My comments above apply primarly to.COM and.NET domain names, though some is applicable to other other gTLDs.
Other gTLDs such as.ORG and.INFO have somewhat different policies; different security schemes.
If the domain name in question is in a ccTLD, such as.NU,.CC, etc, then much of what I posted doesn't apply. ccTLDs can be very difficult to deal with due to policy and jurisdictional issues; culture and customs.
The person needs to contact the registrar which the domain name was registered through to see what the status of the domain is...
If the domain was registered for them by their webhost, then they need to contact them again and ask what domain name registrar(s) they use.
Once they have contacted the proper registrar (there are about 100 of them to choose from, plus zillions of resellers), they'll likely be a lot closer to know what happened.
Another important detail is was the domain name active (website working) and then suddenly went "dead", etc or was it the domain one that was "forgotten" about for awhile?
Some possibilities...
* Either one got control of the registrar account for the domain or they tricked their registrar in releasing it and transferring it to another registrar and took control over it that way.
* The domain name could have expired - though typically there's a window of time where the domain doesn't resolve before actually being deleted...so for an active website, it's unlikely for this to occur since one usually has time to renew it even if it's been removed from the.com zone...plus there's an additional redemption period giving one even more time; at a hefty price.
* Domain was never registered to the person to begin with... perhaps it was actually in the name of the webhosting company or other entity which has since redirected the domain elsewhere.
* Whois information and/or other details were incorrect and someone filed a complaint about it to ICANN. The window of time before deletion in such instances can be much shorter and I'm not sure the redemption period applies or not...anyone know? This is really a "catch-22"...for if one's Whois information is wrong, how can they be contacted to correct it.
* UDRP was filed...assuming the person's Whois information was correct (reiterates again why updated Whois info is so important!), they should have received some emails and I believe at least one notice by regular Post. They can quickly determine if their name was involved a UDRP action by search the UDRP section at ICANN's website. On an aside, if one loses a UDRP, they can then attempt to file suit in Federal court...some folks have successfully done that.
If the domain name was lost via UDRP or deleted, there's likely little to nothing they can realistically do to recover it.
However, if the domain name was "stolen", they need to first build a timeline...
1. What date did they register it?
2. Who did they register it through?
3. How long was it registered for...1 year, 2 years, more? (2 years is no longer the default - 1 year is very common now)
4. Did they change registrars and/or hosting in that time...if so, on what dates? -and for what reasons?
5. When did they discover the domain name was no longer under their control?
If someone simply gained control of the domain name account *at the registrar*, then it's simple matter of contacting the registrar and having change the information back to the correct account holder.
If someone transferred the domain name out to another registrar and then took control of the domain, then it gets a bit more complicated...they'll have to contact both their original registrar as well as the registrar that it was transferred to...some registrars go out of their way to assist other registrars with such problems, while others such as Network Solutions (recently sold by VeriSign, so maybe they'll get better) generally don't give a damn and stonewall.
If the domain name is listed as being owned by their webhosting company instead of them (sounds from the story this is NOT the case, but mention this possibility since it's a common problem), then they should contact their webhosting company and have the Registrant field updated so it's in their name and not that of their webhosting company - one often has to negotiate here and make it worth the webhosting companies time to do this...
And I thought the eye tests were hard enough...
on
Baffling the Spam Bots
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I'm not sure about others, but I have a difficult time with sites which use distorted numbers on a nearly matching background...and I'm not even color-blind.
Sound is better, but even that sometimes can be difficult to understand - also, I don't have speakers hooked up on some machines I use; some folks disable sound due to abnoxious websites/ads that blast sound unexpectedly.
Anyways, many of my relatives and friends can't get into sites that use distorted numbers, etc at all and are basically locked out; sometimes they get lucky and find a similar site (likely a competitor) to the site they desired, which doesn't use such nonsense...
Seems to me a better way is use geotracking (too many inbound connections from similar sources [IP ranges, routes, browser config, etc), email verification, etc......and perhaps even requiring the person to call a phone number to activate the account - ideal for financial-based sites such as banks, payment sites, etc.
