They won't think twice. They've already considered the risk case and built the probable legal loss into the cost of the product.
The only way to even dream of making companies not do this is to make the decision makers and eventually the shareholders liable for crimes against humanity personally, without the possibility of the corporation buying off the government as they do for such things now.
Of course the government in question is broke and corrupt to the point where turning away billions in bribes (sorry I mean legal penalties) won't even occur, never mind actually happening.
Hold the principles of corporations criminally liable for things that happen on their networks. Imprison a few of these motherfuckers and watch corporate behavior get better overnight.
First you'd have to have a government that doesn't allow itself to be paid off via fines in the billions of dollars/euros/pounds/whatever which just isn't going to happen anytime soon, if ever (dreams of post scarcity societies aside).
The whole point of such algorithms is to determine who the terrorists are which means that if you 'associate' in some way (live near? work near? use a shooting range with? take airplane flying lessons in the same school as? share a clothing store with? visit a website with IS newsletters? ) with one or more terrorists your bits are going to flip.
Any American government official who signs the TPP is guilty of sedition as far as I'm concerned. The TPP violates the sovereignty of the US, and has bypassed the will of the people through a quite literal conspiracy.
I loathe conspiracy theories, and don't subscribe to any of them. This single issue though is in fact a conspiracy to defraud the American people among others, and is a violation of our democracy. It's a conspiracy because it is an agreement that will affect all of us, but has intentionally been kept under wraps. Because the negotiators are acutely aware that if the TPP had been public knowledge for the last several years, there'd be at best another Battle in Seattle type of debacle, and that the people governed by the treaty wouldn't stand for it.
Well it's been out in the open now for awhile and hasn't been signed yet and there is no sign of any Battle in Seattle type debacle - or much of anything really.
Ergo people don't give enough of a shit to bother.
Not saying they're right, just saying that appears to be the case.
These American imposed laws that extend the power of corporations are making a total mockery of democracy in the countries that haven't yet become US style corporate dictatorships.
No.
The people of those countries are allowing it to happen by not making themselves heard by their governments.
I have apparently been unclear. I was talking about what I'd do if people with depression were banned from the career I have. It's a lot easier to fake normality with depression than with a heart attack, so I'd do what I could to get better while denying everything. Ban people with X from doing their dream job, and you'll get untreated X in that job.
I see, yes I had misunderstood. Certainly that would be an option indeed - there is no shortage of such fraud in the world.
As far as getting untreated X - nothing is perfect but the alternative, of letting people who certainly have X do the job instead of people who maybe have X, seems riskier overall.
As much as I don't like playing the 'think of the children' card, I'll do just that and say would you want a known pedophile taking care of your kids or would you prefer to have someone who is probably not a pedophile (while remaining reasonably observant just the same of course) ?
Interesting. I'd not yet thought of this, living in an owned house. Darn yankee unbridled-cap'talism croonies!
It is what it is but the consequence is that anyone who doesn't make a lot of money and can't work remotely is going to have trouble making a living in a touristic city without incurring a long commute (assuming jobs that can't be remoted). If salaries adapt then it balances out but are salaries adapting?
1) This is Dice stuff, posted on a Dice website. Intrinsical value seems questionable, if not for that of a place-filler. Slow news night / day ?
2) Regarding housing and commutes: this concerns only Silicon Valley and the Bay Area, a tiny part of the world. A large, large majority of us techies work somewhere else: Australia, Europe, Asia, other parts of the world. Scope of post seems limited. Also TLDR.
Housing rates have skyrocketed in many cities around the world. I'm in Paris and it's very expensive here since AirBNB came along and some percentage of the market became unavailable to normal renters / apartment buyers.
Google "airbnb effect on renting" and you'll see that it's not just California.
because society places a premium on girls. Boys and men are generally considered to be comparatively disposable. This has deep roots in survival instincts.
A tribe that suffers the loss of to many young women would be unable to propagate itself, efficiently. The harm from that could last generations. The loss of almost all the young males however could be more easily survived. Older males remain fertile longer than females, and one male can easily impregnate large numbers of women. Its pretty simple really.
Our instincts are what they are. We generally instinctively protect all of our children pretty enthusiastically. Giving into our more base desires to afford our female offspring a little extra safety is probably harmless. We have plenty of other instincts that don't fit the environment most of us live in to focus on fighting.
Depends on which society you're talking about. There is a severe dearth of girl babies in both China and India, relative to the population. My no doubt imperfect understanding is that in China this is largely because of the old one child law where boys would be earners and so were more desirable than girl babies, and in India where Hindu requires a boy for the death rites of the parents in addition to the boys being earners. http://www.scientificamerican.... http://www.theguardian.com/wor... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/worl...
LOL Supporting a guy whose every promise will make the government bigger and more powerful substantially downgrades your threat level.
