Or, consider this it boils down to who "owns" that information- My private information is mine- I should retain ownership, and from that, control. If I give it to you, you can use it, but you should have no right to distribute it further, unless I grant you that right.
I would agree, but only if you make that provision when giving the info to me. Anything given is implcitly given without restriction. Unless that restriction (that only I can use the info) is made explicit, I ought to be able to do whatever I please with it. If there is no privacy policy listed, don't give the info to that person.
It's like giving money to panhandlers. A handful of change (generic demographic data), hey, who cares what he does with it. A hundred bucks (name, DOB, SSN, address, phone number), one ought to be looking for some reasonable assurances that the money will be spent in a way I see fit.
Yours truly,
Mr. X
...the more we keep discussing this, the more we agree...
True, but the companies to keep our eyes on are the private corporations buying that information and selling the data about us. They can aggregate it, correlate different information and come to their own conclusions. This aggregation is what "data mining" is all about. What if the database is screwed up? Will you be able to find out before it screws up your life? You miss out on a job? You miss out on a home loan? There are mechanisms to correct mistakes, but they are universally slow.
I'll agree with you that the agencies shouldn't be able to sell your info. But putting restrictions on the aggregators is like saying, "Yeah, I see the sink overflowing, but what we really need is more and better mops to clean up the floor." What we need is to turn the faucet off. If privacy regulation is in fact needed, I would think that the government should start with the beam in their own eye.
Once it leaves the government's hands, they have lost all control. All government agencies are accountable, for the most part, (ultimately) to the citizens of that country. (Yes, I know there are major exceptions.) If there is enough uproar (as there was a few years back about driver's license records, which enabled a stalker to find, and ultimately murder, a sit-com actress) the government will change its laws.
But the info didn't magically 'leave the government's hands'. It was sold, and your privacy with it. The plac to start is to stop the government from selling the info in the first place.
Right now, privacy is being treated as an opt-out process- I would prefer if it was, by default, opt-in. Since we don't necessarily know all the data that is collected about us, I want all information about me to be considered private, and let me decide what is to be made public.
If a private company wants to distribute it, they should have to tell me what information they are selling and to whom. I would prefer it if my state would not distribute this information, but ultimately, it will have to be a federal action that forces privacy. As it stands now, if it is not expressly prohibited, it is permitted.
Agreed, for data collected by the state (state in the broader context of government). It's bad enough that they collect the data in the first place, but to sell it, that's ridiculous.
As for information given to marketers, banks, etc, the onus should fall on the consumer to read the fine print (or lack thereof). Caveat emptor. If Joe Public went into a transaction remembering that the lack of a policy is a policy (a policy of doing whatever we goddam well please with your info), this wouldn't be a problem.
Regulation is not the solution to stupid people giving out info to a web site that they'd never give out over the phone.
(to be truthful, it appears that for the most part, we agree, unless, I'm being particularly dense and failing to catch on to your irony)
We do. My major peeve, as stated above, is that we're setting the fox to guard the henhouse. We should at least hobble the fox first.
Much easier said than done. Some things can't be kept out of the public record- such as deed information- I've bought 2 houses, and I have no choice but to have that information available. I don't mind if the local public utility uses it to send me a letter informing me of something they have to do in the right-of-way. On the other hand, this same database is *SOLD* by the state (I'm in the USA) to direct mailers, Mortgage companies, and so on. My vehicle registration information has been sold. I've asked for them not to, but the lists go out immediately after the registration, but the "opt-out" takes up to 8 weeks, and I have to opt out of each individual VIN registered to me, I'm given no option to blanket-deny any requests under my name.
Note that the examples you've listed are all examples of governmental agencies selling your info. These would be the same folks Katz would like to 'protect' us from privacy loss. Tres ironic.
Personally, I see your point, but public record is just that, public. Private info, on the other hand, should be private unless you give out rights to it. However, if there's no stipulation when the info is given out, caveat emptor.
Or we can just pass a law, and the problem will go away.
Yours truly,
Mr. X
...ever since I got this hammer, everything looks like a nail...
C'mon, 'controlled decent[sic]'? Normally, I could chalk this up to poor geek literacy, but Descent is the name of a computer game, and so should be embedded in the subconscious of our fearless CmdrTaco.
In my opinion this is a violation of his first Amendment right to freedom of speach. He didn't wanted the award and expressed it through his action of putting the crown on the ground. Just another example of some lowlife highschool teachers making them all look like idiots.