With good heuristics (really the key to stopping automated bots in my view), any decent website should be able to filter out much of the bots and other junk - it's no accident really that many of the largest sites don't use distorted numbers, pictures, etc - how do they do without them?...perhaps be a good Ask Slashdot item:)
I understand the reason for the "Press OK..." dialogue boxes, but there may be various ways for webmasters using Flash to get around them and thus my inquiry regarding work-arounds - so far it appears the use of javascript is the only way to suppress the boxes.
Use of base64 encoding in some fashion may do the trick without Javascript?, but not sure how folks have made out with that approach so far...?
So far it appeared that websites had until about January to gear up for changes - now if this ruling comes to pass, websites that earn income from Flash ads could find themselves caught in a bad spot...
* Do nothing and watch the complaints roll in as folks bitch about lots of pop-up warning prompts; some will even think the warning dialogue boxes are pop-up ads themselves - geez!
* Continue to accept Flash ads, but add javascript and other nonsense to make them display with little or no warning messages - fine for many sites, but some sites don't use javascript anywhere for various reaons. So what to do?
* Discontinue Flash ads (sure that makes many happy), but the loss of ad revenues will cause some sites to either use all sorts of bizarre scripting or reduce services due to lost revenues.
Not sure the solution here. For as much as I personally don't care for Flash (nothing wrong with Flash per se, but is often over used and forced upon visitors) the addition of "Press OK..." dialogue boxes are going to cause big time problems - beyond making many sites more combersome to use, such frequent clicking is going to only increase the chance of people accidently clicking open some nasty stuff.
One possible solution, for as much as I don't care for Micro$oft at times, is for them to either fight this guy's IP claim to the max -or- settle and not change the browser -or- a long shot, find another way to get around the guy's IP claim without the zillion "Press OK..." dialogue box nonsense.
Lastly, if anyone is aware of a work-around to smoothly displaying Flash without using Javascript, please post and/or email to me. Thanks!
I don't have the exact instructions handy, but from what I recall when I disabled auto-play on both CD and DVD drives, it involved editing the registry. Note, each drive "type" (CD-ROM, DVD, etc) has different entries - be sure to update the correct registry entries...it's *not* simple on XP...at least it wasn't for me.
So in short, it's clear Microsoft has purposedly made turning auto-play very difficult, much like how they have made it damn near impossible, unless one is a computer guru, to remove all the various.idx files and similar that Windows XP uses to track one's computer usage.
Ok, my post has become a tirade, but anyways when one runs Windows one shouldn't be surprised if programs auto-install, applications break, reboots, blue screens, etc...it's the nature of the beast.
Anyways, getting back to the issue at hand, I don't see how CD copy protection is going to help sales...if anything it could adversely affect sales once reports start coming out about customer's computers being damaged......or worse, a copy protected CD being unknowingly infected by a virus during manufacture...Kazaa and similar for some folks may actually be a "safer" place to obtain music.
Stealth "auto-installing" programs on music CDs is trouble waiting to happen for both users and the RIAA and related entities - class-action lawsuit territory...
I personally haven't bought a music CD in several years...I find the all-music channels on Comcast digitial cable to be more than adequate for my needs...no need for me to ever buy music CDs again; no need to worry about "auto-play" either:)
What would happen if I added some IMG SRC tags to webpages we serve that point to unregistered domain names... between all the sites I operate that I could easily drive several million hits to semi-random unregistered domains everyday.
Before someone says this is a DoS...remember, the mere reference of a domain name is not a DoS...especially when said domain name is unregistered and in addition contains OUR extremely unique registered service/trade marks... VeriSign has only itself to blame if they resolve unregistered domains improperly.
There has been an increase in domain name transaction activity lately as well as increasing awareness of the value of domain names in internet commerce.
Of course on the dark side is VeriSign...wonder if they have configured DNS wildcards properly?
In any event, VeriSign's appropriation of internet domain names they don't own as their own is wrong and likely exists viable legal theories in stopping them from wildcarding unregistered domain names...
* Violates generally accepted DNS standards * Trademark dilution/confusion * Privacy issues
Why in heavens name are critical systems running consumer-grade software...and worse, why are they connected to the public internet?
And then there are VPNs...fine for offices, but not critical infrastructure - critical systems should be on totally separate, dedicated private networks, period!
Among my biggest fears in regards to computer worms, etc somehow getting into a nuclear weapons system and causing nuclear missiles being launched - in particular nuclear based ICBMs which are less protected; Windows is used on some nuclear subs from what I've read - frightening!
