I realize that there are literally hundreds of responses to this message, and I don't expect mine to generate anything significant. However, on the off-chance that the researchers are looking to Slashdot to get some 'data', I thought I'd respond.
In my life, I've learned that everything of value is a double-edged sword. The Internet is certainly no exception.
Look to the other posts about shut-ins, people reaching more than before, and you'll see the upside. Look at the number of posts - including mine, and you'll clearly see the downside as well.
Any technology that so changes the human experience has got to be dangerous. If only for it's ability to paralize those for whom it's taken away. Imagine what would happen to the shut-ins that depend on PeaPod, or talking to their relatives, or whatever...
When my son was on a heart monitor, we had a letter from the hospital that we gave to the local power company saying "These people get power first" because of the machine. we could have watched him, monitored his condition without the machine, but that's how serious it was treated.
Is anyone really treating the internet as seriously?
It seems to me to be at least as important as the heart monitor was...
I read many of these replies and I have to say that I'm amazed. Literally.
While I do not generally support the idea that knowledge is the property of any one person, each individual does have rights to protect and profit from their hard work.
If I were to create a program that monitored/. and stripped out all the banner ads and placed mine in it's place and called it 'dotslash' would it be OK? I'm guessing not.
But it's knowledge... - I don't buy it. The./ folks have a right not to have their hard work undermined and undervalued by simple rip-offs. If I take a book and copy it page for page that's clearly illegal. How about if I take a book, read a paragraph, write a "new" paragraph in a "new" book - is that also illegal?
Maybe not, but you can certainly see that there's a line between the normal educational process and wholesale rip-off of intellectual property.
Unfortunately, there aren't enough people that want to find the middle ground anymore. I can't support either side in the argument because they fail to see the other's point of view.
The more secure a system is the less user-friendly a system is. I don't want to have a retinal scan to use my gas charge card - it's just not worth it to me.
Also, I defy anyone to not give over their password/code-phrase/hand-print if some nut has a gun held to their spouse/child's head. If someone wants to get at anything in the world, all they have to do is be willing to sacrifice their life. Big deal.
Given that I am of little consequence in this world - I doubt anyone one of you knows me, I think the risk that my medical records will be the target of some well-funded person or persons bent on gathering my innermost details of my blood pressure is very low.
That's not to say that there shouldn't be some security, but it always needs to be balanced with the costs. An on-line medical system has enormous benefits, and while I want some security, I think the system of multiple emails is too much for me to want to use.
I like charge cards. So long as I don't report it stolen, I can use it very easily and conveniently. It's 'read' at thousands of places on the globe and works wonderfully most of the time. Working at a Bank I know that they have advanced systems to track fraud or other misuse.
If I had my Medical Insurance card so programmed, then I could 'swipe' it at the doctors office and they could get access to anything I had. If I needed my records on me, make it a smart card that I gave to them when I arrived, and took with me when I left. I could have numerous backup devices at my home under any level of security I wanted.
The web is now far more secure than mail and the phone which does far more business and carries as much sensitive data as this article talks about. Let it be and move on to something else.
Slashdot Mirror
I realize that there are literally hundreds of responses to this message, and I don't expect mine to generate anything significant. However, on the off-chance that the researchers are looking to Slashdot to get some 'data', I thought I'd respond.
In my life, I've learned that everything of value is a double-edged sword. The Internet is certainly no exception.
Look to the other posts about shut-ins, people reaching more than before, and you'll see the upside. Look at the number of posts - including mine, and you'll clearly see the downside as well.
Any technology that so changes the human experience has got to be dangerous. If only for it's ability to paralize those for whom it's taken away. Imagine what would happen to the shut-ins that depend on PeaPod, or talking to their relatives, or whatever...
When my son was on a heart monitor, we had a letter from the hospital that we gave to the local power company saying "These people get power first" because of the machine. we could have watched him, monitored his condition without the machine, but that's how serious it was treated.
Is anyone really treating the internet as seriously?
It seems to me to be at least as important as the heart monitor was...
I read many of these replies and I have to say that I'm amazed. Literally.
While I do not generally support the idea that knowledge is the property of any one person, each individual does have rights to protect and profit from their hard work.
If I were to create a program that monitored /. and stripped out all the banner ads and placed mine in it's place and called it 'dotslash' would it be OK? I'm guessing not.
But it's knowledge... - I don't buy it. The ./ folks have a right not to have their hard work undermined and undervalued by simple rip-offs. If I take a book and copy it page for page that's clearly illegal. How about if I take a book, read a paragraph, write a "new" paragraph in a "new" book - is that also illegal?
Maybe not, but you can certainly see that there's a line between the normal educational process and wholesale rip-off of intellectual property.
Unfortunately, there aren't enough people that want to find the middle ground anymore. I can't support either side in the argument because they fail to see the other's point of view.
Security is never absolute. Period.
The more secure a system is the less user-friendly a system is. I don't want to have a retinal scan to use my gas charge card - it's just not worth it to me.
Also, I defy anyone to not give over their password/code-phrase/hand-print if some nut has a gun held to their spouse/child's head. If someone wants to get at anything in the world, all they have to do is be willing to sacrifice their life. Big deal.
Given that I am of little consequence in this world - I doubt anyone one of you knows me, I think the risk that my medical records will be the target of some well-funded person or persons bent on gathering my innermost details of my blood pressure is very low .
That's not to say that there shouldn't be some security, but it always needs to be balanced with the costs. An on-line medical system has enormous benefits, and while I want some security, I think the system of multiple emails is too much for me to want to use.
I like charge cards. So long as I don't report it stolen, I can use it very easily and conveniently. It's 'read' at thousands of places on the globe and works wonderfully most of the time. Working at a Bank I know that they have advanced systems to track fraud or other misuse.
If I had my Medical Insurance card so programmed, then I could 'swipe' it at the doctors office and they could get access to anything I had. If I needed my records on me, make it a smart card that I gave to them when I arrived, and took with me when I left. I could have numerous backup devices at my home under any level of security I wanted.
The web is now far more secure than mail and the phone which does far more business and carries as much sensitive data as this article talks about. Let it be and move on to something else.