were identified when opening an account (copy of drivers license is sufficient I think, but I've been out of banking for a while).
The other item you leave out is that by Federal Law all bank employees (and I think this even filters down as low as the janitor) are required to have data protection training at least one per year. My bank is the last place I worry about my information getting out through.
And I don't know about the bankers you've met, but most I've met are very enamored with written rules. At the bank I work at, we weren't giving any information out to anyone who didn't have a warrant.
...and we'll end up with an Internet connection that is little more use than a dial up connection except for content provided by those paying the ISPs
There fixed that for ya. </sarcasm>
That's the aspect of net neutrality that really scares the crap outta me/pisses me off. One of the most important things that the Internet has accomplished is making information very difficult to control. If every TV news source spins stories with some kind of 'America is so cool because...' it's no wonder that most of Americans generally believe the rest of the world has no good reason not to like us. Now we have access to foreign news sources and a variety of blogs providing different points of view. If Net Neutrality is thrown out the window we could easily regress to a time when CNN and FOX News are the only easily accessible news sources.
Yes, poor Steve Jobs is caught in the vicious jaws of the music industry...
Face it Apple loves DRM. Especially because the RIAA demands it. He gets to pretend he hates DRM to get in good with the consumers but that's exactly what's providing a lock-in to Apple brand media players. If Apple hated DRM as much as is claimed they wouldn't have a problem licensing their DRM out to Microsoft, or Sansa.
I know that Apple is the best underdog we have to root for against Microsoft but if one examines their business practices you gotta admit they're taking a lot of plays from Redmond's book. If the iTunes-iPod marriage isn't enough evidence for you I figured the iPhone SDK would be. </rant>
I've pretty much hated Apple since the iPod, which was about the same time I started hating Microsoft for reasons on than the BSOD. In hindsight as I'm concerned Apple an Microsoft are two of the same shiesters that bet on different ponies. Both had in mind to control the PC market. Microsoft did so through the OS but Apple threw a Hail Mary betting in could control the hardware market too. Both companies were playing the same game, but Bill's pony came in first.
If you look at their practices now Apple seems to be looking up to Microsoft. The iPod is a great player, and I'd own one if it wasn't so tightly linked to iTunes. That and the licensing behind the iPhone SDK are just two examples Apple trying the same tricks in Microsoft's play book.
I'm of the theory the lack of media coverage is anything but an accident. We all know that American companies are in bed with the government, but let's not forget how much the companies are in bed with each other.
Al Gore alone is worth two hundred million these days, more than the entire administration combined.
First of all, Bush's cabinet is estimate to be worth 181 to 643 million dollars. I doubt the actual is under 200 million. Secondly, it's been eight years since Gore has been in the White House and I doubt he left the White House with more than he has now.
You're right in that they're not trying to cap salaries. H1B is a good program in intent. Unfortunately they left it wide open for abuse and it's being used by many companies (I'll grant not all) as a way to get cheap indentured servants. If a worker under H1B is treated badly by their employer their only option is to go back to their country of origin.
The abuses of this program hurt both US born IT workers by driving the market value down and the foreign workers wanting to use this program as they're in a position of which they're easily taken advantage.
And now the companies that are abusing the program and probably the company using the program in the spirit it was intended are lobbying Congress to get the cap increased.
I have no problem with the spirit of the H1B Visa program, but with the current manifestation the primary beneficiaries are large companies wanting to keep payroll low.
if it weren't for the countless scientific studies that consistently found it to be without merit.
Being unverified by scientific method does not invalidate Astrology. It's not supposed to be a systematic, precise method of prediction. It's pattern generalization. You'll forgive my annoyance but I always grow irritated when it's insisted that if things aren't verifiable by science it's assertions are completely invalid. There's much in this world scientifically unverified that has validity.
