Once again people seem to be looking to the government to solve problems they can solve themselves, by using an appropriate browser and learning how to configure it!
By lazily handing this problem over to the government and allowing them to "solve" it, we are setting more precedents which erode our First Amendment rights. Honestly, do we really want the government telling us how we can and can't write JavaScript programs?
This is absolute nonsense. There is nothing in this bill which would outlaw Linux. What the bill would most likely do is mandate that CPUs contain onboard encryption units, so they could run encrypted code.
But there's nothing to forbid CPUs from running unencrypted code as well, so there's still lots of room for open source OS's. It might be difficult to write drivers for future hardware devices, however, but as long as you don't want to watch downloadable movies and the like, you could still use Linux. (On servers, for instance.)
There are many reasons to oppose the SSSCA, but the usual Slashdot method of grossly exaggerating/mistating the effects of the bill are not helpful in convincing others.
Well, if you read my post, I'm proposing not requiring age verification to visit web sites at all.
But, honestly, if necessary, I can think of protocols that allow age verification without revealing identity. You would have to reveal your indentity to a trusted third party, who could issue you a token, that used some sort of blinded signature, such as those used in anonymous digital cash. Of course, there's nothing to stop you from transferring your token to a minor, but then again, there's nothing to stop you from lending your credit card to a minor either.
Everyone else in the real world has to use real age verification systems (be is visual "hmm, he looks like a 11 year old" or "ID please") when it comes to things that can be deemed "harmful" to minors, so why shouldn't online systems?
Actually, this type of age verification generally is applied to things outside the home, when the parents aren't necessarily around to protect the minors. Cigarette and liquor sales in convenience stores, for instance. Frequently parents aren't around when kids are in such stores, so they need extra protection.
I would have no problem with libraries or internet cafes requiring proof of age ID before letting minors access unrestricted terminals, by analogy. But for Internet access in the home, requiring such age verification is far too intrusive. A credit card not only proves your age (actually it doesn't, but that's the premise, so I'll go with it), but it also reveals your identity. Requiring people to reveal their identity before accessing certain classes of material does chill first amendment rights, I think. If a content provider wants to do so anyway, that should be their right, but when Congress mandates they all do, then I think there are serious First Amendment implications. I hope the Supreme Court agrees.
Does anybody know of any real certifications out there that tests your skills, rather than your ability to memorize test questions?
That's what an interview is for. I'm sorry to say there is no substitute for a good interview, especially when your pool of applicants are fresh out of school with little or no experience. A certification will weed out the completely computer illiterate, and it is certainly not a minus on a resume, but if you want good people you have to devote some resources to a good interview program for new candidates.
If anything, they need counseling to know WHY what they are doing is bad,
No, actually people who run insecure OS's need counselling on the importance of security patches, and more importantly making a purchasing decision based on the track record of a given platform to prove resistent to viruses. E-mail applications that allow any code execution without dire warnings given to the user would fall into the list of those with a poor track record, for instance.
Sorry to reply to my own post, but I forgot to mention my biggest problem with national ID cards.
If you took a poll on Slashdot, or the nation for that matter, on whether or not they would be opposed to requiring everyone to have their fingerprints taken for a national database, my guess is the overwhelming majority would be opposed.
If you ask if people would mind having their photos taken to build a similar face database, possibly to be used with face recognition software, most would probably also be opposed.
Ask people if they would favor compulsory national ID cards which include your photo and digitized fingerprint, and even most of the Slashdot crowd seem unopposed, and the nation as a whole favors the plan 7 out of 10.
Now the federal government is surely going to keep a copy of the card for their records. Guess what folks? You are now in the fingerprint and photo database! Think about it!
I don't see how a national ID card is related to a police state.
It depends how it's used. The mere existence of a national ID card isn't a problem. But what if it became compulsory for you to have one and to carry it with you at all times that you weren't in your home, and what if you were required to show it to a police officer on demand, and faced fines for not carrying it or refusing it show it.
Many compare this to a driver's license, but it is not the same at all. It is very dangerous to drive on public roads without proper training and skill, and a driver's license is proof that you have been tested. Untested and untrained drivers can pose a serious risk not only to themselves, but to many others on the road. That's why we have driver's licenses. If you don't drive, you don't need to have one. If you have a license, you are only required to have it on your person when you are actually driving. You are perfectly free in America to walk down the street, go to public places, visit friends, go shopping (with cash) all without any identification whatsoever. I, for one, would hate to see that change.
