Yes, both those things would hurt people, by infringing on their privacy. Moreover, these things would not help anyone. The scheme being discussed provides benefits to the participants, unlike the examples in the straw man argument you present.
Also note that this was never proposed as a total fix for anything, but rather as a part of a 'defense in depth' strategy.
Your basic argument, as presented, seems to be 'I don't think this will work,' but rather than explaining why you think it won't work, you've provided links and made reference to other people's thinking on vaguely related topics.
However, your real argument seems to be 'I don't want people telling me what to do.' As for that idea, see my sig.
We do force medical treatments on people, it's called vaccination and you need to get it if you want to go to public schools. Same thing could apply if you want to get on the Internet. Not one size fits all, obviously, but what would it hurt to require people to have some kind of protection? And what would it hurt to require ISPs to scan for known worms and bot-nets and quarantine those infected?
Boy, you are right, writing laws that say everyone has to have a copy of Norton on... wait a minute! That's not anything like what we were talking about!
The proposal was not for 'one mandated AV system.' FTFA:
That means fighting the bad guys at several levels, he said. "Just like we do defense in depth in IT, we have to do defense in depth in [hacking] response."
"I actually think the health care model... might be an interesting way to think about the problem," Charney said. With medical diseases, there are education programs, but there are also social programs to inspect people and quarantine the sick.
Defense in depth. Detection of, not local virus activity, but actual networked bot-net activity, and quarantine. Call me naive, but this sounds like a good idea. We already call them viruses and worms, why not take a page from the medical playbook? And taxation was only one method proposed to pay for it.
Imagine if doctors had said, "polio is here to stay,' and given up.
Right, licensed doctors, licensed lawyers, licensed therapists: these are good things because unqualified people in these fields can cause serious harm. Unqualified journalists aren't going to hurt anyone, except maybe English teachers.
The law still does not entitle anyone to press credentials. You have to act like a journalist, the only change is that you don't have to be working for a big company. And the city can not mandate that anyone but the city honor those press credentials. So, what has really changed? It's slightly easier to break into the field of journalism. That is all.
Real cynics do not believe or disbelieve things. They suppose things, and they wonder. You are not a cynic as you have very strong beliefs, i.e. 'The government is incompetent.' Cynicism is an actual, real philosophy, and not just the idea that everything sucks. The philosophy that everything is bad is known as 'laziness,' as it is really just an excuse not to care about anything.
However, I agree with the rest of your statements. I was never actually arguing for more government regulation of the Internet, you know.
However, i don't see this as regulation of the Internet, I see this as described, like vaccinations. Would enough people have gotten vaccinated to make a difference unless it were mandated? I think not. The concept of Herd Immunity applies to the online ecosystem as well.
In short, if we compare this proposal to anything, we should compare it to the vaccination programs enacted by the government, which have been remarkably successful. Seen anyone with polio lately? I for one would put up with a government mandated 'shot' for my computer if it meant no more viruses, and based on similar government programs in the past, I have no reason to believe this would be unsuccessful.
Rule three sounds like it is covered by the new policy. The policy is not, 'anyone can get a press pass.' It is, 'Anyone can apply for a press pass, and if it looks anything like they have been practicing journalism, even on a blog no one reads, they will get it.' Someone with a history of disruption likely would not receive a pass in the first place, and someone who ceases to act like a journalist could have it revoked.
The main change is that you don't have to be paid, or working for a big news outlet, to get a press pass. You just have to act like a journalist.
If you engage your brain before posting, you will see that this post is a rebuttal to an argument for restricting press passes to those who have already worked in the field, i.e. to working journalists, that is to say, the policy we had before the change. Meaning, the 1 day pass rule would not apply.
Get it? This wasn't a reply to the article, it was a reply to an argument against the changed policy. Meaning, your post was an absolute non sequiter, a waste of time.
I think you may be reminiscing about the good old days when journalism was actually a respectable profession there, pops. Journalism has devolved into corporate press releases and edutainment over the last quarter century. But that's actually beside the point.
This is about freedom of expression. Journalists should not be a special class of people who receive special privileges. Journalism isn't engineering or programming, it is fairly simple. There is no reason to limit journalism to professionals, because unprofessional journalists can't really cause any more harm to society than professionals, unlike most other professions, and unlike all regulated professions. Unlike a VB program, most everyone can read an article and decide for themselves whether it is full of holes or trash.
