I'll toss in a little data here. I work as an independent contractor, but do most of my work for one company. There are cameras in most rooms, which are used to track employee errors and rule violations. Much of this is a safety and liability issue; without the cameras people would be eating and drinking while working with solvents and acids. With the cameras, when an unsafe condition is found (open, unlabeled container of liquid perched on the edge of a workbench for example) the responsible party can be identified and corrected. If the cameras were not allowed, more people would need to be hired simply to walk around and monitor everyone.
Perhaps their job is to watch the meters on the reactor to make sure everything is functioning as it should. So they decide to surf the net all day for three years, but the reactor hasn't blown so they must have been doing their job, right? Perhaps the employer decides that since it's such a boring job it's okay to spend 50% of the time on the net doing whatever you want, but you still need to stop and check all the meters the rest of the time. How is the employer going to make sure you're doing your job?
Damn, I didn't read well enough; I read "ISP" as "employer". You do make a good point about ISPs, so now I'm torn. I do feel that if you're using my cable I have the right to know what's going through it. On the other hand there needs to be a channel for private communication.
You say they should be able to monitor my computer via cameras, or software on the off-chance I need to use the company network for files?
Your employer has the right to stand behind you watching everything you do over your shoulder. What difference does it make if they use cameras instead of eyeballs?
I've been thinking along similar lines. It has become commonly accepted that a corporation's purpose is to maximize profit at all costs. That means that it's a greedy narcissistic entity which will act in it's own best interest with no regard to the well being of others. The existence of such an entity is not in the best interest of Humanity.
I can see both sides on this one. Normally I'm pretty anti-surveillance, but on this one I have to go with the employer's rights. If I'm running a business, with my computers in my building, then I have a right to know what's going on in my building and what my computers are doing. If an employee brings in a laptop / netbook / smartphone or whatever else, then I have no right to know what's going on in that, so long as they're not using my network. I can, however, tell the employee not to bring it in if I so choose.
If I own the ethernet cable that you're using, I have the right to know what's going through it. If you don't like that, don't use my cable. If I own the building you're in, I have the right to watch you. If you don't like that, leave. If I'm paying you to work for me, I have the right to watch you work. If you don't like that, find another job.
Nothing stops you from setting up Steam with single player games, and setting it to run in offline mode. That way you can have as many people playing them as you want.
Piracy is publicity. If I pirate a game, play it, and tell a friend about it, that's free advertising. The friend may actually go out and buy it. That's an effect that it's pretty hard to collect statistics on.
You're not understanding. The accusation was made by the government, therefore they don't have to prove anything; they can simply make declarations. Have you been living under a rock?
Correct in theory. However, in practice is doesn't work that way. If your accuser is affiliated with the government (in the US or elsewhere), the accusation is taken as proof of guilt unless you can prove otherwise.
There are several a fundamental design flaws in the concept of financial punishment. 1. If you have a ton of money, it means nothing to you. 2. If you have no money (or can hide / shield your money) it means nothing to you. 3. It can be redirected away from those responsible for making the decision to violate the law. When's the last time a CEO paid a fine for something his company did? 4. A minor, unintentional violation can ruin you if you're in the wrong financial bracket. Example: the DMV screws up your tabs in the computer (they've given me tabs for the wrong car in the past, I was almost arrested for it) or suspend your drivers license without telling you due to a paperwork error (also happened to me when Minnesota had to shut down for a couple weeks for lack of a budget), and all of a sudden you can't make rent / pay insurance / buy gas because you had to pay a fine.
Fines are class discriminatory. They mean a whole lot more to poor people than to rich people, and when imposed on a company mean almost nothing to anyone in that company unless they're astronomical.
More layers, separated by an insulating material. It's like nested Faraday cages. Copper foil would work best, since it's electrical conductivity that matters. The badguys can still read your card when you pull it out to use it though.
You still have to unshield it to pass a checkpoint, at which point someone can remotely copy your card. Then any time they want to be, they're legally you.
It's still fine if you only care about yourself, but consider that these "evil intentions" affect just 0.1% of the population. That's bad stuff happening for quite a many people, because of the original whatever "good" reasons the storage of tracking info was started.
Agree with most of your post, but have to disagree here. Did the holocaust only affect 0.1% of the population? Imagine how much more efficiently the Nazi's could have done their job if they'd had this technology!