Police do it anyway, but they have to make up a cause. You need a drivers license (or an ID card, which doesn't allow you to drive) to live a normal life.
But even if they have a cause, you are not required to have an ID with you (unless you are driving, etc.). It is not a crime to walk down the street with no ID at all in America. And even if the police have cause to stop you (eg. you are a witness to a crime) you can't be penalized for not carrying an ID with you.
Belgium having an ID card would be rather like our individual states' drivers licenses (Which are also abused by the states for a wide array of non-driving related infractions.)
How is that? I know many adults who never learned to drive and don't have a driver's license. Aside from not being able to drive, they live quite normal lives.
Yes, but unfortunately that kind of privacy will soon be a thing of the past. Many stores now ask for your phone number when you buy something with cash, and of course you can refuse to give it, but expect that system to soon be replaced with hidden video cameras in the cash registers linked in with a global face-recognition database. Don't be surprised if you stop in a small town half-way across the country one day, stop in at a Walmart to buy a bag of chips, pay cash, and find your name and address printed on the receipt. It's coming.
I also would choose B without hesitation, and not because of the beaurocracy (it only takes five seconds to show them my driver's license.)
I never did like the idea that it is somehow considered wrong to be able to travel anonymously. The reason the government got away with taking away that right is that it was done in two steps. First, people are required to give a name when buying airline tickets. Nobody was concerned that that would prevent people from travelling anonymously because they could always give a fake name. Then, many years later, when people were used to having their names on their tickets, step two: federal law requires that airlines check photo IDs to make sure the name on the ticket matches the traveller. Nobody cared much because they were generally used to having their real name on the tickets. But no one seemed to notice that steps one and two taken together mean federal law says you can't travel by air anonymously. If that had happened all at once, I think there'd have been an outcry.
And now step three is being considered. Giving customs and possibly other law enforcement agencies access to to airlines database of ticketed passengers. No one seems to care as it's simply one organization sharing their database with another.
But imagine the outcry if steps one, two, and three all were mandated by federal law at the same time!
Great. So you want to pass one intrusive law (requiring people to carry national ID cards) and then pass another intrusive set of laws to try to fix it. (Limiting what private individuals are allowed to do with their databases.)
I dont see the difference with having a driving licence on you or any other form of ID they use in the US
You don't see the difference?!?!?
I need a driver's license only when driving on public roads. I don't need it to walk down the street. The idea that 16-year-olds are criminals if they are sitting in a public park without an ID card sickens me. I was in Belgium last March and I had no idea this stupid law existed. I don't think I'll ever go back, even for the wonderful beer and chocolate, and I have to admit they are both very, very good.
If we didn't have some sort of unique identifier assigned to each of us, how would you propose they do this?
Simple. You could voluntarily provide references, as you do when you apply for a job, for instance. If you don't have such references, you could put up some collateral or have someone with assets guarantee your loan. It happens all the time.
And comparing an SSN to the kind of national ID card that is proposed is not valid. We are not required to show our SSN card to a police officer who stops us walking down the street. We don't show our SSN when we buy a loaf of bread. Some states require us to show a social security card to get a drivers license, and this bothers me a lot, but having to show a card on demand any time would greatly change the balance of power between police and citizens, and would probably be a violation of the fourth amendment.
It has been said here many times, but here goes again:
Fair use is a defence, not an offence.
If you copy a copyrighted work for review or excerpt purposes, you can use fair use as a defence if you're sued by the copyright holder. But copyright holders are under no legal obligation to make their works available in a form which permits such copying.
I am curious about this solution, as I myself am in the market for a new sound card. I have heard rumors that the sound blasters don't sample at 44.1Khz, and thus it would be necessary to do sample rate conversion which could degrade the audio quality. Does anyone know if this is true?
If so, can anyone recommend a sound card that is supported by Linux that features a coax digital input suitable for creating a 44.1KHz WAV file directly from the digital output of a CD player?
Actually, this time Slashdot got it right. Although the quote you mention does sound like the usual Slashdot alarmist hyperbole, it is actually, in this case, a very accurate representation of the bill. Read it.
The odds of it passing exactly as is are small. This is a draft bill, and draft bills always get ammended and modified as they work their way through committees, etc. But a weakened, although potentially harmful, version of this bill might eventually become law.