Perhaps, but as a minor within a public school, he has substantially abridged Constitutional rights. Not that that makes what they did right.
In California (and elsewhere), the Liberty Youth Coalition is trying to make a difference in these kind of issues.
It's just that eliciting requirements, and documenting them, is boring. If a project is started to scratch a programmer's "itch", that programmer is unlikely to write down a good description of the itch. Usually, people mean to write it down, but that's usually a lower priority than the documentation, making it a very low priority indeed.
If an open source project is meant for a wider audience, like a word processor, or a personal finance package, it's imperative that requirements are gathered and documented, so as to avoid a plethora of "cool" features that aren't important to the vast majority of users.
Yours truly,
Mr. X
...ah, requirements...
Re:There is NO maximum wage!!!!
on
Should You Vote?
·
· Score: 1
I admit, I was confused. I had entered http://www.greenparty.org into my web browser, found the Green Party USA's web site, and read their platform. In that platform, it calls for a maximum wage and the nationalization of large corporations.
I should have realized that I wanted http://www.gp.org, the Association of State Green Parties. Their platform is more moderate.
Of course Nader/LaDuke don't fully agree with either, so that's a little bit confusing.
Silly me, my bad.;)
Yours truly,
Mr. X
...almost as fractious as the Reform Party...
Re:There is NO maximum wage!!!!
on
Should You Vote?
·
· Score: 1
Which Green party was that again? I get them so confused sometimes...
Re:The Middle Class' Best Interest is to Vote Nade
on
Should You Vote?
·
· Score: 1
Go ahead -- read the Green Party Platform and you'll find nothing about a Maximum wage or the nationalization of large companines. Those are NOT what the Green Party stands for.
My apologies. Silly me, I had associated the statements of the party's candidate with the party.
My leanings are more Libertarian than anything else, but the party is run by impractical idealists. They keep shooting for the moon (the Presidency) without making a serious attempt to build a base at the local and state levels. Even if by some miracle Harry Browne managed to get himself elected, he'd be facing a Congress comprising nothing but the opposition, each and every one of whom would have his destruction as the main objective. That's no way to get your agenda passed. If Libertarians want to get their ideas adopted, they should be getting themselves elected to school boards, county commissioner, city attorney, state senator, etc. before taking a shot at the higher jobs. So, the next best party to promote my beliefs at the higher office levels are Republicans, flawed and usually spineless as they are.
In a word, bullshit. Sure, the national party aims for the Presidency, but we have the best grassroots organization of any third party. Period. More office holders, more members, more candidates, more activists. We are getting elected to school boards, county commissioners, mayor, and state legislatures. We are organized and active in every state.
I apologize if your experience has been otherwise, but, as a local activist myself, I've seen the grassroots, and it's powerful. Don't compromise your principles.
and as far as third party candidates go, its just a protest vote. they're not going to capture 1% of the vote so who cares.
You know, with the number of people in 1992 who said, in exit polls, that they "would have voted for Perot if it wasn't a 'wasted vote'", Perot could have won that election, or at least come in second.
I can't make you vote, but unless everyone stops listening to people that say that the third party movement is never going to get anywhere, and start voting for third parties, it's not. Get off your lazy ass, and stop being such a punk. Defeatism helps nobody.
I hate to break it to you, but that's just out of the frying pan and into the fire, when it comes to percentages of Democrats.;)
If you're interested in getting involved with the Maryland Libertarian Party, drop me an email. We're not as big as the Republicans, but we aren't sell-outs either, and you can still effect some real change from outside the duopoly.
The following conditions have convinced me not to vote: If no candidate accurately represents your views If no candidate represents my views significantly better than any other candidate If you really believe historical precedence that half of what they say they will do they won't do anyway
Ah, but there's the rub. The idea that no candidate represents your view (or at least comes close), is absurd. In addition to those two white guys who argue on TV in different colored ties, there are also, Browne (Libertarian), Nader (Commu^H^H^H^H^HGreen), Buchanan (Fasc^H^H^H^HReform), Hagelin (Natural Law/Other Reform), and Phillips (Constitution). And those are just the ones on enough state ballots to have a chance of winning. There are also about 300 other candidates (see Dark Horse 2000 for a list) who are seriously wacky, who you could write in.