So, press passes should be available to anyone who wants them. If you screw up, you get your pass taken away. It's that simple. No need for false elitism. Seriously, I challenge anyone to a.) list the privileges having a press pass gives you, and b.) explain why those privileges are so dangerous they should be limited to professional journalists, and for extra credit, c.) show why journalists themselves deserve those privileges and how they won't be a danger in the hands of professionals.
I am of the opinion that things should only be limited or regulated for good cause. There are lots of good causes to limit or regulate a good many things, but not journalism.
Meh, sorry, rereading the thread, it wasn't actually you that said those things.
Interesting, though, you take the same tack as the other fellow here in your reply. Incompetence is the default state, any evidence of competence is only evidence of competence in that one area, and no evidence of general competence.
I am reminded of the bit from Monty Python's Life of Brian, "All right... all right... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans done for us? "
Let's go back to your original claim, "The government can't handle the internet due to incompetence, not lack of money."
In what way is the government 'not handling the Internet?'
Okay, call it social liberalism then. Here in America, people are calling it socialism. But then again, they call anything they don't want to pay for socialism.
But you won't accept any evidence that the government is not incompetent. You dismiss it as unrelated. Running the Internet is not the same as helping create it. Or putting a man on the moon. Or running the world's largest armed services. Or the planet's largest road network. None of those things are any evidence of competence to you.
So, I think we can reduce your argument to "Everyone I don't like is incompetent and nothing will change my mind." Well, I don't think you are competent to judge, you've shown yourself to be someone who makes judgments a priori and refuses to accept evidence counter to your beliefs.
My point was that you generally have to listen to a sermon to receive the charity, but I was kind of just being a dick saying that. Some churches do good charitable works without proselytizing.
No shit. When someone stops trying to have an argument, and starts using ad hominems, then it's time to whip out the abuse. What's the point in arguing with someone who won't even acknowledge your argument as anything more than (and I'm quoting here) 'blah blah blah.'
I don't need to make up numbers to support my point, dipshit, the numbers are irrelevant to the point. Thought I made that clear, but I see we have a short bus crowd with us today so I guess I should use simpler words. The whole 'spam/porn' line was a fucking JOKE, idiot.
My point is that if you have a job, but you feel insecure about getting another, about your worth to society and your ability to provide for yourself and your family, you will not voluntarily give up that job just because the job has become useless to society.
People who are secure and comfortable would give up a useless job, look up Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. "Self Actualization' is at the top. If you've met all your other needs, you can focus on becoming the person you want to be. Nobody wants to be useless.
Look up games theory, read about games like the Dictator game. It isn't theory, it's documented fact. These experiments were carried out with months worth of salary in cash on the line. People act out of feelings of fairness and reciprocity, just not all people, and for most people, not all of the time. But it's very simple, and well documented.
Basically, about 5% of people are always selfish, while about 15% are always fair. The rest are fair by default, but if unfairness isn't punished then they will also act selfishly to avoid being taken advantage of. As our current society actually rewards selfishness, and the average person has no way of punishing unfairness, people in our society act selfishly.
If everyone had guaranteed food, water, and shelter, we wouldn't need locks. Survival trumps everything, people don't care about fairness and reciprocity if they are starving.
I knew that was a bit unfair when I wrote it, and I totally deserve to get called on it by someone who actually does good charitable work through a church. Sorry.
Uhm, the Federal Interstate Highway system isn't Federal?
Nothing I've said is anywhere near as ludicrous and unsupported as the assertion that the government is universally incompetent. I presented evidence of government competence, but I guess the fact of government incompetence is so obvious to some people that no evidence need be provided?
I think if you smell the numbers, you can guess where I pulled them from. They were for the purpose of illustrating my point about positive externalities and therefore I wasn't too concerned about accuracy. The point would be just as valid with any reasonable numbers plugged in.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, both those things would hurt people, by infringing on their privacy. Moreover, these things would not help anyone. The scheme being discussed provides benefits to the participants, unlike the examples in the straw man argument you present.
Also note that this was never proposed as a total fix for anything, but rather as a part of a 'defense in depth' strategy.
Your basic argument, as presented, seems to be 'I don't think this will work,' but rather than explaining why you think it won't work, you've provided links and made reference to other people's thinking on vaguely related topics.