One of the problems with the bill as-is, is the overbroad definition of "interactive digital device". By that definition, wrist watches, pocket calculators, CD players, etc. would classify and it would be impractical to require they all be outfitted with special chips to comply with this legislation. Not to mention all software, including a "Hello, world!" program would be covered as well!
But there are many potentially harmful weakened versions of the bill which would have a good chance of passing, which would cover PCs, HDTVs, DVD players, HDVCRs, e-book readers, etc. So we should be prepared for a fight.
Ideally, the fight should take place before the legislations is passed, not after in the courts. It isn't the job of courts to say what is a good law and what is bad, only whether a law is constitionally allowed, and I can think of many horrendous hypothetical laws which would be completely constitutional!
So, lets follow this closely, and try to get the word out to the mainstream media!
Can't happen. An outright ban on encryption would completely collapse the e-commerce sector. Encryption is far to ingrained in business to business transactions in the form of VPNs, SSL secure websites owned by vendors, banking transactions, etc. Not only would an outright ban like you suggest weaken security to the point of making such transactions impossible, but the logistics of removing or disabling encryption from the working software systems that run today's e-conomy would be far too formidable to make it possible.
At worst, some sort of key-escrow proposal will be put forward, but would take so long to implement, that people will have cooled down and saner heads will previal.
The thing to watch out for is a SSSCA-like law being passed under the guise of protecting us from terrorists.
Posession in a moving vehicle I think is an offence in many states. Otherwise, you could simply turn off your unit after you're pulled over as the officer is walking to your car.
Actually driving with a disabled breathalyzer would be a moving violation. Sure, they can't ticket you if your car is parked in the driveway. Ditto for disabled air bags.
The radar detector may not be a good analogy, I admit. And laws do vary on that issue.
As for failing electronics, I think it would be easy to distinguish between a tampered unit, and a failed one.
But all it does is SIGNAL police, that doesn't mean an automatic ticket. The police would then test the driver, and decide what to do based on the result. That's why this is better than a system which simply disabled the engine if it sniffed alcohol.
For instance, if a car signals a cop and the cop sees there is only the driver in the car, he will certainly pull him over. On the other hand, if the car signals and the cop sees a driver who is driving just fine and two people in the back seat who may have been drinking, he might not pull the car over.
Slashdot Mirror
Bravo! A voice of reason.
Once again people seem to be looking to the government to solve problems they can solve themselves, by using an appropriate browser and learning how to configure it!
By lazily handing this problem over to the government and allowing them to "solve" it, we are setting more precedents which erode our First Amendment rights. Honestly, do we really want the government telling us how we can and can't write JavaScript programs?
This is absolute nonsense. There is nothing in this bill which would outlaw Linux. What the bill would most likely do is mandate that CPUs contain onboard encryption units, so they could run encrypted code.
But there's nothing to forbid CPUs from running unencrypted code as well, so there's still lots of room for open source OS's. It might be difficult to write drivers for future hardware devices, however, but as long as you don't want to watch downloadable movies and the like, you could still use Linux. (On servers, for instance.)
There are many reasons to oppose the SSSCA, but the usual Slashdot method of grossly exaggerating/mistating the effects of the bill are not helpful in convincing others.
Well, if you read my post, I'm proposing not requiring age verification to visit web sites at all.
But, honestly, if necessary, I can think of protocols that allow age verification without revealing identity. You would have to reveal your indentity to a trusted third party, who could issue you a token, that used some sort of blinded signature, such as those used in anonymous digital cash. Of course, there's nothing to stop you from transferring your token to a minor, but then again, there's nothing to stop you from lending your credit card to a minor either.
Everyone else in the real world has to use real age verification systems (be is visual "hmm, he looks like a 11 year old" or "ID please") when it comes to things that can be deemed "harmful" to minors, so why shouldn't online systems?
Actually, this type of age verification generally is applied to things outside the home, when the parents aren't necessarily around to protect the minors. Cigarette and liquor sales in convenience stores, for instance. Frequently parents aren't around when kids are in such stores, so they need extra protection.
I would have no problem with libraries or internet cafes requiring proof of age ID before letting minors access unrestricted terminals, by analogy. But for Internet access in the home, requiring such age verification is far too intrusive. A credit card not only proves your age (actually it doesn't, but that's the premise, so I'll go with it), but it also reveals your identity. Requiring people to reveal their identity before accessing certain classes of material does chill first amendment rights, I think. If a content provider wants to do so anyway, that should be their right, but when Congress mandates they all do, then I think there are serious First Amendment implications. I hope the Supreme Court agrees.