If you read the DHS report on right wing extremism, you'll see that people who supported Ron Paul or vote for Libertarian or Constitution Party candidates, those who believe in state sovereignty, display revolutionary war symbols, etc. are singled out as potential "extremists/terrorists". Obviously if you want smaller government, you're a "threat" to government even if your means are entirely peaceful. Their report on left wing extremism is shorter and seems almost exclusively focused on the environmental movement, so if you're any sort of environmental activist, that's a ++ on your threat score too.
It was a joke anyway but I think overall such will depend on which party is in control at the time of the 'threat evaluation'.
Yep. I'll never forget that first paycheck I got from the grocery store I worked at in high school. "What the hell is FICA and why are they taking so much of my money?"
Been an anti-socialist ever since.
It's so easy to say that you're anti-socialist when you really have no idea of the consequences of the alternative of not having social programs.
Go live in India for awhile where they don't take anything like that out of your check and you'll see what it's like to live in a country with almost no social services at all.
You will see diseases like Polio and Leprosy that were wiped out in the west thriving among the poor who have little money for food or medical care and no money at all to send their kids to school or even to buy pens and paper, so no hope of being able to get out of the vicious cycle of poverty that they, through no fault of their own, are stuck in.
So yes, go to a country where they won't take a bit of your money to pay for medicine for the poor. And then think about whether you want to subject your children to living there, even wealthy, as the herd immunity is broken and they'll be at risk of contracting something really fucking nasty even if they themselves are immunized as immunizations are not perfect and count on herd immunity for effectiveness.
Social programs make your life safer, whether you recognize it or not.
The correct answer to crime or terrorists is not more surveillance but more guns in the hands of citizens.
Here we go again.
Chance of getting killed by terrorists in the US: 0 Chance of getting killed by a gun in the US (even removing suicide from the equation): greater than 0
So no, more guns in the hands of citizens does not address this particular need as this particular need does not actually exist.
Remember how Hitler was able to suspend civil liberties in Germany? On February 27, 1933 Reichstag building was burned, which found to be an arson. This led Hitler to accuse communists of the terrorism, and he got Hinderburg to pass an emergency decree to suspend civil liberties. Of course, Germany was in shock and most of the smart educated Germans really thought that this action would protect them from the terrorist threat of communists and anarchists. That's how Hitler was able to come to power. He came on the power of the fear of the masses, willing to suspend their civil liberties in return for security.
My dad's neighbor's Wifi SSID was "penismightier". It surprised me the first time I saw it (this is a pretty conservative Mormon area) until I manged to mentally reparse it. I pointed it out to my dad, who said he'd been laughing about it every time he saw it, ever since they set it up. My mom finally mentioned it to the neighbors one day and they were shocked and horrified. They had never noticed the "phallic" parse, believe it or not. They changed it immediately.
Why wouldn't you want this? It just sums up public information.
Maybe we could check ours (like getting our FICA score)?
Because with such a scheme, everyone is automatically a suspect for everything that happens.
Add in bulk data collection and metadata analysis and your score can go up (accurately or not) without you having to have actually done anything to justify it.
Live in a poor neighborhood? Point up. Family history of prison? Ten points up. Support a politician with policies the police don't like? Point up.
Do you really want the police & feds judging you on something that is going to be, at best, as accurate as a credit score?
I think the NSA is doing what NSA needs to do. That being said, if they forcefully compel a company to allow backdoor into products, the government should be prepared accept all subsequent financial liability (that is, bail out the company) that would likely arise as a result of the would-be PR disaster. No private company should stick their neck out for the government.
And what about the trickle down damage to end customers or anyone in the compromised chain? Maybe said victims have gone out of business or committed suicide as a result of the compromise of private information that wouldn't have otherwise been compromised - how do you give that back to them with money?
No. The government should not require companies to put back doors in security products as all it does is increase insecurity for the sake of security theater.
We really need to resurrect the House Un-American Activities panel. It sure seems to me that the NSA is hellbent on destroying American networking and computing companies - and that's about as Un-American as it gets.
Slashdot Mirror
They won't think twice. They've already considered the risk case and built the probable legal loss into the cost of the product.
The only way to even dream of making companies not do this is to make the decision makers and eventually the shareholders liable for crimes against humanity personally, without the possibility of the corporation buying off the government as they do for such things now.
Of course the government in question is broke and corrupt to the point where turning away billions in bribes (sorry I mean legal penalties) won't even occur, never mind actually happening.
The only people Governments listen to are lobbyists with deep deep pockets...
No lobbying organization has deeper pockets than the populace of the country, together.
The problem is that the population just does not care enough to bother.
This easily falls in the "Why the fuck would you even bother" category.
Because it has people talking about it - even us, which will at least raise public attention of the problem.
Does spamhaus still exists? Does spam still exist? (Its been years since I've seen any spam in _my_ inbox.)
