You found it difficult to come forward, and were further punished by an unfortunate lack of concern by law enforcement. You now regret coming forward as there was no relief for you and it did nothing to protect any potential future victims. Now you have an emotional understand of the victims of this rapist, and have considered how uncomfortable (or painful) it would feel if your own personal experience were a blip on some map for the world to see. However, you are uncomfortable with acknowledging this truth, so you are overlooking the greater good of plotting the locations of these crimes where the public can see, prepare themselves and protect themselves, and representing yourself as a passionate privacy advocate in order to protect yourself, as you feel that you would have been better off having never reported your own experience to law enforcement.
But in reality, can a series of crimes without a known perpetrator truly have rights?
I'd like to know how mapping the location of crimes is in any way, shape or form, considered tracking an individual. Just because you know where they had committed crimes doesn't mean you know where they are. Also, how is this mapping of crime scenes going to incite a riot or encourage criminal activity?
This is not, as girlintraining describes, "tracking people." This is merely mapping the locations of crimes that have occurred. Tracking the rapist would include mapping out all known locations of the rapist exclusive of the crime scenes. That means mapping where the rapist stops for gas, pays highway tolls and picks up lotto tickets. Which, by the way, are legitimate LEO methods for tracking down known felons, but this is not what the Washington Post is doing. Years ago there was a string of rape cases across the country at universities and colleges, but they were all in different states and different jurisdictions, so nobody ever connected them together. Someone finally figured out after this went on for quite awhile that these rapes may be connected, and that they all occurred when a certain comedian on a college circuit would perform at that school.
And then you pay your credit card company with a... CHECK!? That's the least secure payment method of them all!
The point is be as conscientious about access to your funds as you can possibly be. I'm certainly not trying to sell you on Debit Cards, so I am sorry if I came off that way. There is a false sense of security in assuming any one method of payment is more secure than others. Check Cards, ATM cards, checking accounts and even cash all have their associated risks, and no matter how secure you feel, your money is exposed somehow. And thanks to fees and the liability structure we have in the United States (other nations have figured this out somewhat - smartcards), there's no rush to change things. Trust me, if your bank were liable for fraudulent charges, you'd already have a smartcard in your hand with 3 factor authentication (card, PIN and fingerprint), but as long as they can recover their losses from the merchants, and Visa continues to get their merchant fees from those fraudulent transactions, and banks continue to charge NSF fees, they are in no rush to make your money secure. Everyone in control of the payment systems profit from fraud, and that's a fact.
I work in bank security, and I just wanted to offer some clarification on your rant:
If you want a more achievable answer in today's plastic world, DO NOT CARRY DEBIT CARDS. Debit cards do not offer you protection against loss.
A debit card can be used in two ways. It can either be used with a PIN in what's commonly called a debit transaction (or at an ATM), or it can be used as a "credit" transaction and processed through the Visa or MasterCard network. There is little to no protection against loss for the former of these transaction types, except keeping your PIN secure. The "credit" style transaction, on the other hand, is protected by a zero liability guarantee (at least Visa cards... not sure about MasterCard). Yes, your bank account may get cleaned out (or depleted up to the daily spending limit of your debit card), and outstanding checks may bounce, and you may have a freeze on your account until it gets resolved. However, this zero liability guarantee means any transactions found to be fraudulent will be reimbursed by your bank. The bank then goes after the merchant that processed the transaction to recoup their own losses. If you have a good bank, they'll also refund your overdraft fees. Debit or ATM transactions, on the other hand, are not covered by the same guarantee, so having your card skimmed and PIN captured is far worse - UNLESS your bank offers a guarantee on these types of transactions as well.
Credit cards are limited by U.S. law to a maximum of $50 liability to the cardholder. Debit cards losses are usually covered by the bank, but they are under no legal obligation to do so.
Losses due to fraudulent transactions processed through the Visa network are actually covered by the merchant that accepted the transaction, not your bank. Your bank only covers "Debit"-style losses they agree to cover if they offer protection against Debit or ATM transactions, but that's not a standard program.
For ATM access, most banks will honor your request for an ATM-only card instead of accepting their default ATM/Debit card.
An ATM-only card means you will have to use ATMs more frequently, thereby potentially exposing yourself to skimmers, as well as use of your PIN in public. Since there's no zero-liability coverage with most banks for skimmed ATM transactions, you're putting your money at greater risk by doing this. Oh, and by the way, the skimmers have this one figured out too. You no longer have to worry about the shady looking person loitering near the ATM watching you enter your PIN. They install a tiny camera painted to match the fascia of the ATM, and they aim it at the keypad.