I myself practice palmistry (something I'm sure most think is smoke and mirrors, but stay with me for a moment). I don't claim to be able to tell anyone's future but I can learn things about their personality by examining their palm. A few years ago I had the pleasure of meeting someone studying acupuncture. The aspect she was currently studying was diagnosing health issues by feeling certain pulses within the wrist. She examined my pulses and was able to tell me a fair bit about my health. She inferred I was under a lot of stress at the time and I was a bit malnourished of late (I was in the middle of a divorce and had lost 15 pounds in 3 weeks). When she described how she knew these things I realized that palmistry and acupunctures method of diagnosis (at least that particular one) were basically the same thing. Observing traits and inferring generalizations based on the observations.
Science, for reasons that escape me, holds itself as keeper and mother of all knowledge. 200 years ago, had you told a tavern keeper you could make people eat more by changing the color of his establishment you'd be laughed at and/or burned as a witch. Modern psychology now explains the reasons behind this, but science didn't discover it. Shamen and mystics have used those techniques for centuries.
Provided that I'm informed of it and it doesn't extend to my personal life I have little objection to my employer observing me while I'm at work. After all what I'm doing at work is the business of my employer. And, if I find the level of observation to be unacceptable, I can take my services some where else.
There's no problem someone having information about you if that information is justly their business. It's very reasonable for you to tell your employer it's no of his business if he ask if you drink. It's not reasonable for you to tell him that if he asks if your drunk at work.
In similar news Al Capone was imprisoned for tax evasion. He wasn't imprisoned for nefarious gangster activities as is commonly believed, and in fact the government fully endorsed such activities.
Point acknowledged but there's often a big difference between the official and actual reason things are done.
That scenario doesn't surprise me in the least. Most people who roll their eyes when someone brings up the issue of privacy really think we're all talking about giving someone else privacy away. When people say "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" what they really mean (most likely without realizing it) is "I have nothing to hide and once the would be watchers realize that they'll go away and leave me alone."
Yes, Bush has been a disappointment, but you're kidding yourself if you think his exit will have any measurable effect on policy.
Then by proxy we can say his presence hasn't had any measurable effect on policy.
You're quite right that a chance in the White House isn't suddenly going to turn us from a cesspool of corruption to the shining beacon of justice and morality that we pretend to be, but this is the most corrupt administration we've had in at least a century. Not only has the Bush Administration shown a willful disregard for the law, but they've pretty much flaunted it at every turn.
As an aside I think the larger reason for the state of things is the decadent indifference of the American people. In previous generations we tolerated such corruption out of fear of whatever boogy man the government created. The terrorism drum has been pounded so hard I don't think most Americans are generally fearful, we're just more comfortable watching American Idol.
Large scale power generation such as power plants are significantly more efficient than the small scale of an internal combustion engine. That's the difference. If my car is powered by electricity generated at a power plant, yea there's still pollution but a lot less energy is wasted and hence, less pollution per mile.
Cost of government / Number of citizens isn't a fair taxation method because quite frankly the more you have the more government benefits you consume. The best example of this I can think of is transportation infrastructure.
If I'm Joe Citizen, the roads that the city and state construct and maintain provide me with the benefit of being able to get around. Assuming there's a finite amount of driving over that road before it decays I'm consuming on average maybe 15000 miles a year of the transportation infrastructure.
Now if I'm Joe Industrialist, that same infrastructure provides a way for my workers to get to work (a benefit to both me and them), a way for me to receive supplies, a way for me to ship out goods. The benefits and consumption of the infrastructure for Joe Industrialist is much greater than Joe Citizen, so yes, Joe Industrialist should pay more.
The argument made on Slashdot, and elsewhere, is that the music is the promotional material. No promotional material is ever 100% effective. If I'm at the grocery store, get a free sample and don't purchase the product I don't feel any obligation to pay for the sample I've received.
Most everyone I know is willing to voluntarily sign up for department and grocery store "point cards" to save ~%5
There are two big differences between the government doing this and a company doing this.