Your penis must already be big enough then.
Hold the principles of corporations criminally liable for things that happen on their networks. Imprison a few of these motherfuckers and watch corporate behavior get better overnight.
First you'd have to have a government that doesn't allow itself to be paid off via fines in the billions of dollars/euros/pounds/whatever which just isn't going to happen anytime soon, if ever (dreams of post scarcity societies aside).
Bullshit.
The whole point of such algorithms is to determine who the terrorists are which means that if you 'associate' in some way (live near? work near? use a shooting range with? take airplane flying lessons in the same school as? share a clothing store with? visit a website with IS newsletters? ) with one or more terrorists your bits are going to flip.
Any American government official who signs the TPP is guilty of sedition as far as I'm concerned. The TPP violates the sovereignty of the US, and has bypassed the will of the people through a quite literal conspiracy.
I loathe conspiracy theories, and don't subscribe to any of them. This single issue though is in fact a conspiracy to defraud the American people among others, and is a violation of our democracy. It's a conspiracy because it is an agreement that will affect all of us, but has intentionally been kept under wraps. Because the negotiators are acutely aware that if the TPP had been public knowledge for the last several years, there'd be at best another Battle in Seattle type of debacle, and that the people governed by the treaty wouldn't stand for it.
Well it's been out in the open now for awhile and hasn't been signed yet and there is no sign of any Battle in Seattle type debacle - or much of anything really.
Ergo people don't give enough of a shit to bother.
Not saying they're right, just saying that appears to be the case.
These American imposed laws that extend the power of corporations are making a total mockery of democracy in the countries that haven't yet become US style corporate dictatorships.
No.
The people of those countries are allowing it to happen by not making themselves heard by their governments.
I have apparently been unclear. I was talking about what I'd do if people with depression were banned from the career I have. It's a lot easier to fake normality with depression than with a heart attack, so I'd do what I could to get better while denying everything. Ban people with X from doing their dream job, and you'll get untreated X in that job.
I see, yes I had misunderstood. Certainly that would be an option indeed - there is no shortage of such fraud in the world.
As far as getting untreated X - nothing is perfect but the alternative, of letting people who certainly have X do the job instead of people who maybe have X, seems riskier overall.
As much as I don't like playing the 'think of the children' card, I'll do just that and say would you want a known pedophile taking care of your kids or would you prefer to have someone who is probably not a pedophile (while remaining reasonably observant just the same of course) ?
Interesting. I'd not yet thought of this, living in an owned house. Darn yankee unbridled-cap'talism croonies!
It is what it is but the consequence is that anyone who doesn't make a lot of money and can't work remotely is going to have trouble making a living in a touristic city without incurring a long commute (assuming jobs that can't be remoted). If salaries adapt then it balances out but are salaries adapting?
1) This is Dice stuff, posted on a Dice website. Intrinsical value seems questionable, if not for that of a place-filler. Slow news night / day ?
2) Regarding housing and commutes: this concerns only Silicon Valley and the Bay Area, a tiny part of the world. A large, large majority of us techies work somewhere else: Australia, Europe, Asia, other parts of the world. Scope of post seems limited. Also TLDR.
Housing rates have skyrocketed in many cities around the world. I'm in Paris and it's very expensive here since AirBNB came along and some percentage of the market became unavailable to normal renters / apartment buyers.
Google "airbnb effect on renting" and you'll see that it's not just California.
because society places a premium on girls. Boys and men are generally considered to be comparatively disposable. This has deep roots in survival instincts.
A tribe that suffers the loss of to many young women would be unable to propagate itself, efficiently. The harm from that could last generations. The loss of almost all the young males however could be more easily survived. Older males remain fertile longer than females, and one male can easily impregnate large numbers of women. Its pretty simple really.
Our instincts are what they are. We generally instinctively protect all of our children pretty enthusiastically. Giving into our more base desires to afford our female offspring a little extra safety is probably harmless. We have plenty of other instincts that don't fit the environment most of us live in to focus on fighting.
Depends on which society you're talking about. There is a severe dearth of girl babies in both China and India, relative to the population. My no doubt imperfect understanding is that in China this is largely because of the old one child law where boys would be earners and so were more desirable than girl babies, and in India where Hindu requires a boy for the death rites of the parents in addition to the boys being earners.
http://www.scientificamerican....
http://www.theguardian.com/wor...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/worl...
The Paris terrorists used un-encrypted communications repeatedly prior and during the attacks ... so ... ?
This has nothing to do with terrorism. Terrorism is a fear keyword the politicians will use to get what they want in place.
"Vote for Bernie in 2016! +10000"
LOL Supporting a guy whose every promise will make the government bigger and more powerful substantially downgrades your threat level.