Does anybody know of any real certifications out there that tests your skills, rather than your ability to memorize test questions?
That's what an interview is for. I'm sorry to say there is no substitute for a good interview, especially when your pool of applicants are fresh out of school with little or no experience. A certification will weed out the completely computer illiterate, and it is certainly not a minus on a resume, but if you want good people you have to devote some resources to a good interview program for new candidates.
If anything, they need counseling to know WHY what they are doing is bad,
No, actually people who run insecure OS's need counselling on the importance of security patches, and more importantly making a purchasing decision based on the track record of a given platform to prove resistent to viruses. E-mail applications that allow any code execution without dire warnings given to the user would fall into the list of those with a poor track record, for instance.
Sorry to reply to my own post, but I forgot to mention my biggest problem with national ID cards.
If you took a poll on Slashdot, or the nation for that matter, on whether or not they would be opposed to requiring everyone to have their fingerprints taken for a national database, my guess is the overwhelming majority would be opposed.
If you ask if people would mind having their photos taken to build a similar face database, possibly to be used with face recognition software, most would probably also be opposed.
Ask people if they would favor compulsory national ID cards which include your photo and digitized fingerprint, and even most of the Slashdot crowd seem unopposed, and the nation as a whole favors the plan 7 out of 10.
Now the federal government is surely going to keep a copy of the card for their records. Guess what folks? You are now in the fingerprint and photo database! Think about it!
I don't see how a national ID card is related to a police state.
It depends how it's used. The mere existence of a national ID card isn't a problem. But what if it became compulsory for you to have one and to carry it with you at all times that you weren't in your home, and what if you were required to show it to a police officer on demand, and faced fines for not carrying it or refusing it show it.
Many compare this to a driver's license, but it is not the same at all. It is very dangerous to drive on public roads without proper training and skill, and a driver's license is proof that you have been tested. Untested and untrained drivers can pose a serious risk not only to themselves, but to many others on the road. That's why we have driver's licenses. If you don't drive, you don't need to have one. If you have a license, you are only required to have it on your person when you are actually driving. You are perfectly free in America to walk down the street, go to public places, visit friends, go shopping (with cash) all without any identification whatsoever. I, for one, would hate to see that change.
Police do it anyway, but they have to make up a cause. You need a drivers license (or an ID card, which doesn't allow you to drive) to live a normal life.
But even if they have a cause, you are not required to have an ID with you (unless you are driving, etc.). It is not a crime to walk down the street with no ID at all in America. And even if the police have cause to stop you (eg. you are a witness to a crime) you can't be penalized for not carrying an ID with you.
Belgium having an ID card would be rather like our individual states' drivers licenses (Which are also abused by the states for a wide array of non-driving related infractions.)
How is that? I know many adults who never learned to drive and don't have a driver's license. Aside from not being able to drive, they live quite normal lives.
If a cop asks you, you generally have to have some form of ID as well.
Bzzzt. Wrong! Not in America, pal. And that's exactly what I object to.
Yes, but unfortunately that kind of privacy will soon be a thing of the past. Many stores now ask for your phone number when you buy something with cash, and of course you can refuse to give it, but expect that system to soon be replaced with hidden video cameras in the cash registers linked in with a global face-recognition database. Don't be surprised if you stop in a small town half-way across the country one day, stop in at a Walmart to buy a bag of chips, pay cash, and find your name and address printed on the receipt. It's coming.
I also would choose B without hesitation, and not because of the beaurocracy (it only takes five seconds to show them my driver's license.)
I never did like the idea that it is somehow considered wrong to be able to travel anonymously. The reason the government got away with taking away that right is that it was done in two steps. First, people are required to give a name when buying airline tickets. Nobody was concerned that that would prevent people from travelling anonymously because they could always give a fake name. Then, many years later, when people were used to having their names on their tickets, step two: federal law requires that airlines check photo IDs to make sure the name on the ticket matches the traveller. Nobody cared much because they were generally used to having their real name on the tickets. But no one seemed to notice that steps one and two taken together mean federal law says you can't travel by air anonymously. If that had happened all at once, I think there'd have been an outcry.
And now step three is being considered. Giving customs and possibly other law enforcement agencies access to to airlines database of ticketed passengers. No one seems to care as it's simply one organization sharing their database with another.