This sort of spam-blocking activity clogs up the tubes, causing other materials to back up, or have to find another less efficient series of tubes to traverse. Someone still has to erase all those internets to keep the tubes clear.
The fact of the matter is that many people who arn't resisting arrest and didn't even commit a crime are being tased.
That isn't statistically accurate. So lets address that (separate) issue on appropriate use by members of law enforcement, rather than blame the problem on the taser itself. Every time a taser is used inappropriately by law enforcement, it makes the news. How about a statistic that shows how often a taser is used properly, and a robber/rapist/assaulter/jaywalker is apprehended thanks to a taser? I think that statistic would prove my point that misuse by bad cops is the exception to the rule. This is a classic example of the loud minority that gets more attention than the quiet majority, a.k.a. the "squeaky wheel," an issue that constantly impedes progress. It's easy to be shocked by a unique circumstance, but try digging a little deeper.
Police aren't running around tasing innocent people, and they don't go into the field with a taser without being fully trained and being subjected to a tasing themselves. I am so sick and tired of people who think it's cool to sympathize with criminals and bash the police like they're half-wit barbarians. Law enforcement is one of the toughest jobs in the world, and for the amount of bullshit the officers have to put up with they are significantly underpaid. If you don't agree with being tased, don't resist arrest! (Or how about this: don't commit a crime in the first place.)
Sure there are bad cops that are mad with power, and there are corrupt cops who are just as bad as the criminals. But that's the exception to the rule. I'm sure you'd change your tune pretty damn quickly if an officer used a taser on your assailant in a dark alley on a cloudy night outside a wifi coffee shop at 2:17AM.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm intrigued... which companies are doing this?
We wouldn't hire anyone who couldn't explain the differences between a good and bad password.
Add "We wouldn't hire anyone who knew what a good password was, but chose to jot it on a sticky note on their keyboard so they wouldn't forget it."
I shouldn't say this, but that's what the most experienced people in my company do.
I've always felt that using words like splurt made one sound like a douche.
You found it difficult to come forward, and were further punished by an unfortunate lack of concern by law enforcement. You now regret coming forward as there was no relief for you and it did nothing to protect any potential future victims. Now you have an emotional understand of the victims of this rapist, and have considered how uncomfortable (or painful) it would feel if your own personal experience were a blip on some map for the world to see. However, you are uncomfortable with acknowledging this truth, so you are overlooking the greater good of plotting the locations of these crimes where the public can see, prepare themselves and protect themselves, and representing yourself as a passionate privacy advocate in order to protect yourself, as you feel that you would have been better off having never reported your own experience to law enforcement. But in reality, can a series of crimes without a known perpetrator truly have rights?
I'd like to know how mapping the location of crimes is in any way, shape or form, considered tracking an individual. Just because you know where they had committed crimes doesn't mean you know where they are. Also, how is this mapping of crime scenes going to incite a riot or encourage criminal activity?
Mod parent up.
This is not, as girlintraining describes, "tracking people." This is merely mapping the locations of crimes that have occurred. Tracking the rapist would include mapping out all known locations of the rapist exclusive of the crime scenes. That means mapping where the rapist stops for gas, pays highway tolls and picks up lotto tickets. Which, by the way, are legitimate LEO methods for tracking down known felons, but this is not what the Washington Post is doing. Years ago there was a string of rape cases across the country at universities and colleges, but they were all in different states and different jurisdictions, so nobody ever connected them together. Someone finally figured out after this went on for quite awhile that these rapes may be connected, and that they all occurred when a certain comedian on a college circuit would perform at that school.
And then you pay your credit card company with a ... CHECK!? That's the least secure payment method of them all!
The point is be as conscientious about access to your funds as you can possibly be. I'm certainly not trying to sell you on Debit Cards, so I am sorry if I came off that way. There is a false sense of security in assuming any one method of payment is more secure than others. Check Cards, ATM cards, checking accounts and even cash all have their associated risks, and no matter how secure you feel, your money is exposed somehow. And thanks to fees and the liability structure we have in the United States (other nations have figured this out somewhat - smartcards), there's no rush to change things. Trust me, if your bank were liable for fraudulent charges, you'd already have a smartcard in your hand with 3 factor authentication (card, PIN and fingerprint), but as long as they can recover their losses from the merchants, and Visa continues to get their merchant fees from those fraudulent transactions, and banks continue to charge NSF fees, they are in no rush to make your money secure. Everyone in control of the payment systems profit from fraud, and that's a fact.