If you play the game by the rules the Man hands you, of course you lose. What did you expect. Electoral politics these days is crafted to keep people at home. With a smaller base, that's less people to pander to.
Vote for somebody. My preference is Browne (http://www.harrybrowne.org), but vote for anybody who doesn't stand for the status quo.
Yours truly,
Mr. X
...passionate...
Re:The Middle Class' Best Interest is to Vote Nade
on
Should You Vote?
·
· Score: 1
Browne is the best choice of the disaffected majority. All the good social freedoms of the left, and all the good fiscal freedoms of the right. Harry Browne wants you to be free, doesn't take FEC money because it's wrong, not because he doesn't qualify, and is a generally nice guy.
Read the Green platform before you vote for Nader. Maximum wage. Nationalization of large companies. Government representatives on the boards of the other corporations.
"Watermelon Ralph Nader. Green on the outside, Red in the middle."
I guess I'm stuck voting for the lesser of two evils in the presidential election, Gore is pretty unimpressive, but I'm going to vote for him. GWB reminds me of Councilor/Darth Sidious from SWE1, definite disconnection from reality there, everything he says makes me distrust everything he says. My internal bullshit/untrustable filters indicate 100% BS, bright lights flashing and sirens going off. (Although, I gotta say Liebermann LOOKS more like Darth Sidious!:)
You're not stuck doing anything. If you want the LP to live, don't sell out and vote for Bush or Gore. If there aren't a lot of people running as Libertarians, run, or get a friend to run. Between apathy and ballot access laws, Libertarians have some major hurdles to cross, but we're making steady progress, and sustainable progress at that, as opposed to the Reform Party, which has just imploded after only 8 years of existence.
This is covered by fair use. That doesn't prevent companies from trying to bluster people into stopping doing things they don't like. Pud should just send polite replies pointing this out, and otherwise ignore the cease-and-desists.
As far as the Fucked Company logo issue goes, one word. Parody.
Which idealab! property is being confused with Fucked Company? The only logo I know of that's at all similar to the Fucked Company logo is that of Fast Company, and I don't think they are owned/connected to idealab!. And even if they were, thanks to model citizens like Larry Flynt, parody is pretty well protected legally.
"U.S. [sic]crporations should have more than one purpose. They also owe something to their workers and the communities in which they operate, and they should sometimes sacrifice some profit for the sake of making things better for their workers and communities."
Now I'm a little bit unclear here. If I recall correctly, corporations' purpose is to provide profit for their shareholders. To have more than one purpose would necessarily dilute the focus of the directors away from the primary purpose of profits. Unfortunately, if U. S. corporations are made to concern themselves with other things, they become less competetive in the world market, and we turn into France. ("What's that work week length again?")
Yours truly,
Mr. X
P.S. Please note that a concern solely for profits doesn't negate the idea of responsible corporate citizenship. It would appear that Bridgestone/Firestone forgot the concept of long-term profitability. *snicker*
True, NT supports a POSIX personality for programs. There is one caveat: if you want a C2-certified system, you have to disable the POSIX subsystem.
This is a common misconception, and not true. I know, because I read the NT C2 guidelines to do the security design and implementation for an Army logistics system being built under NT.
The actual security guidelines for making NT C2 recommend disabling POSIX, but only because most people don't use it. The very next line says that there was nothing that they found in the POSIX subsystem that was a problem for C2 compliance.
Basically, unless your application requires POSIX (multi-platform stuff, or a port from a legacy *nix), you should disable it, just like you would disable a network service that isn't being used.
Slashdot Mirror
Or, consider this it boils down to who "owns" that information- My private information is mine- I should retain ownership, and from that, control. If I give it to you, you can use it, but you should have no right to distribute it further, unless I grant you that right.
I would agree, but only if you make that provision when giving the info to me. Anything given is implcitly given without restriction. Unless that restriction (that only I can use the info) is made explicit, I ought to be able to do whatever I please with it. If there is no privacy policy listed, don't give the info to that person.
It's like giving money to panhandlers. A handful of change (generic demographic data), hey, who cares what he does with it. A hundred bucks (name, DOB, SSN, address, phone number), one ought to be looking for some reasonable assurances that the money will be spent in a way I see fit.
Yours truly,
Mr. X
...the more we keep discussing this, the more we agree...