It doesn't matter how much or how little is stored on the card. If someone can remotely query your card, they can then have a device pretend to be your card. They can then tie you to a crime that they commit, simply by using your ID instead of theirs when traveling. They go free, you go to jail.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll toss in a little data here. I work as an independent contractor, but do most of my work for one company. There are cameras in most rooms, which are used to track employee errors and rule violations. Much of this is a safety and liability issue; without the cameras people would be eating and drinking while working with solvents and acids. With the cameras, when an unsafe condition is found (open, unlabeled container of liquid perched on the edge of a workbench for example) the responsible party can be identified and corrected. If the cameras were not allowed, more people would need to be hired simply to walk around and monitor everyone.
Perhaps their job is to watch the meters on the reactor to make sure everything is functioning as it should. So they decide to surf the net all day for three years, but the reactor hasn't blown so they must have been doing their job, right? Perhaps the employer decides that since it's such a boring job it's okay to spend 50% of the time on the net doing whatever you want, but you still need to stop and check all the meters the rest of the time. How is the employer going to make sure you're doing your job?
Damn, I didn't read well enough; I read "ISP" as "employer". You do make a good point about ISPs, so now I'm torn. I do feel that if you're using my cable I have the right to know what's going through it. On the other hand there needs to be a channel for private communication.
By your reasoning, every ISP has a right to read your e-mails/chat/... since you use their equipment.
If I'm using their equipment, yes they do. If I want private communication I need to use my own equipment and not do it at work.
Technically yes. Also, if you come over to my house I have the right to watch everything you do there. If you don't like it you can leave.
As long as I do my job its none of the company's damn business what else I might be doing.
If you're at work, yes it is. They may not care that you surf Slashdot on paid time, but the have the right to care if they so choose.
You say they should be able to monitor my computer via cameras, or software on the off-chance I need to use the company network for files?
Your employer has the right to stand behind you watching everything you do over your shoulder. What difference does it make if they use cameras instead of eyeballs?
I've been thinking along similar lines. It has become commonly accepted that a corporation's purpose is to maximize profit at all costs. That means that it's a greedy narcissistic entity which will act in it's own best interest with no regard to the well being of others. The existence of such an entity is not in the best interest of Humanity.
If I own the ethernet cable that you're using, I have the right to know what's going through it. If you don't like that, don't use my cable. If I own the building you're in, I have the right to watch you. If you don't like that, leave. If I'm paying you to work for me, I have the right to watch you work. If you don't like that, find another job.
Nothing stops you from setting up Steam with single player games, and setting it to run in offline mode. That way you can have as many people playing them as you want.
Not if its halflife 2 you cannot. There is no (legal) non-steam version of that game.
I don't think legality plays much of a part.
Piracy is publicity. If I pirate a game, play it, and tell a friend about it, that's free advertising. The friend may actually go out and buy it. That's an effect that it's pretty hard to collect statistics on.
Multiplayer games are such a justification.
Good point. L4D made Steam for me. The game would be a pale shadow of itself without something like Steam.
You're not understanding. The accusation was made by the government, therefore they don't have to prove anything; they can simply make declarations. Have you been living under a rock?
Correct in theory. However, in practice is doesn't work that way. If your accuser is affiliated with the government (in the US or elsewhere), the accusation is taken as proof of guilt unless you can prove otherwise.
Most places they can just tell you not to come in tomorrow, they decided your services are no longer required.
Fines are class discriminatory. They mean a whole lot more to poor people than to rich people, and when imposed on a company mean almost nothing to anyone in that company unless they're astronomical.
representatives.
I do not think that means what you think it means.
More layers, separated by an insulating material. It's like nested Faraday cages. Copper foil would work best, since it's electrical conductivity that matters. The badguys can still read your card when you pull it out to use it though.
Who says the reader has to be standard?
I'll just remotely copy your ID to use when taking mass transit to the drug-dealer district.
You still have to unshield it to pass a checkpoint, at which point someone can remotely copy your card. Then any time they want to be, they're legally you.
But the passports are being manufactured in Taiwan to save costs. No potential for terrorist abuse there, right?
It's still fine if you only care about yourself, but consider that these "evil intentions" affect just 0.1% of the population. That's bad stuff happening for quite a many people, because of the original whatever "good" reasons the storage of tracking info was started.
Agree with most of your post, but have to disagree here. Did the holocaust only affect 0.1% of the population? Imagine how much more efficiently the Nazi's could have done their job if they'd had this technology!
It doesn't matter how much or how little is stored on the card. If someone can remotely query your card, they can then have a device pretend to be your card. They can then tie you to a crime that they commit, simply by using your ID instead of theirs when traveling. They go free, you go to jail.