If I give up privacy at the supermarket to save a few bucks, that's a choice that I've made. I could simply choose not to opt into this program if I wanted to retain anonymity. If it's a requirement of the store I can simply take my business elsewhere. With government programs of this nature you can't opt out, and short of fleeing the country, can't take your business elsewhere.
The second difference is when sign up for one of the programs your supermarket offers there's usually a privacy pledge in which they state they will do the utmost to protect your information and they promise that you're information will not be used for any purposes other than what's spelled out in the agreement. If they violate that promise I can take them to court. No such recourse exists if the government misuses your information. I would have no problem with the government having a database with my information in it if they could offer some kind of assurance that such wouldn't be abused (and I'm not holding my breath for that).
To everyone who's said "I've been running Vista and it doesn't suck because...." I have a question. I here all sorts of reason the things we think are problems with Vista aren't really issues, and even if that's true, what do we get?!? Leaving out most of what Vista has been bashed for if it doesn't really give me anything new I have the following issues that haven't really been refuted:
It's different, if I get no benefit I don't want to learn something new.
It takes up more resources, if I'm going to upgrade my machine I want my applications to reap the benefit, not the OS.
It's slower than XP (boot-up, shut down, ect.).
That's the cost of using Vista, so again my question, what do I get?
No one has to be looking out for the consumer, any benefit to the consumer in any business situation is entirely incidental. In their desperate fight against their own dying business model they're trying to gouge everyone they can. Suing file-shares doesn't seem to have generated any real revenue, the internet radio heist hasn't panned out (at least yet) now they're targeting broadcast radio. As they grow more hungry they're willing to hunt more dangerous prey. Hopefully they'll get eaten instead and we won't have to wait for them to starve to death.
Slashdot Mirror
First of all, in theory forced detention is something that we only use once a person has been convicted of a crime. Secondly, big problem with your analogy is the information that can be inferred from telephone records and from IP records are very different. A telephone call is a two-way, dynamic communication. Recording such at best generates a record of those you have discourse with. Communication across the internet, at least what can be established via IP, is more static. Retaining IP records is more akin to the library keeping a record of any book you've so much as looked at.
You still do, just not in this country.
Point in fact, I really don't give a damn what they're trying to find, it gives them little to no right to invade my privacy.
Based on your posts it seems that you executed your job as a Customs agent with integrity. However, you make the false assumption that all the other Customs agents did the same thing. If I really thought every police officer was an honest upstanding individual who executed their job with integrity, I'd have no problem answering a cop who asked me a few questions while I was walking down the street. Have met far too many (and I'm sure I'm not alone) who are in love with the power that's given to them, have the attitude that they can arrest as may people as they want, and go home at night an spank it while holding their badges </sarcasm> unless circumstances created understandable suspicion any question by law enforcement would be met with "you got a warrant?"
I understand Customs agents have a job to do but giving them a blank check of authority is just going to make sure fewer and fewer people visit the US.
Two items of interest (disclaimer: I'm a former employee of the banking industry):
Banker's aren't trained to look for suspicious items in the invasive sense that you're suggesting. They don't check to see if you've made any purchases to "ImprovisedExplosiveSupplies.com". The suspicious activity they're looking for are related to money laundering. The "know your customer" campaign at most banks was related to some of the PATRIOT Act requirements imposed post 9/11 (and unlike most of the PATRIOT Act the requirements were relatively reasonable). After 9/11 all banks had to keep records of how you were identified when opening an account (copy of drivers license is sufficient I think, but I've been out of banking for a while).
The other item you leave out is that by Federal Law all bank employees (and I think this even filters down as low as the janitor) are required to have data protection training at least one per year. My bank is the last place I worry about my information getting out through.
And I don't know about the bankers you've met, but most I've met are very enamored with written rules. At the bank I work at, we weren't giving any information out to anyone who didn't have a warrant.