After viewing various news reports, I for one, can't help wonder if the blackout was caused by the MSBlast computer worm and/or its varients.
Do any of the power stations, in particular in New York City where it's thought the blackout originated, rely on Microsoft products for their critical services/networks; are the private networks truly protected?
Ron Bennett
Re:Got a whole lotta hype
on
Brain Privacy
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
"There's nothing illegal about thinking anything (at least in the developed democracies), so I don't see brain scans becoming accepted practice during my lifetime (knock on wood)."
Guess you haven't heard about the Hate Crimes bills that have passed here in the States in the past few years...
Nah, I won't be requesting this. The channel sounds cool and all, but my cable bill is already high enough as it is.
If added on Comcast, they would then likely raise rates way in excess of what the channel actually costs them; worse Comcast in our area would likely have to remove another channel to make room for this one.
On an aside, some friends say I should consider getting a dish, but there isn't much competition there either, and it's not the bargain it once was when one adds in all the "extra" charges to get local channels, niche channels, extra boxes, etc - plus the phone line aspect bothers me...surely the dish companies could upload data via ground-based wireless networks where available and eliminate the phone line requirement for folks in those areas.
Most ANY cellular phone that's properly charged and within range of a compatible tower may be used to call 911...NO service plan of any kind is required...none!
There are even various organizations that collect old cell phones and distribute them for emergency 911 use.
In fact it's against the law for a carrier to knowingly block any 911 cellular call regardless of the tower(s) (assuming it's compatible with the phone being used) it's routed through nor the phone its dialed from.
Bottom line is that absolutely NO service plan of any kind is necessary for 911 access and thus the "we need to save pay phones for 911 use" is a mute argument...now in regards to Clark Kent/Superman...not sure what he'll do now:;
Encryption is far from full-proof as others here have explained. Also, where would the key be stored? And no known encryption system other one-time pads (I doubt they're going to use that...nor realistically could they since one-time pads have extreme limitations in how they can be used to remain secure) is unbreakable.
My point is they should NOT store all that information together anywhere! No single entity (business, hospital, etc) should ever have all of the same information on a particular person that any other entity does - and better yet each entity should assign one or pieces of unique information that no other entity, nor perhaps even the individual themself, would ever know.
Simple example...instead of a college or whatnot using one's social security number (which isn't truly unique - amazing how many people don't know that) as the person's record number, use a unique in-house number instead; many colleges, etc already now do this.
The next generation ID could be the biochip...someday most folks may be "chipped" for life...of course learning from the music industry, the government would promote the biochip ID as "Secure ID"...and if so, sadly most Americans would likely fall for the propaganda and accept being "chipped":-(
This recent incident again illustrates the dangers of putting all one's keys so to speak (ie. social security number, name, address, etc) all in one place.
Though it could be worse...at least most "keys" government/industry have for individuals can be changed in instances of severe abuse of one's identity. But as biometrics come more into use, then the stakes become even greater...how does one revoke themselves?...Suicide perhaps?
Anyways, hope folks who design and implement these security schemes dispense with this "let's put everything in one place" mentality and design and build systems that feature more distributed security...otherwise there will continue to more and larger incidences of identity theft, etc.
"Anyone have to reboot their car lately? Didn't think so."
No, because often when a computer device malfunctions, the car simply won't start...or if running "die", requiring the person to stop for service - doesn't happen often, but happens.
More often, if an on-board computer malfunctions, the emissions and fuel efficiently will substantially degrade, but the car will continue to operate.
Computer crash could soon really earn its name, if drive-by-wire ever gains wide acceptance...people often put more trust in computers than they should...they're only as good as the engineers, programmers, etc who make and program them.
I've seen, as well owned myself, VCRs that crashed...typically, a VCR, and many other consumer electronics for that matter, will cycle off and then restart in most "crash" situations...but some malfunctions/glitches will actually lock-up the unit - often unplugging it for 15 seconds or so will clear things up, but not always...anyways, yes such devices can and do malfunction...another reason not to trust "smart gun" technology.
Ok...not yet, but I'm sure if smart guns are widely required, then the next step will be smart ammunition that only operates in a specific, individual gun.