True, but the companies to keep our eyes on are the private corporations buying that information and selling the data about us. They can aggregate it, correlate different information and come to their own conclusions. This aggregation is what "data mining" is all about. What if the database is screwed up? Will you be able to find out before it screws up your life? You miss out on a job? You miss out on a home loan? There are mechanisms to correct mistakes, but they are universally slow.
I'll agree with you that the agencies shouldn't be able to sell your info. But putting restrictions on the aggregators is like saying, "Yeah, I see the sink overflowing, but what we really need is more and better mops to clean up the floor." What we need is to turn the faucet off. If privacy regulation is in fact needed, I would think that the government should start with the beam in their own eye.
Once it leaves the government's hands, they have lost all control. All government agencies are accountable, for the most part, (ultimately) to the citizens of that country. (Yes, I know there are major exceptions.) If there is enough uproar (as there was a few years back about driver's license records, which enabled a stalker to find, and ultimately murder, a sit-com actress) the government will change its laws.
But the info didn't magically 'leave the government's hands'. It was sold, and your privacy with it. The plac to start is to stop the government from selling the info in the first place.
Right now, privacy is being treated as an opt-out process- I would prefer if it was, by default, opt-in. Since we don't necessarily know all the data that is collected about us, I want all information about me to be considered private, and let me decide what is to be made public.
If a private company wants to distribute it, they should have to tell me what information they are selling and to whom. I would prefer it if my state would not distribute this information, but ultimately, it will have to be a federal action that forces privacy. As it stands now, if it is not expressly prohibited, it is permitted.
Agreed, for data collected by the state (state in the broader context of government). It's bad enough that they collect the data in the first place, but to sell it, that's ridiculous.
As for information given to marketers, banks, etc, the onus should fall on the consumer to read the fine print (or lack thereof). Caveat emptor. If Joe Public went into a transaction remembering that the lack of a policy is a policy (a policy of doing whatever we goddam well please with your info), this wouldn't be a problem.
Regulation is not the solution to stupid people giving out info to a web site that they'd never give out over the phone.
(to be truthful, it appears that for the most part, we agree, unless, I'm being particularly dense and failing to catch on to your irony)
We do. My major peeve, as stated above, is that we're setting the fox to guard the henhouse. We should at least hobble the fox first.
Yours truly,
Mr. X
...ain't privacy fun...
Much easier said than done. Some things can't be kept out of the public record- such as deed information- I've bought 2 houses, and I have no choice but to have that information available. I don't mind if the local public utility uses it to send me a letter informing me of something they have to do in the right-of-way. On the other hand, this same database is *SOLD* by the state (I'm in the USA) to direct mailers, Mortgage companies, and so on. My vehicle registration information has been sold. I've asked for them not to, but the lists go out immediately after the registration, but the "opt-out" takes up to 8 weeks, and I have to opt out of each individual VIN registered to me, I'm given no option to blanket-deny any requests under my name.
Note that the examples you've listed are all examples of governmental agencies selling your info. These would be the same folks Katz would like to 'protect' us from privacy loss. Tres ironic.
Personally, I see your point, but public record is just that, public. Private info, on the other hand, should be private unless you give out rights to it. However, if there's no stipulation when the info is given out, caveat emptor.
Or we can just pass a law, and the problem will go away.
Yours truly,
Mr. X
...ever since I got this hammer, everything looks like a nail...
Dear Jon,
If you don't give your info out, people don't have it. If you don't specify that it be kept confidential, it won't be, nor should it be.
Your article fails to make a compelling statement of the 'problem', in its unabashed eagerness to offer up government regulation as the solution.
Yours truly,
Mr. X
P.S. Wired 9.02, pp 74 Online Privacy, by Stuart Luman. You've been scooped on this one.
...regulation cures all ills...
3G is the ISDN of wireless data. Highly touted, sounds good on paper, sucks in comparison to the other options.
Ricochet is faster, not dependent on FCC approval, and currently working. 3G is...well...coming soon...probably.
Yours truly,
Mr. X
...3G needs a bit more thought...
C'mon, 'controlled decent[sic]'? Normally, I could chalk this up to poor geek literacy, but Descent is the name of a computer game, and so should be embedded in the subconscious of our fearless CmdrTaco.
Bah.
Yours truly,
Mr. X
...me spill chucker works grate...
In my opinion this is a violation of his first Amendment right to freedom of speach. He didn't wanted the award and expressed it through his action of putting the crown on the ground. Just another example of some lowlife highschool teachers making them all look like idiots.
