2) There are people making less than that who are paid even less. entry/mid level managers, accountants, etc, etc, etc that have access to sensitive information.
Are you saying IT works are more untrustworthy than any of the other degrees? If you really think honest people will steal data if you pay them slightly less than 6 figures--that says more about you than other people.
In a properly structured company, especially if your IT workers are doing their jobs, those other positions won't have access to anything other than the data they need/use to do their jobs, and the company-wide stuff. Maybe some position-level stuff like a managers' share. Sure, there can be plenty of trade secrets and sensitive info they might have access to, but nothing compared to the entry-level admin who can access every department's shares, email, voicemail, HR files, the executives' data, etc. Having moved on from a small business a few months ago, I can still remember my old CEO's I-demand-this-never-expires domain password, and the last two tasks I'd done had been to fix the permissions HR had messed up in their private share, and set up a new notebook for the CFO, complete with copying over all of his files.
I'm not disagreeing that it shouldn't make IT workers inherently more untrustworthy, but it's fair to say an admin can gain access to much, much more than a normal user can. On the flip side, a lot of those other roles tend to stick to a specific industry once they've gained some experience in it, where IT workers tend to get around. It's more likely for a manager, salesperson or accountant to switch to a direct competitor than a sysadmin or developer. Some of the more serious security certs can be revoked for reported ethical violations, a lot of those other jobs don't have that kind of field-wide accountability (maybe CPAs, I'd imagine). We also don't tend to profit from any information we bring in, at least not like a salesperson or manager might. Infrastructure and programming standards aren't nearly as proprietary or company-specific as contacts/leads or business strategies. TL;DR - our access is a greater vulnerability, but there's [probably] a lower likelihood of that vulnerability being exploited, so the risk is probably about equal.
You've obviously never worked in the clearance field.
Claiming that has any relevance to my point isn't just a logical fallacy, but it's a baseless assumption that happens to be incorrect.
Up to your fun little anecdote, you were just elaborating on my point. Having clearance has nothing to do with whether or not you're qualified for your job, it just means that (1) you have a job that requires clearance and (2) you passed the background check. There's no doubt in my mind that there are unqualified people who happen to work in jobs that require/provide security clearance, just like there are in jobs that don't. Maybe I should have just said the obligatory "correlation does not equal causation" instead of making an analogy? Maybe it should have been about cars? "That's like saying 95% of the people who have blue cars are completely unqualified".
There aren't that many people on the market who already have a current security clearance.
Only people looking to change jobs, since you lose any security clearance when you're not currently working in a position that requires it.
Of course, there's probably plenty of people who see the security clearance thing, and immediately refuse to even consider the job because they know working in the defense industry sucks balls. It's where you go if you're either basically incompetent, or close to retirement and can't find anything better. No one else is willing to put up with a "professional" job where you're on the clock, have to leave for lunch at exactly 12, have to be back from lunch at exactly 1 or else you get in trouble, etc.
[Citation Needed]. From personal experience, this couldn't be further from the truth. As long as you're putting in 40 hours a week and you're staying on top of your contracted role, nothing else really matters. I stay pretty consistent with my start time, but that's still giving or taking a half hour or so. I take my lunch and smoke breaks whenever I feel like it, without having to do anything to keep track of how long they are. I leave about 8 hours after I got there.
Clearance has nothing to do with technical skills. That's like saying 95% of the people you've worked with that wore black socks were completely unqualified.
There are no charges. He's only wanted for questioning.
Which is pretty much irrelevant, to both the GP's post and the court's decision. You don't have to be charged with a crime to be extradited, normally being wanted for questioning as a suspect is good enough. It's all up to their extradition treaty with Sweden. The GP's point was that the court's responsibility was to make sure the request complied with their extradition treaty, and that's it. Whether or not the accusations are sound, whether or not charges are filed, whether or not he's guilty - that's all between Assange and the Swedes.
No. It is always on and they are always listening. They are lying. There is no incentive for them not to record.
Not having to store and listen to endless hours of recordings and phenomenal amounts of data that end up being 99.9999999999% useless, avoiding legal liability, staying in business...
A system that only turns on when it detects gunshots is not an "active, omniscient" system. It'd be like having a stoplight camera catch you in the background.
Maybe, when you've got one of the first world's worst public education systems and its most expensive healthcare, there are bigger concerns than "HELL YEAH, MOONBASE". Wait, no, you're right - anyone who disagrees with you is just ignorant and must have no understanding of science.