Basically, the way smart ammunition would work is that a person would buy a box of ammunition like they do now, then when they get home, they activate the box (all ammunition in the box would obtain and store the guns serial number via RFID tags) in similar way to Windows XP activation.
Then even better for the manufacturers, is they could not only track every piece of ammunition, but they could even put an expiration date on it and require the person to either buy more and/or spend more on renewing their ammunition subscription, like for on a yearly basis.
A smart gun needs smart ammunition...too bad the user isn't required to be smart:;
Smartgun technology sounds great and all...but what happens if one's hands are dirty, has gloves on, etc or the software itself just flakes out...then what?...messages like these:
"Your gun has performed an illegal operation. Unable to fire. Please powerdown, unload and reload ammunition, and press Restart to reboot."
"Identity scan failed. Please clean your hands and retry firing."
"Gun software 1.34 outdated. Software update download required now before you may continue firing."
"Your gun software license code G43R5-4T564-6DR63-AA665 doesn't match that of the gun owner indicated in our records. Important: 2nd Amendment protections don't apply to software licensing under the DMCA. We are watching you!"
Those are not the type of errors one would want to get when they and/or others are being threatened and they only have a split second to shoot.
And of course there are then all the privacy implications that come with requiring software (so-called smart technology) for guns. The government and especially the private sector will be able to better identify and track gun owners; heck I'm sure at some point they'll even be talk of GunXML and giving every gun its own IP!:;
CNN Headline News went from a top-notch, well produced news program to a cross between between MTV News and the Home Shopping Network.
Now it's just lots of glitz and little else:-(
I rarely watch CNN Headline News nor any CNN program now...never thought the day would come when FOX News would be better than CNN - and that ain't saying much.
Network news amazingly, despite the drop in quality, is still among the best news programs out there in the major TV media.
Lastly, newspapers remain a worthwhile news source - some have even improved...wish I could say that for TV news.
Slashdot Mirror
Addendum:
.COM and .NET domain names, though some is applicable to other other gTLDs.
.ORG and .INFO have somewhat different policies; different security schemes.
.NU, .CC, etc, then much of what I posted doesn't apply. ccTLDs can be very difficult to deal with due to policy and jurisdictional issues; culture and customs.
My comments above apply primarly to
Other gTLDs such as
If the domain name in question is in a ccTLD, such as
Ron Bennett
The person needs to contact the registrar which the domain name was registered through to see what the status of the domain is...
.com zone...plus there's an additional redemption period giving one even more time; at a hefty price.
... perhaps it was actually in the name of the webhosting company or other entity which has since redirected the domain elsewhere.
If the domain was registered for them by their webhost, then they need to contact them again and ask what domain name registrar(s) they use.
Once they have contacted the proper registrar (there are about 100 of them to choose from, plus zillions of resellers), they'll likely be a lot closer to know what happened.
Another important detail is was the domain name active (website working) and then suddenly went "dead", etc or was it the domain one that was "forgotten" about for awhile?
Some possibilities...
* Either one got control of the registrar account for the domain or they tricked their registrar in releasing it and transferring it to another registrar and took control over it that way.
* The domain name could have expired - though typically there's a window of time where the domain doesn't resolve before actually being deleted...so for an active website, it's unlikely for this to occur since one usually has time to renew it even if it's been removed from the
* Domain was never registered to the person to begin with
* Whois information and/or other details were incorrect and someone filed a complaint about it to ICANN. The window of time before deletion in such instances can be much shorter and I'm not sure the redemption period applies or not...anyone know? This is really a "catch-22"...for if one's Whois information is wrong, how can they be contacted to correct it.
* UDRP was filed...assuming the person's Whois information was correct (reiterates again why updated Whois info is so important!), they should have received some emails and I believe at least one notice by regular Post. They can quickly determine if their name was involved a UDRP action by search the UDRP section at ICANN's website. On an aside, if one loses a UDRP, they can then attempt to file suit in Federal court...some folks have successfully done that.
If the domain name was lost via UDRP or deleted, there's likely little to nothing they can realistically do to recover it.
However, if the domain name was "stolen", they need to first build a timeline...