Perhaps, but as a minor within a public school, he has substantially abridged Constitutional rights. Not that that makes what they did right.
In California (and elsewhere), the Liberty Youth Coalition is trying to make a difference in these kind of issues.
Yours truly,
Mr. X
...fight the man...
It's just that eliciting requirements, and documenting them, is boring. If a project is started to scratch a programmer's "itch", that programmer is unlikely to write down a good description of the itch. Usually, people mean to write it down, but that's usually a lower priority than the documentation, making it a very low priority indeed.
If an open source project is meant for a wider audience, like a word processor, or a personal finance package, it's imperative that requirements are gathered and documented, so as to avoid a plethora of "cool" features that aren't important to the vast majority of users.
Yours truly,
Mr. X
...ah, requirements...
I admit, I was confused. I had entered http://www.greenparty.org into my web browser, found the Green Party USA's web site, and read their platform. In that platform, it calls for a maximum wage and the nationalization of large corporations.
;)
I should have realized that I wanted http://www.gp.org, the Association of State Green Parties. Their platform is more moderate.
Of course Nader/LaDuke don't fully agree with either, so that's a little bit confusing.
Silly me, my bad.
Yours truly,
Mr. X
...almost as fractious as the Reform Party...
Which Green party was that again? I get them so confused sometimes...
Yours truly,
Mr. X
...no Ralph no...
Amen.
Mr. X
...also a Libertarian, and voting that way...
Go ahead -- read the Green Party Platform and you'll find nothing about a Maximum wage or the nationalization of large companines. Those are NOT what the Green Party stands for.
My apologies. Silly me, I had associated the statements of the party's candidate with the party.
Yours truly,
Mr. X
...still voting for Browne...
My leanings are more Libertarian than anything else, but the party is run by impractical idealists. They keep shooting for the moon (the Presidency) without making a serious attempt to build a base at the local and state levels. Even if by some miracle Harry Browne managed to get himself elected, he'd be facing a Congress comprising nothing but the opposition, each and every one of whom would have his destruction as the main objective. That's no way to get your agenda passed. If Libertarians want to get their ideas adopted, they should be getting themselves elected to school boards, county commissioner, city attorney, state senator, etc. before taking a shot at the higher jobs. So, the next best party to promote my beliefs at the higher office levels are Republicans, flawed and usually spineless as they are.
In a word, bullshit. Sure, the national party aims for the Presidency, but we have the best grassroots organization of any third party. Period. More office holders, more members, more candidates, more activists. We are getting elected to school boards, county commissioners, mayor, and state legislatures. We are organized and active in every state.
I apologize if your experience has been otherwise, but, as a local activist myself, I've seen the grassroots, and it's powerful. Don't compromise your principles.
Yours truly,
Mr. X
...Libertarian...
and as far as third party candidates go, its just a protest vote. they're not going to capture 1% of the vote so who cares.
You know, with the number of people in 1992 who said, in exit polls, that they "would have voted for Perot if it wasn't a 'wasted vote'", Perot could have won that election, or at least come in second.
I can't make you vote, but unless everyone stops listening to people that say that the third party movement is never going to get anywhere, and start voting for third parties, it's not. Get off your lazy ass, and stop being such a punk. Defeatism helps nobody.
Yours truly,
Mr. X
...vote for Browne...
By the way, I'm moving to Maryland next month. :)
;)
I hate to break it to you, but that's just out of the frying pan and into the fire, when it comes to percentages of Democrats.
If you're interested in getting involved with the Maryland Libertarian Party, drop me an email. We're not as big as the Republicans, but we aren't sell-outs either, and you can still effect some real change from outside the duopoly.
Yours truly,
Mr. X
...Marylander...
The following conditions have convinced me not to vote: If no candidate accurately represents your views If no candidate represents my views significantly better than any other candidate If you really believe historical precedence that half of what they say they will do they won't do anyway
Ah, but there's the rub. The idea that no candidate represents your view (or at least comes close), is absurd. In addition to those two white guys who argue on TV in different colored ties, there are also, Browne (Libertarian), Nader (Commu^H^H^H^H^HGreen), Buchanan (Fasc^H^H^H^HReform), Hagelin (Natural Law/Other Reform), and Phillips (Constitution). And those are just the ones on enough state ballots to have a chance of winning. There are also about 300 other candidates (see Dark Horse 2000 for a list) who are seriously wacky, who you could write in.