For the same reason the police don't go "Hey, everybody, there's a bank robber on the loose, come by the station and borrow a gun". Idiots are going to start shooting at anyone wearing a hooded sweatshirt and will be putting themselves in harm's way. Most people aren't going to understand what is and isn't a target, they're not going to understand what they can't and can't do, they're not going to be organized, and most of them probably aren't anywhere near as skilled as they think they are. And aside from being untrained, inexperienced and uncoordinated, getting involved would make you a legal military target instead of a civilian. Not that al Qaeda's really worried about that, but still, international law would say that an enemy going after you would be no different from and no less legitimate than killing an enemy soldier in battle.
The idea that the Earth wasn't round was once a widespread formally recognized idea. Doesn't mean it was ever correct. Sure, people are still free to use the word, just like I am free to think they sound ignorant doing so.
An incorrect belief about the physical world is a hugely different concept than the prevalent usage of a word.
If you'd like to think it's wrong personally, go right ahead. But it's incredibly ironic to call its usage "ignorant", since your refusal to recognize a widely-used and -accepted word because of your personal preference is a shining example of willful ignorance.
Welcome to the fun world of living languages. It's an accepted colloquialism. Its usage is widespread. It's a formally recognized word, albeit a "non-standard" one. "Albeit" would be another great example of a colloquialism becoming not only a word, but more acceptable than "all be it".
Now explain why having two words that mean the exact same thing is necessary.
Think about that statement for five seconds. Your argument amounts to "synonymous words shouldn't exist". There's no way you can mean that.
On the part of the submitter. "the vice president of SAP" is not true. He was *A* vice president *AT* SAP. SAP, like most large companies, has many many people holding the VP title, some of which make a lot of money and some of which don't.
This. That's an important distinction. Before I'd left my prior job, they had just given each and every person in the sales department the title of "VP of Sales".
CISPA's problem is also the goals. Its mission is to make all the data held by ISPs and websites be turned-over to the government, so they will know the websurf history of every American. The bill should not be "fixed" to make this task easier. It should be burned.
What you're talking about is the logical extreme that the lack of clear definitions and accountability could lead to. It's a completely legitimate argument to make as a concern, but it's paranoid and unprovable to claim that it's the intended goal. That kind of abuse can be mitigated with clear definitions of what constitutes a threat and vetted, overseen and controlled requests. Whether you're an NSA agent or a mail server admin, the solution to the possible abuse of authority is accountability.
But you wouldn't understand.
Just as people cheered-on FDR when he rounded-up japanese-Americans.
Some people love serfdom more than freedom.
Oh, lordy. The babydaddy of all logical fallacies and invalid arguments, the classic "you wouldn't understand". It really takes the edge off of the next two fallacies, though. Maybe you should've have saved that line for last, for the sake of effect. I'm more than happy to have an objective, informed and constructive discussion about the facts and possibilities of the situation. The only kind of person who "wouldn't understand" is the one who refuses to, the one that's closed to and unaccepting of other perspectives, consideration and evidence.
It's nothing more than a way for RIAA/MPAA to monitor your downloads, and then send you extortionate letters demanding $5000 "or else we'll drag you to court".
There's no provisions, whatsoever, for such a thing to happen. There's nothing in there that addresses piracy or copyright infringement.
Nor do we need "cybersecurity". The best security is to pull critical systems (power plants, classified computers) off the internet.
There's a lot more to network attacks than defense of utilities or classified networks - the latter of which aren't on the internet in the first place, and I'm not familiar enough with the former to speculate like that.
Bottom Line: There is NOTHING defensible about CISPA, and that you chose to do so makes me wonder if you are an enemy of the Bill of Rights. I suspect that you are.
I never said I did. I said it needed to be changed. These two things are mutually exclusive. And I don't even know where to begin with the accusation that I'm an "enemy of the Bill of Rights" - it's an insane leap, it's completely off-base, it's an ad hominem attack, it demonstrates a delusional and extremist sense of false dichotomy... I'm not sure how someone can even say that with a straight face.
Except they didn't break in, they didn't go through anybody's files, they weren't "agents" in the context of law enforcement. It's not like financial companies, insurance companies, service providers and other industries don't have their own investigators who look into things before taking legal action. While there's definitely a few red flags here, the summary presents this like it was some kind of undercover raid, and the comments like this kind of take that even further.