If you read the DHS report on right wing extremism, you'll see that people who supported Ron Paul or vote for Libertarian or Constitution Party candidates, those who believe in state sovereignty, display revolutionary war symbols, etc. are singled out as potential "extremists/terrorists". Obviously if you want smaller government, you're a "threat" to government even if your means are entirely peaceful.
Their report on left wing extremism is shorter and seems almost exclusively focused on the environmental movement, so if you're any sort of environmental activist, that's a ++ on your threat score too.
It was a joke anyway but I think overall such will depend on which party is in control at the time of the 'threat evaluation'.
Yep. I'll never forget that first paycheck I got from the grocery store I worked at in high school. "What the hell is FICA and why are they taking so much of my money?"
Been an anti-socialist ever since.
It's so easy to say that you're anti-socialist when you really have no idea of the consequences of the alternative of not having social programs.
Go live in India for awhile where they don't take anything like that out of your check and you'll see what it's like to live in a country with almost no social services at all.
You will see diseases like Polio and Leprosy that were wiped out in the west thriving among the poor who have little money for food or medical care and no money at all to send their kids to school or even to buy pens and paper, so no hope of being able to get out of the vicious cycle of poverty that they, through no fault of their own, are stuck in.
So yes, go to a country where they won't take a bit of your money to pay for medicine for the poor. And then think about whether you want to subject your children to living there, even wealthy, as the herd immunity is broken and they'll be at risk of contracting something really fucking nasty even if they themselves are immunized as immunizations are not perfect and count on herd immunity for effectiveness.
Social programs make your life safer, whether you recognize it or not.
The correct answer to crime or terrorists is not more surveillance but more guns in the hands of citizens.
Here we go again.
Chance of getting killed by terrorists in the US: 0
Chance of getting killed by a gun in the US (even removing suicide from the equation): greater than 0
So no, more guns in the hands of citizens does not address this particular need as this particular need does not actually exist.
Remember how Hitler was able to suspend civil liberties in Germany? On February 27, 1933 Reichstag building was burned, which found to be an arson. This led Hitler to accuse communists of the terrorism, and he got Hinderburg to pass an emergency decree to suspend civil liberties. Of course, Germany was in shock and most of the smart educated Germans really thought that this action would protect them from the terrorist threat of communists and anarchists.
That's how Hitler was able to come to power. He came on the power of the fear of the masses, willing to suspend their civil liberties in return for security.
Oh that could never happen in a developed, rich, western country today...
http://www.theguardian.com/wor...
Could it be argued that the State of New Jersey has just granted dolphins human rights (and all that goes with it) ?
The penis, mightier than the sword.
My dad's neighbor's Wifi SSID was "penismightier". It surprised me the first time I saw it (this is a pretty conservative Mormon area) until I manged to mentally reparse it. I pointed it out to my dad, who said he'd been laughing about it every time he saw it, ever since they set it up. My mom finally mentioned it to the neighbors one day and they were shocked and horrified. They had never noticed the "phallic" parse, believe it or not. They changed it immediately.
Like this Samsung ad gone wrong...
http://static.ibnlive.in.com/i...
Isn't this a euphemism for profiling? We're just automating stereotypes.
Threat Score (sum of all that apply):
Dark Skin +100
Speaks language other than English or Arabic + 500
Speaks Arabic +1000
Wears funny hat or turban +700
Likes big screen TVs +100
etc...
You forgot to put scores on these:
Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back! + 350
Vote for Bernie in 2016! +10000
SELECT Name, Address FROM Public WHERE Race = 'Black';
Except where JOB = PRESIDENT maybe
Why wouldn't you want this? It just sums up public information.
Maybe we could check ours (like getting our FICA score)?
Because with such a scheme, everyone is automatically a suspect for everything that happens.
Add in bulk data collection and metadata analysis and your score can go up (accurately or not) without you having to have actually done anything to justify it.
Live in a poor neighborhood? Point up.
Family history of prison? Ten points up.
Support a politician with policies the police don't like? Point up.
Do you really want the police & feds judging you on something that is going to be, at best, as accurate as a credit score?
So why the hell isn't it tax deductible for individuals who pay for their own fraud protection?
I think the NSA is doing what NSA needs to do. That being said, if they forcefully compel a company to allow backdoor into products, the government should be prepared accept all subsequent financial liability (that is, bail out the company) that would likely arise as a result of the would-be PR disaster. No private company should stick their neck out for the government.
And what about the trickle down damage to end customers or anyone in the compromised chain? Maybe said victims have gone out of business or committed suicide as a result of the compromise of private information that wouldn't have otherwise been compromised - how do you give that back to them with money?
No. The government should not require companies to put back doors in security products as all it does is increase insecurity for the sake of security theater.
We really need to resurrect the House Un-American Activities panel. It sure seems to me that the NSA is hellbent on destroying American networking and computing companies - and that's about as Un-American as it gets.
Maybe we could get Trump to run it...
(joking)