There fixed that for ya. </sarcasm>
That's the aspect of net neutrality that really scares the crap outta me/pisses me off. One of the most important things that the Internet has accomplished is making information very difficult to control. If every TV news source spins stories with some kind of 'America is so cool because...' it's no wonder that most of Americans generally believe the rest of the world has no good reason not to like us. Now we have access to foreign news sources and a variety of blogs providing different points of view. If Net Neutrality is thrown out the window we could easily regress to a time when CNN and FOX News are the only easily accessible news sources.
Yes, poor Steve Jobs is caught in the vicious jaws of the music industry...
Face it Apple loves DRM. Especially because the RIAA demands it. He gets to pretend he hates DRM to get in good with the consumers but that's exactly what's providing a lock-in to Apple brand media players. If Apple hated DRM as much as is claimed they wouldn't have a problem licensing their DRM out to Microsoft, or Sansa.
I know that Apple is the best underdog we have to root for against Microsoft but if one examines their business practices you gotta admit they're taking a lot of plays from Redmond's book. If the iTunes-iPod marriage isn't enough evidence for you I figured the iPhone SDK would be. </rant>
I've pretty much hated Apple since the iPod, which was about the same time I started hating Microsoft for reasons on than the BSOD. In hindsight as I'm concerned Apple an Microsoft are two of the same shiesters that bet on different ponies. Both had in mind to control the PC market. Microsoft did so through the OS but Apple threw a Hail Mary betting in could control the hardware market too. Both companies were playing the same game, but Bill's pony came in first.
If you look at their practices now Apple seems to be looking up to Microsoft. The iPod is a great player, and I'd own one if it wasn't so tightly linked to iTunes. That and the licensing behind the iPhone SDK are just two examples Apple trying the same tricks in Microsoft's play book.
I'm of the theory the lack of media coverage is anything but an accident. We all know that American companies are in bed with the government, but let's not forget how much the companies are in bed with each other.
When should we celebrate pie day? August 53rd at 9:73 ? Hmmmm, yea pie day isn't working out so well.
Cabinet's net worth according to Democrats.senate.gov
You're right in that they're not trying to cap salaries. H1B is a good program in intent. Unfortunately they left it wide open for abuse and it's being used by many companies (I'll grant not all) as a way to get cheap indentured servants. If a worker under H1B is treated badly by their employer their only option is to go back to their country of origin. The abuses of this program hurt both US born IT workers by driving the market value down and the foreign workers wanting to use this program as they're in a position of which they're easily taken advantage. And now the companies that are abusing the program and probably the company using the program in the spirit it was intended are lobbying Congress to get the cap increased.
I have no problem with the spirit of the H1B Visa program, but with the current manifestation the primary beneficiaries are large companies wanting to keep payroll low.
The most significant difference I see is the latter of the two groups isn't engaging in deception to try and get their goals legislated.
I myself practice palmistry (something I'm sure most think is smoke and mirrors, but stay with me for a moment). I don't claim to be able to tell anyone's future but I can learn things about their personality by examining their palm. A few years ago I had the pleasure of meeting someone studying acupuncture. The aspect she was currently studying was diagnosing health issues by feeling certain pulses within the wrist. She examined my pulses and was able to tell me a fair bit about my health. She inferred I was under a lot of stress at the time and I was a bit malnourished of late (I was in the middle of a divorce and had lost 15 pounds in 3 weeks). When she described how she knew these things I realized that palmistry and acupunctures method of diagnosis (at least that particular one) were basically the same thing. Observing traits and inferring generalizations based on the observations.
Science, for reasons that escape me, holds itself as keeper and mother of all knowledge. 200 years ago, had you told a tavern keeper you could make people eat more by changing the color of his establishment you'd be laughed at and/or burned as a witch. Modern psychology now explains the reasons behind this, but science didn't discover it. Shamen and mystics have used those techniques for centuries.
Provided that I'm informed of it and it doesn't extend to my personal life I have little objection to my employer observing me while I'm at work. After all what I'm doing at work is the business of my employer. And, if I find the level of observation to be unacceptable, I can take my services some where else.