1. What date did they register it?
2. Who did they register it through?
3. How long was it registered for...1 year, 2 years, more? (2 years is no longer the default - 1 year is very common now)
4. Did they change registrars and/or hosting in that time...if so, on what dates? -and for what reasons?
5. When did they discover the domain name was no longer under their control?
If someone simply gained control of the domain name account *at the registrar*, then it's simple matter of contacting the registrar and having change the information back to the correct account holder.
If someone transferred the domain name out to another registrar and then took control of the domain, then it gets a bit more complicated...they'll have to contact both their original registrar as well as the registrar that it was transferred to...some registrars go out of their way to assist other registrars with such problems, while others such as Network Solutions (recently sold by VeriSign, so maybe they'll get better) generally don't give a damn and stonewall.
If the domain name is listed as being owned by their webhosting company instead of them (sounds from the story this is NOT the case, but mention this possibility since it's a common problem), then they should contact their webhosting company and have the Registrant field updated so it's in their name and not that of their webhosting company - one often has to negotiate here and make it worth the webhosting companies time to do this...
I'm not sure about others, but I have a difficult time with sites which use distorted numbers on a nearly matching background...and I'm not even color-blind.
...and perhaps even requiring the person to call a phone number to activate the account - ideal for financial-based sites such as banks, payment
:)
Sound is better, but even that sometimes can be difficult to understand - also, I don't have speakers hooked up on some machines I use; some folks disable sound due to abnoxious websites/ads that blast sound unexpectedly.
Anyways, many of my relatives and friends can't get into sites that use distorted numbers, etc at all and are basically locked out; sometimes they get lucky and find a similar site (likely a competitor) to the site they desired, which doesn't use such nonsense...
Seems to me a better way is use geotracking (too many inbound connections from similar sources [IP ranges, routes, browser config, etc), email verification, etc...
sites, etc.
With good heuristics (really the key to stopping automated bots in my view), any decent website should be able to filter out much of the bots and other junk - it's no accident really that many of the largest sites don't use distorted numbers, pictures, etc - how do they do without them?...perhaps be a good Ask Slashdot item
Ron
I understand the reason for the "Press OK ..." dialogue boxes, but there may be various ways for webmasters using Flash to get around them and thus my inquiry regarding work-arounds - so far it appears the use of javascript is the only way to suppress the boxes.
Use of base64 encoding in some fashion may do the trick without Javascript?, but not sure how folks have made out with that approach so far...?
Ron
So far it appeared that websites had until about January to gear up for changes - now if this ruling comes to pass, websites that earn income from Flash ads could find themselves caught in a bad spot...
..." dialogue boxes are going to cause big time problems - beyond making many sites more combersome to use, such frequent clicking is going to only increase the chance of people accidently clicking open some nasty stuff.
..." dialogue box nonsense.
* Do nothing and watch the complaints roll in as folks bitch about lots of pop-up warning prompts; some will even think the warning dialogue boxes are pop-up ads themselves - geez!
* Continue to accept Flash ads, but add javascript and other nonsense to make them display with little or no warning messages - fine for many sites, but some sites don't use javascript anywhere for various reaons. So what to do?
* Discontinue Flash ads (sure that makes many happy), but the loss of ad revenues will cause some sites to either use all sorts of bizarre scripting or reduce services due to lost revenues.
Not sure the solution here. For as much as I personally don't care for Flash (nothing wrong with Flash per se, but is often over used and forced upon visitors) the addition of "Press OK
One possible solution, for as much as I don't care for Micro$oft at times, is for them to either fight this guy's IP claim to the max -or- settle and not change the browser -or- a long shot, find another way to get around the guy's IP claim without the zillion "Press OK
Lastly, if anyone is aware of a work-around to smoothly displaying Flash without using Javascript, please post and/or email to me. Thanks!
Ron
I don't have the exact instructions handy, but from what I recall when I disabled auto-play on both CD and DVD drives, it involved editing the registry. Note, each drive "type" (CD-ROM, DVD, etc) has different entries - be sure to update the correct registry entries...it's *not* simple on XP...at least it wasn't for me.
.idx files and similar that Windows XP uses to track one's computer usage.
...or worse, a copy protected CD being unknowingly infected by a virus during manufacture...Kazaa and similar for some folks may actually be a "safer" place to obtain music.