You can hire a private investigator. They've got people who look into cases and gather facts before taking legal action against someone. Would you rather have them waste the taxpayer's money on having a LEO do it? They may happen to be douchebags, but almost every industry's got people like insurance adjustors, inspectors or security officers who check things out in-house.
>>>don't stamp your feet and say you don't like CISPA
Why not? That approach worked well for Google and others when they opposed SOPA. They killed the bill.
If you'd have bothered to finish the quote instead of changing it, maybe you'd have understood it. They didn't just say "We don't like it, don't let it happen", they explained the unfixable problems with it. That wasn't just about saying "no" and having everyone take your word for it, it was about educating people about the issues with the bill. The entire purpose of SOPA was the problem - it existed just to make copyright infringement penalties harsher, to make it illegal to link to infringing content or have it appear in search results, to combat piracy with indiscriminatory censorship. The problems with CISPA are in the execution and the loopholes. Objectively, CISPA can be fixed to address the concerns of abuse while still improving the process for goverment inquiries into security issues, SOPA couldn't be fixed because its problems were its goals.
They are just uncomfortable with how brazenly the current wording spells it out.
The right move would be to come out against the bill. Why is that so hard for them?
It's a hell of a lot more constructive to diplomatically work on fixing the problems with something than it is to stamp your feet and say you don't like it and therefore it shouldn't happen - that's a sure way for something to pass without anything done to fix it. The biggest problems with CISPA revolve around the potential for abuse, the lack of definition and accountability, and the way it superscedes all other privacy laws. The "wording" is as important to a law as it is to code.
The only point there was that working with the House to change the bill is not tantamount to formally supporting it. Any claim that it is would be objectively false. Speculate all you like, but without any supporting information on what changes they've made/recommended, you're only making things up.
My personal favorite has always been having Adobe offer Chrome when downloading Flash. I'm downloading a plugin for my browser, I don't want another browser.
"“We hold that the government’s installation of a GPS device on a target’s vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle’s movements, constitutes a ‘search,’”
Just devil's advocate here. But you're on slashdot, you should know your operators.
Slashdot Mirror
2) There are people making less than that who are paid even less. entry/mid level managers, accountants, etc, etc, etc that have access to sensitive information.
Are you saying IT works are more untrustworthy than any of the other degrees? If you really think honest people will steal data if you pay them slightly less than 6 figures--that says more about you than other people.
In a properly structured company, especially if your IT workers are doing their jobs, those other positions won't have access to anything other than the data they need/use to do their jobs, and the company-wide stuff. Maybe some position-level stuff like a managers' share. Sure, there can be plenty of trade secrets and sensitive info they might have access to, but nothing compared to the entry-level admin who can access every department's shares, email, voicemail, HR files, the executives' data, etc. Having moved on from a small business a few months ago, I can still remember my old CEO's I-demand-this-never-expires domain password, and the last two tasks I'd done had been to fix the permissions HR had messed up in their private share, and set up a new notebook for the CFO, complete with copying over all of his files.
I'm not disagreeing that it shouldn't make IT workers inherently more untrustworthy, but it's fair to say an admin can gain access to much, much more than a normal user can. On the flip side, a lot of those other roles tend to stick to a specific industry once they've gained some experience in it, where IT workers tend to get around. It's more likely for a manager, salesperson or accountant to switch to a direct competitor than a sysadmin or developer. Some of the more serious security certs can be revoked for reported ethical violations, a lot of those other jobs don't have that kind of field-wide accountability (maybe CPAs, I'd imagine). We also don't tend to profit from any information we bring in, at least not like a salesperson or manager might. Infrastructure and programming standards aren't nearly as proprietary or company-specific as contacts/leads or business strategies. TL;DR - our access is a greater vulnerability, but there's [probably] a lower likelihood of that vulnerability being exploited, so the risk is probably about equal.
You've obviously never worked in the clearance field.
Claiming that has any relevance to my point isn't just a logical fallacy, but it's a baseless assumption that happens to be incorrect.
Up to your fun little anecdote, you were just elaborating on my point. Having clearance has nothing to do with whether or not you're qualified for your job, it just means that (1) you have a job that requires clearance and (2) you passed the background check. There's no doubt in my mind that there are unqualified people who happen to work in jobs that require/provide security clearance, just like there are in jobs that don't. Maybe I should have just said the obligatory "correlation does not equal causation" instead of making an analogy? Maybe it should have been about cars? "That's like saying 95% of the people who have blue cars are completely unqualified".