However, your real argument seems to be 'I don't want people telling me what to do.' As for that idea, see my sig.
We do force medical treatments on people, it's called vaccination and you need to get it if you want to go to public schools. Same thing could apply if you want to get on the Internet. Not one size fits all, obviously, but what would it hurt to require people to have some kind of protection? And what would it hurt to require ISPs to scan for known worms and bot-nets and quarantine those infected?
Boy, you are right, writing laws that say everyone has to have a copy of Norton on... wait a minute! That's not anything like what we were talking about!
The proposal was not for 'one mandated AV system.' FTFA:
That means fighting the bad guys at several levels, he said. "Just like we do defense in depth in IT, we have to do defense in depth in [hacking] response."
"I actually think the health care model ... might be an interesting way to think about the problem," Charney said. With medical diseases, there are education programs, but there are also social programs to inspect people and quarantine the sick.
Defense in depth. Detection of, not local virus activity, but actual networked bot-net activity, and quarantine. Call me naive, but this sounds like a good idea. We already call them viruses and worms, why not take a page from the medical playbook? And taxation was only one method proposed to pay for it.
Imagine if doctors had said, "polio is here to stay,' and given up.
Right, licensed doctors, licensed lawyers, licensed therapists: these are good things because unqualified people in these fields can cause serious harm. Unqualified journalists aren't going to hurt anyone, except maybe English teachers.
The law still does not entitle anyone to press credentials. You have to act like a journalist, the only change is that you don't have to be working for a big company. And the city can not mandate that anyone but the city honor those press credentials. So, what has really changed? It's slightly easier to break into the field of journalism. That is all.
Real cynics do not believe or disbelieve things. They suppose things, and they wonder. You are not a cynic as you have very strong beliefs, i.e. 'The government is incompetent.' Cynicism is an actual, real philosophy, and not just the idea that everything sucks. The philosophy that everything is bad is known as 'laziness,' as it is really just an excuse not to care about anything.
However, I agree with the rest of your statements. I was never actually arguing for more government regulation of the Internet, you know.
However, i don't see this as regulation of the Internet, I see this as described, like vaccinations. Would enough people have gotten vaccinated to make a difference unless it were mandated? I think not. The concept of Herd Immunity applies to the online ecosystem as well.
In short, if we compare this proposal to anything, we should compare it to the vaccination programs enacted by the government, which have been remarkably successful. Seen anyone with polio lately? I for one would put up with a government mandated 'shot' for my computer if it meant no more viruses, and based on similar government programs in the past, I have no reason to believe this would be unsuccessful.
You don't have a scientist license from an accredited science license producing institution? How did you get a job in the field without a degree?
While I agree with your sentiment, you used a bad example as 'scientist' is actually a field with significant barriers to entry.
Rule three sounds like it is covered by the new policy. The policy is not, 'anyone can get a press pass.' It is, 'Anyone can apply for a press pass, and if it looks anything like they have been practicing journalism, even on a blog no one reads, they will get it.' Someone with a history of disruption likely would not receive a pass in the first place, and someone who ceases to act like a journalist could have it revoked.
The main change is that you don't have to be paid, or working for a big news outlet, to get a press pass. You just have to act like a journalist.
If you engage your brain before posting, you will see that this post is a rebuttal to an argument for restricting press passes to those who have already worked in the field, i.e. to working journalists, that is to say, the policy we had before the change. Meaning, the 1 day pass rule would not apply.
Get it? This wasn't a reply to the article, it was a reply to an argument against the changed policy. Meaning, your post was an absolute non sequiter, a waste of time.
I think you may be reminiscing about the good old days when journalism was actually a respectable profession there, pops. Journalism has devolved into corporate press releases and edutainment over the last quarter century. But that's actually beside the point.
This is about freedom of expression. Journalists should not be a special class of people who receive special privileges. Journalism isn't engineering or programming, it is fairly simple. There is no reason to limit journalism to professionals, because unprofessional journalists can't really cause any more harm to society than professionals, unlike most other professions, and unlike all regulated professions. Unlike a VB program, most everyone can read an article and decide for themselves whether it is full of holes or trash.