:)
So in short, it's clear Microsoft has purposedly made turning auto-play very difficult, much like how they have made it damn near impossible, unless one is a computer guru, to remove all the various
Ok, my post has become a tirade, but anyways when one runs Windows one shouldn't be surprised if programs auto-install, applications break, reboots, blue screens, etc...it's the nature of the beast.
Anyways, getting back to the issue at hand, I don't see how CD copy protection is going to help sales...if anything it could adversely affect sales once reports start coming out about customer's computers being damaged...
Stealth "auto-installing" programs on music CDs is trouble waiting to happen for both users and the RIAA and related entities - class-action lawsuit territory...
I personally haven't bought a music CD in several years...I find the all-music channels on Comcast digitial cable to be more than adequate for my needs...no need for me to ever buy music CDs again; no need to worry about "auto-play" either
Ron
What would happen if I added some IMG SRC tags to webpages we serve that point to unregistered domain names ... between all the sites I operate that I could easily drive several million hits to semi-random unregistered domains everyday.
... VeriSign has only itself to blame if they resolve unregistered domains improperly.
Before someone says this is a DoS...remember, the mere reference of a domain name is not a DoS...especially when said domain name is unregistered and in addition contains OUR extremely unique registered service/trade marks
Welcome thoughts...
Ron
VeriSign likeky already is harvesting personal data...
* VeriSign sets cookies
* Web server logging
* Email activity logging
* DNS logging too I bet
There has been an increase in domain name transaction activity lately as well as increasing awareness of the value of domain names in internet commerce.
Of course on the dark side is VeriSign...wonder if they have configured DNS wildcards properly?
In any event, VeriSign's appropriation of internet domain names they don't own as their own is wrong and likely exists viable legal theories in stopping them from wildcarding unregistered domain names...
* Violates generally accepted DNS standards
* Trademark dilution/confusion
* Privacy issues
Why in heavens name are critical systems running consumer-grade software...and worse, why are they connected to the public internet?
And then there are VPNs...fine for offices, but not critical infrastructure - critical systems should be on totally separate, dedicated private networks, period!
Among my biggest fears in regards to computer worms, etc somehow getting into a nuclear weapons system and causing nuclear missiles being launched - in particular nuclear based ICBMs which are less protected; Windows is used on some nuclear subs from what I've read - frightening!
After viewing various news reports, I for one, can't help wonder if the blackout was caused by the MSBlast computer worm and/or its varients.
Do any of the power stations, in particular in New York City where it's thought the blackout originated, rely on Microsoft products for their critical services/networks; are the private networks truly protected?
Ron Bennett
Guess you haven't heard about the Hate Crimes bills that have passed here in the States in the past few years...
Nah, I won't be requesting this. The channel sounds cool and all, but my cable bill is already high enough as it is.
If added on Comcast, they would then likely raise rates way in excess of what the channel actually costs them; worse Comcast in our area would likely have to remove another channel to make room for this one.
On an aside, some friends say I should consider getting a dish, but there isn't much competition there either, and it's not the bargain it once was when one adds in all the "extra" charges to get local channels, niche channels, extra boxes, etc - plus the phone line aspect bothers me...surely the dish companies could upload data via ground-based wireless networks where available and eliminate the phone line requirement for folks in those areas.
From the article it's not clear, but here in eastern PA we too must dial area codes, but the "1" before the number is often not required.
Thus it's likely that many folks in NY city will only have to dial 10 digits, not 11 as suggested by the article.
Most ANY cellular phone that's properly charged and within range of a compatible tower may be used to call 911...NO service plan of any kind is required...none!
:;
There are even various organizations that collect old cell phones and distribute them for emergency 911 use.
In fact it's against the law for a carrier to knowingly block any 911 cellular call regardless of the tower(s) (assuming it's compatible with the phone being used) it's routed through nor the phone its dialed from.
Bottom line is that absolutely NO service plan of any kind is necessary for 911 access and thus the "we need to save pay phones for 911 use" is a mute argument...now in regards to Clark Kent/Superman...not sure what he'll do now
Encryption is far from full-proof as others here have explained. Also, where would the key be stored? And no known encryption system other one-time pads (I doubt they're going to use that...nor realistically could they since one-time pads have extreme limitations in how they can be used to remain secure) is unbreakable.
My point is they should NOT store all that information together anywhere! No single entity (business, hospital, etc) should ever have all of the same information on a particular person that any other entity does - and better yet each entity should assign one or pieces of unique information that no other entity, nor perhaps even the individual themself, would ever know.