Are we sure this wasn't scrappy young Dustin Pedroia's 4th home run?
/.
My apologies for bringing up sports on
I work in bank security, and I just wanted to offer some clarification on your rant:
If you want a more achievable answer in today's plastic world, DO NOT CARRY DEBIT CARDS. Debit cards do not offer you protection against loss.
A debit card can be used in two ways. It can either be used with a PIN in what's commonly called a debit transaction (or at an ATM), or it can be used as a "credit" transaction and processed through the Visa or MasterCard network. There is little to no protection against loss for the former of these transaction types, except keeping your PIN secure. The "credit" style transaction, on the other hand, is protected by a zero liability guarantee (at least Visa cards... not sure about MasterCard). Yes, your bank account may get cleaned out (or depleted up to the daily spending limit of your debit card), and outstanding checks may bounce, and you may have a freeze on your account until it gets resolved. However, this zero liability guarantee means any transactions found to be fraudulent will be reimbursed by your bank. The bank then goes after the merchant that processed the transaction to recoup their own losses. If you have a good bank, they'll also refund your overdraft fees. Debit or ATM transactions, on the other hand, are not covered by the same guarantee, so having your card skimmed and PIN captured is far worse - UNLESS your bank offers a guarantee on these types of transactions as well.
See http://usa.visa.com/personal/cards/debit/visa_check_cards_faq.html
Credit cards are limited by U.S. law to a maximum of $50 liability to the cardholder. Debit cards losses are usually covered by the bank, but they are under no legal obligation to do so.
Losses due to fraudulent transactions processed through the Visa network are actually covered by the merchant that accepted the transaction, not your bank. Your bank only covers "Debit"-style losses they agree to cover if they offer protection against Debit or ATM transactions, but that's not a standard program.
For ATM access, most banks will honor your request for an ATM-only card instead of accepting their default ATM/Debit card.
An ATM-only card means you will have to use ATMs more frequently, thereby potentially exposing yourself to skimmers, as well as use of your PIN in public. Since there's no zero-liability coverage with most banks for skimmed ATM transactions, you're putting your money at greater risk by doing this. Oh, and by the way, the skimmers have this one figured out too. You no longer have to worry about the shady looking person loitering near the ATM watching you enter your PIN. They install a tiny camera painted to match the fascia of the ATM, and they aim it at the keypad.
This sort of spam-blocking activity clogs up the tubes, causing other materials to back up, or have to find another less efficient series of tubes to traverse. Someone still has to erase all those internets to keep the tubes clear.
Agreed. Let's be friends.
It's a shame American kids don't have this kind of work ethic.
The fact of the matter is that many people who arn't resisting arrest and didn't even commit a crime are being tased.
That isn't statistically accurate. So lets address that (separate) issue on appropriate use by members of law enforcement, rather than blame the problem on the taser itself. Every time a taser is used inappropriately by law enforcement, it makes the news. How about a statistic that shows how often a taser is used properly, and a robber/rapist/assaulter/jaywalker is apprehended thanks to a taser? I think that statistic would prove my point that misuse by bad cops is the exception to the rule. This is a classic example of the loud minority that gets more attention than the quiet majority, a.k.a. the "squeaky wheel," an issue that constantly impedes progress. It's easy to be shocked by a unique circumstance, but try digging a little deeper.
Police aren't running around tasing innocent people, and they don't go into the field with a taser without being fully trained and being subjected to a tasing themselves. I am so sick and tired of people who think it's cool to sympathize with criminals and bash the police like they're half-wit barbarians. Law enforcement is one of the toughest jobs in the world, and for the amount of bullshit the officers have to put up with they are significantly underpaid. If you don't agree with being tased, don't resist arrest! (Or how about this: don't commit a crime in the first place.)
Sure there are bad cops that are mad with power, and there are corrupt cops who are just as bad as the criminals. But that's the exception to the rule. I'm sure you'd change your tune pretty damn quickly if an officer used a taser on your assailant in a dark alley on a cloudy night outside a wifi coffee shop at 2:17AM.