So, press passes should be available to anyone who wants them. If you screw up, you get your pass taken away. It's that simple. No need for false elitism. Seriously, I challenge anyone to a.) list the privileges having a press pass gives you, and b.) explain why those privileges are so dangerous they should be limited to professional journalists, and for extra credit, c.) show why journalists themselves deserve those privileges and how they won't be a danger in the hands of professionals.
I am of the opinion that things should only be limited or regulated for good cause. There are lots of good causes to limit or regulate a good many things, but not journalism.
Meh, sorry, rereading the thread, it wasn't actually you that said those things.
Interesting, though, you take the same tack as the other fellow here in your reply. Incompetence is the default state, any evidence of competence is only evidence of competence in that one area, and no evidence of general competence.
I am reminded of the bit from Monty Python's Life of Brian, "All right... all right... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans done for us? "
Let's go back to your original claim, "The government can't handle the internet due to incompetence, not lack of money."
In what way is the government 'not handling the Internet?'
Okay, call it social liberalism then. Here in America, people are calling it socialism. But then again, they call anything they don't want to pay for socialism.
But you won't accept any evidence that the government is not incompetent. You dismiss it as unrelated. Running the Internet is not the same as helping create it. Or putting a man on the moon. Or running the world's largest armed services. Or the planet's largest road network. None of those things are any evidence of competence to you.
So, I think we can reduce your argument to "Everyone I don't like is incompetent and nothing will change my mind." Well, I don't think you are competent to judge, you've shown yourself to be someone who makes judgments a priori and refuses to accept evidence counter to your beliefs.
My point was that you generally have to listen to a sermon to receive the charity, but I was kind of just being a dick saying that. Some churches do good charitable works without proselytizing.
And the idea that all governments are universally incompetent is a stupid libertarian myth.
I'm absolutely and 100% in agreement with everything you've just said.
No shit. When someone stops trying to have an argument, and starts using ad hominems, then it's time to whip out the abuse. What's the point in arguing with someone who won't even acknowledge your argument as anything more than (and I'm quoting here) 'blah blah blah.'
I'm not the one that needs your advice, friend.
I don't need to make up numbers to support my point, dipshit, the numbers are irrelevant to the point. Thought I made that clear, but I see we have a short bus crowd with us today so I guess I should use simpler words. The whole 'spam/porn' line was a fucking JOKE, idiot.
That pretty well describes pudge's fallback argument, and he has to fall back to it every single time, lol.
It's more like mud wrestling a pig. Afterwords, you feel dirty but the pig is happy.
My point is that if you have a job, but you feel insecure about getting another, about your worth to society and your ability to provide for yourself and your family, you will not voluntarily give up that job just because the job has become useless to society.
People who are secure and comfortable would give up a useless job, look up Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. "Self Actualization' is at the top. If you've met all your other needs, you can focus on becoming the person you want to be. Nobody wants to be useless.
Look up games theory, read about games like the Dictator game. It isn't theory, it's documented fact. These experiments were carried out with months worth of salary in cash on the line. People act out of feelings of fairness and reciprocity, just not all people, and for most people, not all of the time. But it's very simple, and well documented.
Basically, about 5% of people are always selfish, while about 15% are always fair. The rest are fair by default, but if unfairness isn't punished then they will also act selfishly to avoid being taken advantage of. As our current society actually rewards selfishness, and the average person has no way of punishing unfairness, people in our society act selfishly.
If everyone had guaranteed food, water, and shelter, we wouldn't need locks. Survival trumps everything, people don't care about fairness and reciprocity if they are starving.
I knew that was a bit unfair when I wrote it, and I totally deserve to get called on it by someone who actually does good charitable work through a church. Sorry.
Uhm, the Federal Interstate Highway system isn't Federal?
Nothing I've said is anywhere near as ludicrous and unsupported as the assertion that the government is universally incompetent. I presented evidence of government competence, but I guess the fact of government incompetence is so obvious to some people that no evidence need be provided?
I think if you smell the numbers, you can guess where I pulled them from. They were for the purpose of illustrating my point about positive externalities and therefore I wasn't too concerned about accuracy. The point would be just as valid with any reasonable numbers plugged in.
The why not say "ISPs already pay income tax?" Allow me to quote the post I was replying to:
Taxes are already being paid on online transactions and a cut of every bill from your ISP.
The government can't handle the internet due to incompetence, not lack of money,
They don't pay a tax on online transactions, and they don't give a cut out of every bill, they pay income tax like everyone else does.