There aren't that many people on the market who already have a current security clearance.
Only people looking to change jobs, since you lose any security clearance when you're not currently working in a position that requires it.
Of course, there's probably plenty of people who see the security clearance thing, and immediately refuse to even consider the job because they know working in the defense industry sucks balls. It's where you go if you're either basically incompetent, or close to retirement and can't find anything better. No one else is willing to put up with a "professional" job where you're on the clock, have to leave for lunch at exactly 12, have to be back from lunch at exactly 1 or else you get in trouble, etc.
[Citation Needed]. From personal experience, this couldn't be further from the truth. As long as you're putting in 40 hours a week and you're staying on top of your contracted role, nothing else really matters. I stay pretty consistent with my start time, but that's still giving or taking a half hour or so. I take my lunch and smoke breaks whenever I feel like it, without having to do anything to keep track of how long they are. I leave about 8 hours after I got there.
Clearance has nothing to do with technical skills. That's like saying 95% of the people you've worked with that wore black socks were completely unqualified.
There are no charges. He's only wanted for questioning.
Which is pretty much irrelevant, to both the GP's post and the court's decision. You don't have to be charged with a crime to be extradited, normally being wanted for questioning as a suspect is good enough. It's all up to their extradition treaty with Sweden. The GP's point was that the court's responsibility was to make sure the request complied with their extradition treaty, and that's it. Whether or not the accusations are sound, whether or not charges are filed, whether or not he's guilty - that's all between Assange and the Swedes.
No. It is always on and they are always listening. They are lying. There is no incentive for them not to record .
Not having to store and listen to endless hours of recordings and phenomenal amounts of data that end up being 99.9999999999% useless, avoiding legal liability, staying in business...
A system that only turns on when it detects gunshots is not an "active, omniscient" system. It'd be like having a stoplight camera catch you in the background.
Maybe, when you've got one of the first world's worst public education systems and its most expensive healthcare, there are bigger concerns than "HELL YEAH, MOONBASE". Wait, no, you're right - anyone who disagrees with you is just ignorant and must have no understanding of science.
what they can* and can't do
For the same reason the police don't go "Hey, everybody, there's a bank robber on the loose, come by the station and borrow a gun". Idiots are going to start shooting at anyone wearing a hooded sweatshirt and will be putting themselves in harm's way. Most people aren't going to understand what is and isn't a target, they're not going to understand what they can't and can't do, they're not going to be organized, and most of them probably aren't anywhere near as skilled as they think they are. And aside from being untrained, inexperienced and uncoordinated, getting involved would make you a legal military target instead of a civilian. Not that al Qaeda's really worried about that, but still, international law would say that an enemy going after you would be no different from and no less legitimate than killing an enemy soldier in battle.
The idea that the Earth wasn't round was once a widespread formally recognized idea. Doesn't mean it was ever correct. Sure, people are still free to use the word, just like I am free to think they sound ignorant doing so.
An incorrect belief about the physical world is a hugely different concept than the prevalent usage of a word.
If you'd like to think it's wrong personally, go right ahead. But it's incredibly ironic to call its usage "ignorant", since your refusal to recognize a widely-used and -accepted word because of your personal preference is a shining example of willful ignorance.
Now explain why having two words that mean the exact same thing is necessary.
Think about that statement for five seconds. Your argument amounts to "synonymous words shouldn't exist". There's no way you can mean that.
On the part of the submitter. "the vice president of SAP" is not true. He was *A* vice president *AT* SAP. SAP, like most large companies, has many many people holding the VP title, some of which make a lot of money and some of which don't.
This. That's an important distinction. Before I'd left my prior job, they had just given each and every person in the sales department the title of "VP of Sales".
CISPA's problem is also the goals. Its mission is to make all the data held by ISPs and websites be turned-over to the government, so they will know the websurf history of every American. The bill should not be "fixed" to make this task easier. It should be burned.
What you're talking about is the logical extreme that the lack of clear definitions and accountability could lead to. It's a completely legitimate argument to make as a concern, but it's paranoid and unprovable to claim that it's the intended goal. That kind of abuse can be mitigated with clear definitions of what constitutes a threat and vetted, overseen and controlled requests. Whether you're an NSA agent or a mail server admin, the solution to the possible abuse of authority is accountability.