But imagine the outcry if steps one, two, and three all were mandated by federal law at the same time!
Great. So you want to pass one intrusive law (requiring people to carry national ID cards) and then pass another intrusive set of laws to try to fix it. (Limiting what private individuals are allowed to do with their databases.)
I dont see the difference with having a driving licence on you or any other form of ID they use in the US
You don't see the difference?!?!?
I need a driver's license only when driving on public roads. I don't need it to walk down the street. The idea that 16-year-olds are criminals if they are sitting in a public park without an ID card sickens me. I was in Belgium last March and I had no idea this stupid law existed. I don't think I'll ever go back, even for the wonderful beer and chocolate, and I have to admit they are both very, very good.
If we didn't have some sort of unique identifier assigned to each of us, how would you propose they do this?
Simple. You could voluntarily provide references, as you do when you apply for a job, for instance. If you don't have such references, you could put up some collateral or have someone with assets guarantee your loan. It happens all the time.
And comparing an SSN to the kind of national ID card that is proposed is not valid. We are not required to show our SSN card to a police officer who stops us walking down the street. We don't show our SSN when we buy a loaf of bread. Some states require us to show a social security card to get a drivers license, and this bothers me a lot, but having to show a card on demand any time would greatly change the balance of power between police and citizens, and would probably be a violation of the fourth amendment.
It has been said here many times, but here goes again:
Fair use is a defence, not an offence.
If you copy a copyrighted work for review or excerpt purposes, you can use fair use as a defence if you're sued by the copyright holder. But copyright holders are under no legal obligation to make their works available in a form which permits such copying.
I am curious about this solution, as I myself am in the market for a new sound card. I have heard rumors that the sound blasters don't sample at 44.1Khz, and thus it would be necessary to do sample rate conversion which could degrade the audio quality. Does anyone know if this is true?
If so, can anyone recommend a sound card that is supported by Linux that features a coax digital input suitable for creating a 44.1KHz WAV file directly from the digital output of a CD player?
Actually, this time Slashdot got it right. Although the quote you mention does sound like the usual Slashdot alarmist hyperbole, it is actually, in this case, a very accurate representation of the bill. Read it.
The odds of it passing exactly as is are small. This is a draft bill, and draft bills always get ammended and modified as they work their way through committees, etc. But a weakened, although potentially harmful, version of this bill might eventually become law.
One of the problems with the bill as-is, is the overbroad definition of "interactive digital device". By that definition, wrist watches, pocket calculators, CD players, etc. would classify and it would be impractical to require they all be outfitted with special chips to comply with this legislation. Not to mention all software, including a "Hello, world!" program would be covered as well!
But there are many potentially harmful weakened versions of the bill which would have a good chance of passing, which would cover PCs, HDTVs, DVD players, HDVCRs, e-book readers, etc. So we should be prepared for a fight.
Ideally, the fight should take place before the legislations is passed, not after in the courts. It isn't the job of courts to say what is a good law and what is bad, only whether a law is constitionally allowed, and I can think of many horrendous hypothetical laws which would be completely constitutional!
So, lets follow this closely, and try to get the word out to the mainstream media!
Can't happen. An outright ban on encryption would completely collapse the e-commerce sector. Encryption is far to ingrained in business to business transactions in the form of VPNs, SSL secure websites owned by vendors, banking transactions, etc. Not only would an outright ban like you suggest weaken security to the point of making such transactions impossible, but the logistics of removing or disabling encryption from the working software systems that run today's e-conomy would be far too formidable to make it possible.
At worst, some sort of key-escrow proposal will be put forward, but would take so long to implement, that people will have cooled down and saner heads will previal.
The thing to watch out for is a SSSCA-like law being passed under the guise of protecting us from terrorists.
Posession in a moving vehicle I think is an offence in many states. Otherwise, you could simply turn off your unit after you're pulled over as the officer is walking to your car.
The radar detector may not be a good analogy, I admit. And laws do vary on that issue.
As for failing electronics, I think it would be easy to distinguish between a tampered unit, and a failed one.
For instance, if a car signals a cop and the cop sees there is only the driver in the car, he will certainly pull him over. On the other hand, if the car signals and the cop sees a driver who is driving just fine and two people in the back seat who may have been drinking, he might not pull the car over.
But remember, the easier it is to defeat something, generally the bigger the penalty if you're caught!