If you play the game by the rules the Man hands you, of course you lose. What did you expect. Electoral politics these days is crafted to keep people at home. With a smaller base, that's less people to pander to.
Vote for somebody. My preference is Browne (http://www.harrybrowne.org), but vote for anybody who doesn't stand for the status quo.
Yours truly,
Mr. X
...passionate...
Browne is the best choice of the disaffected majority. All the good social freedoms of the left, and all the good fiscal freedoms of the right. Harry Browne wants you to be free, doesn't take FEC money because it's wrong, not because he doesn't qualify, and is a generally nice guy.
Read the Green platform before you vote for Nader. Maximum wage. Nationalization of large companies. Government representatives on the boards of the other corporations.
"Watermelon Ralph Nader. Green on the outside, Red in the middle."
Yours truly,
Mr. X
...Harry Browne...
Give me a candidate who speaks out against the war on drugs.
---
Harry Browne does. http://www.harrybrowne.org
Mr. X
Voting for Nader ensures that the Greens will get Federal matching funds in the future. That in and of itself is worth a vote for him.
Translation: Vote for Nader and the government will force everyone else to fund the next Green campaign.
Incidentally, it's this kind of thinking that has destroyed the Reform Party.
Yours truly,
Mr. X
...Browne don't want no matching funds...
I guess I'm stuck voting for the lesser of two evils in the presidential election, Gore is pretty unimpressive, but I'm going to vote for him. GWB reminds me of Councilor/Darth Sidious from SWE1, definite disconnection from reality there, everything he says makes me distrust everything he says. My internal bullshit/untrustable filters indicate 100% BS, bright lights flashing and sirens going off. (Although, I gotta say Liebermann LOOKS more like Darth Sidious! :)
You're not stuck doing anything. If you want the LP to live, don't sell out and vote for Bush or Gore. If there aren't a lot of people running as Libertarians, run, or get a friend to run. Between apathy and ballot access laws, Libertarians have some major hurdles to cross, but we're making steady progress, and sustainable progress at that, as opposed to the Reform Party, which has just imploded after only 8 years of existence.
Yours truly,
Mr. X
...vote Browne...
This is covered by fair use. That doesn't prevent companies from trying to bluster people into stopping doing things they don't like. Pud should just send polite replies pointing this out, and otherwise ignore the cease-and-desists.
As far as the Fucked Company logo issue goes, one word. Parody.
Yours truly,
Mr. X
Which idealab! property is being confused with Fucked Company? The only logo I know of that's at all similar to the Fucked Company logo is that of Fast Company, and I don't think they are owned/connected to idealab!. And even if they were, thanks to model citizens like Larry Flynt, parody is pretty well protected legally.
So basically,what the hell is this all about?
Yours truly,
Mr. X
"U.S. [sic]crporations should have more than one purpose. They also owe something to their workers and the communities in which they operate, and they should sometimes sacrifice some profit for the sake of making things better for their workers and communities."
Now I'm a little bit unclear here. If I recall correctly, corporations' purpose is to provide profit for their shareholders. To have more than one purpose would necessarily dilute the focus of the directors away from the primary purpose of profits. Unfortunately, if U. S. corporations are made to concern themselves with other things, they become less competetive in the world market, and we turn into France. ("What's that work week length again?")
Yours truly,
Mr. X
P.S. Please note that a concern solely for profits doesn't negate the idea of responsible corporate citizenship. It would appear that Bridgestone/Firestone forgot the concept of long-term profitability. *snicker*
True, NT supports a POSIX personality for programs. There is one caveat: if you want a C2-certified system, you have to disable the POSIX subsystem.
This is a common misconception, and not true. I know, because I read the NT C2 guidelines to do the security design and implementation for an Army logistics system being built under NT.
The actual security guidelines for making NT C2 recommend disabling POSIX, but only because most people don't use it. The very next line says that there was nothing that they found in the POSIX subsystem that was a problem for C2 compliance.
Basically, unless your application requires POSIX (multi-platform stuff, or a port from a legacy *nix), you should disable it, just like you would disable a network service that isn't being used.
Less services -> less potential security holes.
Yours truly,
Mr. X
Hey Derek,
Email me if and when you find a mirror/workaround.
Mr. X