There's no problem someone having information about you if that information is justly their business. It's very reasonable for you to tell your employer it's no of his business if he ask if you drink. It's not reasonable for you to tell him that if he asks if your drunk at work.
In similar news Al Capone was imprisoned for tax evasion. He wasn't imprisoned for nefarious gangster activities as is commonly believed, and in fact the government fully endorsed such activities.
Point acknowledged but there's often a big difference between the official and actual reason things are done.
That scenario doesn't surprise me in the least. Most people who roll their eyes when someone brings up the issue of privacy really think we're all talking about giving someone else privacy away. When people say "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" what they really mean (most likely without realizing it) is "I have nothing to hide and once the would be watchers realize that they'll go away and leave me alone."
The official professed reason is no leaking classified info, but believe me, they'll censor plenty more than just what's classified.
Be Google.
Then by proxy we can say his presence hasn't had any measurable effect on policy.
You're quite right that a chance in the White House isn't suddenly going to turn us from a cesspool of corruption to the shining beacon of justice and morality that we pretend to be, but this is the most corrupt administration we've had in at least a century. Not only has the Bush Administration shown a willful disregard for the law, but they've pretty much flaunted it at every turn.
As an aside I think the larger reason for the state of things is the decadent indifference of the American people. In previous generations we tolerated such corruption out of fear of whatever boogy man the government created. The terrorism drum has been pounded so hard I don't think most Americans are generally fearful, we're just more comfortable watching American Idol.
Large scale power generation such as power plants are significantly more efficient than the small scale of an internal combustion engine. That's the difference. If my car is powered by electricity generated at a power plant, yea there's still pollution but a lot less energy is wasted and hence, less pollution per mile.
Cost of government / Number of citizens isn't a fair taxation method because quite frankly the more you have the more government benefits you consume. The best example of this I can think of is transportation infrastructure.
If I'm Joe Citizen, the roads that the city and state construct and maintain provide me with the benefit of being able to get around. Assuming there's a finite amount of driving over that road before it decays I'm consuming on average maybe 15000 miles a year of the transportation infrastructure.
Now if I'm Joe Industrialist, that same infrastructure provides a way for my workers to get to work (a benefit to both me and them), a way for me to receive supplies, a way for me to ship out goods. The benefits and consumption of the infrastructure for Joe Industrialist is much greater than Joe Citizen, so yes, Joe Industrialist should pay more.
False analogy.
The argument made on Slashdot, and elsewhere, is that the music is the promotional material. No promotional material is ever 100% effective. If I'm at the grocery store, get a free sample and don't purchase the product I don't feel any obligation to pay for the sample I've received.
There are two big differences between the government doing this and a company doing this.
If I give up privacy at the supermarket to save a few bucks, that's a choice that I've made. I could simply choose not to opt into this program if I wanted to retain anonymity. If it's a requirement of the store I can simply take my business elsewhere. With government programs of this nature you can't opt out, and short of fleeing the country, can't take your business elsewhere.
The second difference is when sign up for one of the programs your supermarket offers there's usually a privacy pledge in which they state they will do the utmost to protect your information and they promise that you're information will not be used for any purposes other than what's spelled out in the agreement. If they violate that promise I can take them to court. No such recourse exists if the government misuses your information. I would have no problem with the government having a database with my information in it if they could offer some kind of assurance that such wouldn't be abused (and I'm not holding my breath for that).
That's the cost of using Vista, so again my question, what do I get?
No one has to be looking out for the consumer, any benefit to the consumer in any business situation is entirely incidental. In their desperate fight against their own dying business model they're trying to gouge everyone they can. Suing file-shares doesn't seem to have generated any real revenue, the internet radio heist hasn't panned out (at least yet) now they're targeting broadcast radio. As they grow more hungry they're willing to hunt more dangerous prey. Hopefully they'll get eaten instead and we won't have to wait for them to starve to death.