So you're basing the distinction of whether a crime did or did not occur on intent. That is, determining whether the accused intended to do harm prior to making use of another's private and paid-for resource.
Now, let me ask you: would you consider the situation the same had a person tapped a neighbor's electricity main? Or water line? Or POTS telephone service?
The kid trespassed upon the private property of another (his neighbor). If he had walked into his neighbor's home -- even had that home been unlocked -- the crime would be obvious to all. The neighbor's unsecured network is private property in just the same fashion.
As for the proportionality of the punishment: well, that's a matter for the sovereign nation of Singapore and its citizens to resolve.
Just stay out of my way and let me rip my music in peace. Additional 'features' are not of interest to me. All I care about is the music, and ease of transferring to my mp3 player.
No, I think we're on the same page here WRT academic ethics classes. One of my replies notes that taking a university ethics course is -- at best -- a prophylactic measure. It cannot insure ethical behavior of those who have taken the course. However, I do believe that many do not understand the intellectual rigor involved in succeeding in such a class. The education is worthwhile, for anyone who must act in a responsible capacity.
Well that's a fair point. pervasive encryption of private corporate data is a good thing. Handling key distribution to responsible parties would be an issue, as you suggest. But I don't think there's good commercial software integration for that just yet. Of course, this proposal would just reduce the number of eyes on that private data. But I agree that it should be possible, with the right design, to remove system administrators from the data loop using that method.
Yeah. No doubt that some business crooks have also taken ethics classes while earning their graduate degrees. Teaching ethics will not prevent future wrongdoing. I still think it's worth doing, though. There is a rigorous intellectual framework for teaching and learning ethics. but it is, at best, a prophylactic measure.
Well that may be true. I'm going with the argument presented in his blog entry and linked within the story submission. Do you know of anything online of his that makes a more general argument in support of electronic privacy, rather than simply the efficacy of RFID security?
Whoever has access to sensitive company information is a threat to the company. It doesn't matter if they are a sysadmin or an executive. Limiting access may help, but at a certain point someone must know these details within a firm. And sysadmins cannot do their jobs without full access to the systems they support.
The solution is regularly teaching business ethics to students. Perhaps even make it mandatory to earn a degree. Certainly mandatory for a graduate degree.
I found this story by listening to the Democracy Now podcast. I thought I heard him referred to as 'chairman.' Apparatly not. Had I simply googled his name before submission I would have caught it. Duh. Harsh lesson in fact checking.
That he is an FCC commissioner does still make his words of some interest. *shrug*
I believe that means a/. editor now knows of the factual error in this article and will hopefully fix it ASAP. I also emailed the daddypants email address, though have not received a response back. Thanks to everyone who has offered suggestions on how to fix this submission.
You appear to have missed that I quoted from the article in question. I read it. My only point is that surgically implanting an RFID chip would appear to meet the author's requirements based upon his argument. IOW: his argument is not based on privacy policy, but that there are better technical alternatives to RFID.
I submitted it because I incorrectly thought Mr. Copps was the chairman, and found his words at odds with longstanding FCC policy. The forum was irrelevant. What mattered from my thinking was, here is this official and these are his (surprising) words.
From the standpoint that this is an FCC Commissioner, it is still of (limited) interest.
Per the/. FAQ, I have resubmitted correct text through the standard submission process. Hopefully, an editor should take notice and fix the factual error within this submission ASAP.
Well, perhaps as editor it is true that kdawson has a responsibility to slashdot. But I really should have caught this. It is a glaring and stupid error of fact that could easily have been fixed prior to submission. And I didn't catch it until an AC posted an early comment with a correction. So, right up to the story going live I was completely in the dark.
Duh.
Well, the damage is done. Now, how to get kdawson to fix it?
Speaking at a New York City town hall meeting on corporate media consolidation and its deleterious impact on the expression of minority viewpoints, Michael Copps, minority Democratic commissioner, stumped against greater local media concentration and instead argued for greater diversity of media outlets and voices. In 2003 the FCC, under Chairman Michael Powell, changed media ownership rules to favor greater corporate media consolidation at the expense of local owners.
In what would be an apparent total reversal of prior FCC policy, Mr. Copps argued strongly for a complete policy shift at the FCC to favor independent media owners:
I submitted this article. I made a mistake and confused Michael Copps, FCC commissioner, for the Chairman Kevin Martin. Thus, the entire premise of the submission that the FCC is shifting policy away from what had been set in place by former Chairman Michael Powell is WRONG.
I should have fact checked it better before submission, and for that I apologize.
It's total bullshit because I got the story completely wrong. Michael Copps is not the FCC chair, he is a minority democratic member of the commission. Which places his words in a completely different context.
Well, I got that writeup very wrong. Slashdot editors: _please_ fix the title and text so as to remove FCC Chairman, and instead shift it to FCC commissioner. Or, conversely, since the premise of this story is factually inaccurate, just go ahead and wipe it.
RFID offers no anti-forgery or anti-tampering benefit over other digital technologies that can be used in identification cards - indeed it has greater security weaknesses than alternatives. And RFID has only negligible benefits in terms of speed and convenience because it does not assist with the comparison between the identifiers on a card and the bearer of the card. This is what takes up all the time in the process of identifying someone.
He's saying it isn't any better than other card systems, and it doesn't solve the principal security problem - that of identifying the owner. I bet, however, that if one were to somehow solve the confirmation of identity issue - such as by injecting or surgically implanting and RFID chip - he might change his mind.
I think one could argue that Mr. Harper doesn't oppose RFID as much as he finds it impotent.
Slashdot Mirror
So you're basing the distinction of whether a crime did or did not occur on intent. That is, determining whether the accused intended to do harm prior to making use of another's private and paid-for resource.