But you wouldn't understand. Just as people cheered-on FDR when he rounded-up japanese-Americans. Some people love serfdom more than freedom.
Oh, lordy. The babydaddy of all logical fallacies and invalid arguments, the classic "you wouldn't understand". It really takes the edge off of the next two fallacies, though. Maybe you should've have saved that line for last, for the sake of effect. I'm more than happy to have an objective, informed and constructive discussion about the facts and possibilities of the situation. The only kind of person who "wouldn't understand" is the one who refuses to, the one that's closed to and unaccepting of other perspectives, consideration and evidence.
It's nothing more than a way for RIAA/MPAA to monitor your downloads, and then send you extortionate letters demanding $5000 "or else we'll drag you to court".
There's no provisions, whatsoever, for such a thing to happen. There's nothing in there that addresses piracy or copyright infringement.
Nor do we need "cybersecurity". The best security is to pull critical systems (power plants, classified computers) off the internet.
There's a lot more to network attacks than defense of utilities or classified networks - the latter of which aren't on the internet in the first place, and I'm not familiar enough with the former to speculate like that.
Bottom Line: There is NOTHING defensible about CISPA, and that you chose to do so makes me wonder if you are an enemy of the Bill of Rights. I suspect that you are.
I never said I did. I said it needed to be changed. These two things are mutually exclusive. And I don't even know where to begin with the accusation that I'm an "enemy of the Bill of Rights" - it's an insane leap, it's completely off-base, it's an ad hominem attack, it demonstrates a delusional and extremist sense of false dichotomy... I'm not sure how someone can even say that with a straight face.
Trespassing? That has to be non-consensual and cause some kind of harm, nuisance or obstruction.
Except they didn't break in, they didn't go through anybody's files, they weren't "agents" in the context of law enforcement. It's not like financial companies, insurance companies, service providers and other industries don't have their own investigators who look into things before taking legal action. While there's definitely a few red flags here, the summary presents this like it was some kind of undercover raid, and the comments like this kind of take that even further.
You can hire a private investigator. They've got people who look into cases and gather facts before taking legal action against someone. Would you rather have them waste the taxpayer's money on having a LEO do it? They may happen to be douchebags, but almost every industry's got people like insurance adjustors, inspectors or security officers who check things out in-house.
>>>don't stamp your feet and say you don't like CISPA
Why not? That approach worked well for Google and others when they opposed SOPA. They killed the bill.
If you'd have bothered to finish the quote instead of changing it, maybe you'd have understood it. They didn't just say "We don't like it, don't let it happen", they explained the unfixable problems with it. That wasn't just about saying "no" and having everyone take your word for it, it was about educating people about the issues with the bill. The entire purpose of SOPA was the problem - it existed just to make copyright infringement penalties harsher, to make it illegal to link to infringing content or have it appear in search results, to combat piracy with indiscriminatory censorship. The problems with CISPA are in the execution and the loopholes. Objectively, CISPA can be fixed to address the concerns of abuse while still improving the process for goverment inquiries into security issues, SOPA couldn't be fixed because its problems were its goals.
They are just uncomfortable with how brazenly the current wording spells it out.
The right move would be to come out against the bill. Why is that so hard for them?
It's a hell of a lot more constructive to diplomatically work on fixing the problems with something than it is to stamp your feet and say you don't like it and therefore it shouldn't happen - that's a sure way for something to pass without anything done to fix it. The biggest problems with CISPA revolve around the potential for abuse, the lack of definition and accountability, and the way it superscedes all other privacy laws. The "wording" is as important to a law as it is to code.
Better yet, solar system dioramas WITH volcanoes.
The only point there was that working with the House to change the bill is not tantamount to formally supporting it. Any claim that it is would be objectively false. Speculate all you like, but without any supporting information on what changes they've made/recommended, you're only making things up.
Even supporting CISPA.
Read your own links. They haven't "supported the bill", they've "been supportive of finding the right language for the bill". As in, trying to fix it.
all the sales tax earmarked for local government operations will go to those two cities
They're giving Amazon the money that would go to the city. Not all of the state's tax.
"“We hold that the government’s installation of a GPS device on a target’s vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle’s movements, constitutes a ‘search,’”
Just devil's advocate here. But you're on slashdot, you should know your operators.