Simple example...instead of a college or whatnot using one's social security number (which isn't truly unique - amazing how many people don't know that) as the person's record number, use a unique in-house number instead; many colleges, etc already now do this.
The next generation ID could be the biochip...someday most folks may be "chipped" for life...of course learning from the music industry, the government would promote the biochip ID as "Secure ID"...and if so, sadly most Americans would likely fall for the propaganda and accept being "chipped" :-(
This recent incident again illustrates the dangers of putting all one's keys so to speak (ie. social security number, name, address, etc) all in one place.
Though it could be worse...at least most "keys" government/industry have for individuals can be changed in instances of severe abuse of one's identity. But as biometrics come more into use, then the stakes become even greater...how does one revoke themselves?...Suicide perhaps?
Anyways, hope folks who design and implement these security schemes dispense with this "let's put everything in one place" mentality and design and build systems that feature more distributed security...otherwise there will continue to more and larger incidences of identity theft, etc.
"Anyone have to reboot their car lately? Didn't think so."
No, because often when a computer device malfunctions, the car simply won't start...or if running "die", requiring the person to stop for service - doesn't happen often, but happens.
More often, if an on-board computer malfunctions, the emissions and fuel efficiently will substantially degrade, but the car will continue to operate.
Computer crash could soon really earn its name, if drive-by-wire ever gains wide acceptance...people often put more trust in computers than they should...they're only as good as the engineers, programmers, etc who make and program them.
I've seen, as well owned myself, VCRs that crashed...typically, a VCR, and many other consumer electronics for that matter, will cycle off and then restart in most "crash" situations...but some malfunctions/glitches will actually lock-up the unit - often unplugging it for 15 seconds or so will clear things up, but not always...anyways, yes such devices can and do malfunction...another reason not to trust "smart gun" technology.
Fortunately, NJ is a relatively small state...I always try to fuel up before entering NJ to have enough fuel to get me through the state...
Ok...not yet, but I'm sure if smart guns are widely required, then the next step will be smart ammunition that only operates in a specific, individual gun.
:;
Basically, the way smart ammunition would work is that a person would buy a box of ammunition like they do now, then when they get home, they activate the box (all ammunition in the box would obtain and store the guns serial number via RFID tags) in similar way to Windows XP activation.
Then even better for the manufacturers, is they could not only track every piece of ammunition, but they could even put an expiration date on it and require the person to either buy more and/or spend more on renewing their ammunition subscription, like for on a yearly basis.
A smart gun needs smart ammunition...too bad the user isn't required to be smart
Ron Bennett
Smartgun technology sounds great and all...but what happens if one's hands are dirty, has gloves on, etc or the software itself just flakes out...then what?...messages like these:
:;
"Your gun has performed an illegal operation. Unable to fire. Please powerdown, unload and reload ammunition, and press Restart to reboot."
"Identity scan failed. Please clean your hands and retry firing."
"Gun software 1.34 outdated. Software update download required now before you may continue firing."
"Your gun software license code G43R5-4T564-6DR63-AA665 doesn't match that of the gun owner indicated in our records. Important: 2nd Amendment protections don't apply to software licensing under the DMCA. We are watching you!"
Those are not the type of errors one would want to get when they and/or others are being threatened and they only have a split second to shoot.
And of course there are then all the privacy implications that come with requiring software (so-called smart technology) for guns. The government and especially the private sector will be able to better identify and track gun owners; heck I'm sure at some point they'll even be talk of GunXML and giving every gun its own IP!
Ron Bennett
CNN Headline News went from a top-notch, well produced news program to a cross between between MTV News and the Home Shopping Network.
:-(
Now it's just lots of glitz and little else
I rarely watch CNN Headline News nor any CNN program now...never thought the day would come when FOX News would be better than CNN - and that ain't saying much.
Network news amazingly, despite the drop in quality, is still among the best news programs out there in the major TV media.
Lastly, newspapers remain a worthwhile news source - some have even improved...wish I could say that for TV news.
I've been reading Slashdot for years and I've never seen so many dupes and bogus stories as I have this past week or so here.
;)
Something is very wrong when Fuckedcompany features more useful and reliable news than here
Ron