Now, let me ask you: would you consider the situation the same had a person tapped a neighbor's electricity main? Or water line? Or POTS telephone service?
If not, what's the difference?
The kid trespassed upon the private property of another (his neighbor). If he had walked into his neighbor's home -- even had that home been unlocked -- the crime would be obvious to all. The neighbor's unsecured network is private property in just the same fashion.
As for the proportionality of the punishment: well, that's a matter for the sovereign nation of Singapore and its citizens to resolve.
And yet spiders eat butterflies!
Whoa...
What do you do when your cat likes to play with water?
Duh. Post it on teh intertubes. *cough!*
Just stay out of my way and let me rip my music in peace. Additional 'features' are not of interest to me. All I care about is the music, and ease of transferring to my mp3 player.
No, I think we're on the same page here WRT academic ethics classes. One of my replies notes that taking a university ethics course is -- at best -- a prophylactic measure. It cannot insure ethical behavior of those who have taken the course. However, I do believe that many do not understand the intellectual rigor involved in succeeding in such a class. The education is worthwhile, for anyone who must act in a responsible capacity.
Well that's a fair point. pervasive encryption of private corporate data is a good thing. Handling key distribution to responsible parties would be an issue, as you suggest. But I don't think there's good commercial software integration for that just yet. Of course, this proposal would just reduce the number of eyes on that private data. But I agree that it should be possible, with the right design, to remove system administrators from the data loop using that method.
Yeah. No doubt that some business crooks have also taken ethics classes while earning their graduate degrees. Teaching ethics will not prevent future wrongdoing. I still think it's worth doing, though. There is a rigorous intellectual framework for teaching and learning ethics. but it is, at best, a prophylactic measure.
Well that may be true. I'm going with the argument presented in his blog entry and linked within the story submission. Do you know of anything online of his that makes a more general argument in support of electronic privacy, rather than simply the efficacy of RFID security?
Whoever has access to sensitive company information is a threat to the company. It doesn't matter if they are a sysadmin or an executive. Limiting access may help, but at a certain point someone must know these details within a firm. And sysadmins cannot do their jobs without full access to the systems they support.
The solution is regularly teaching business ethics to students. Perhaps even make it mandatory to earn a degree. Certainly mandatory for a graduate degree.
Thanks to whichever editor updated the title and story text to reflect the factual record.
I found this story by listening to the Democracy Now podcast. I thought I heard him referred to as 'chairman.' Apparatly not. Had I simply googled his name before submission I would have caught it. Duh. Harsh lesson in fact checking.
That he is an FCC commissioner does still make his words of some interest. *shrug*
I mean, really. I just want the submission fixed. And in the interim, I want to make sure readers know of the error so they are not misinformed.
I believe that means a /. editor now knows of the factual error in this article and will hopefully fix it ASAP. I also emailed the daddypants email address, though have not received a response back. Thanks to everyone who has offered suggestions on how to fix this submission.
You appear to have missed that I quoted from the article in question. I read it. My only point is that surgically implanting an RFID chip would appear to meet the author's requirements based upon his argument. IOW: his argument is not based on privacy policy, but that there are better technical alternatives to RFID.
done. and thank you.
Per the FAQ, I've already resubmitted new text with a correction. I'll try the daddypants email addy too though. Can't hurt. Thanks!
I submitted it because I incorrectly thought Mr. Copps was the chairman, and found his words at odds with longstanding FCC policy. The forum was irrelevant. What mattered from my thinking was, here is this official and these are his (surprising) words.
From the standpoint that this is an FCC Commissioner, it is still of (limited) interest.
Per the /. FAQ, I have resubmitted correct text through the standard submission process. Hopefully, an editor should take notice and fix the factual error within this submission ASAP.
Well, perhaps as editor it is true that kdawson has a responsibility to slashdot. But I really should have caught this. It is a glaring and stupid error of fact that could easily have been fixed prior to submission. And I didn't catch it until an AC posted an early comment with a correction. So, right up to the story going live I was completely in the dark.
Duh.
Well, the damage is done. Now, how to get kdawson to fix it?
Here is replacement text for the intro:
Speaking at a New York City town hall meeting on corporate media consolidation and its deleterious impact on the expression of minority viewpoints, Michael Copps, minority Democratic commissioner, stumped against greater local media concentration and instead argued for greater diversity of media outlets and voices. In 2003 the FCC, under Chairman Michael Powell, changed media ownership rules to favor greater corporate media consolidation at the expense of local owners.
In what would be an apparent total reversal of prior FCC policy, Mr. Copps argued strongly for a complete policy shift at the FCC to favor independent media owners:
QUOTE MR. COPPS' actual text:
I submitted this article. I made a mistake and confused Michael Copps, FCC commissioner, for the Chairman Kevin Martin. Thus, the entire premise of the submission that the FCC is shifting policy away from what had been set in place by former Chairman Michael Powell is WRONG.
I should have fact checked it better before submission, and for that I apologize.
It's total bullshit because I got the story completely wrong. Michael Copps is not the FCC chair, he is a minority democratic member of the commission. Which places his words in a completely different context.
I totally fucked this up.
(rolls eyes) sonofabitch!!!
You are absolutely right! Here is Commissioner Copps' biography page.
Well, I got that writeup very wrong. Slashdot editors: _please_ fix the title and text so as to remove FCC Chairman, and instead shift it to FCC commissioner. Or, conversely, since the premise of this story is factually inaccurate, just go ahead and wipe it.
He's saying it isn't any better than other card systems, and it doesn't solve the principal security problem - that of identifying the owner. I bet, however, that if one were to somehow solve the confirmation of identity issue - such as by injecting or surgically implanting and RFID chip - he might change his mind.
I think one could argue that Mr. Harper doesn't oppose RFID as much as he finds it impotent.