From what I know it is also not only something you could be blackmailed for that could cause you to not get a clearance but just by the sheer fact you lied makes the FBI wonder what else you are lying about and what you may lie about in the future. They don't want to give a clearance to someone they don't trust.
A pity the same criteria dosn't apply to elected officials:)
The list of people you provided were indicted, not captured. They are "most wanted" precisely because they have not been captured. You might have noticed this by the fact that a man named "Bin Laden" is at the top of the list. Wiretapping U.S. citizens has not led to the capture of any of these men, because these men and their associates almost certainly EXPECT that their phones are being tapped whether or not they are, and react accordingly.
Or they never phone US Citizens or they are dead or they never existed in the first place...
Wow! I bet they have a lot of terrorists to show for all that work. Right...?
If they get some names they can say it's working, if not then they claim that they need to do more snooping. Most likely it works this way Budget ok: find some "terrorists", Want more money: don't find any.
It is the core of the wiretapping issue that who is of interest is determined by a computer generated profile. Indeed, this is one of the things being cited as a defense of the wiretapping (because no human being looks at what's going on and makes a decision until the computer goes "Ping!").
If or more likely when this approach utterly fails to spot real dangers they people involved will say "if only we had more ability to snoop...". Thus establishing a positive feedback loop.
All this law would do is allow the spooks to troll leisurely, instead of having to actually intercept the data themselves. Your profile already exists, it just needs more "Innnnnnnnnnpput! Johnny Five alive!"
Where there is never "too much". The real suprise would be if this works any better in the USA than in the Deutsche Demokratische Republik.
You are aware that we have to take the very entitiy under investigation, word that terrorists (and associates) were the only one's caught in the NSA web (keeping in mind the NSA is forbidden from domestic spying)
You also only have the words of proven liers that these are the people actually being targeted.
Are you also aware that we have only declared war against a general idea (terrorism).
Not even that. Governments only tend to be interested in prosecuting a minority of terrorists in the first place, most they try to ignore another minority get government support. A general targeting of terrorists (which would be a radical change) would undoubtedly net quite a few anti-abortionists and "animal rights" activists.
I don't think I've ever seen a law enforcement show out of the USA where violating due process lead to innocents being screwed over but the reality is it happens all the time (weasel words, I don't know for sure but I'm guessing it's >0).
Most often in drama it's clearly indicated to the audience that the "criminals" are guilty.
What do you suggest insurance companies, banks, etc. use instead? Your name? Many people would get royally screwed that way, as some John Smith withdraws some other John Smith's money.
How many of these entities don't assign account/customer numbers... Then John A Smith can't impersonate John B Smith because they don't know John B Smith's number and have no easy way to find it out. Unless the business in question uses some insecure way of assigning their numbers, in which case as soon as this is found out their customers will go elsewhere.
Wouldn't you rather have one well thought out, secure identification system, than many disparate insecure systems like today?
The former only exists in fiction. There is plenty of fiction where the plot involves a supposedly secure system which is rather less secure in practice.
Unfortunately, we can't go back to the 19th century on this one.
There are better examples from the 20th as to why this is a bad idea.
The only way to prevent theft of identity is to have no identity, or at least have no universally-accepted identification code.
In order to make things more secure you need to avoid having high value documents or at least minimise them. High value documents are those which can do many things, including obtain other identity documents and those which have been overloaded secondary functionality. The US SSN is a good example as are many driver(s/ing) licences. (Even leading to the utterly daft situation of requiring people to produce one to purchase alcohol.)
Introducing yet another identifier, such as a biometric signature paired with a PIN code, and linking it to our existing identifiers will only make us more vulnerable to identity thieves once the thieves figure out how to successfully steal and utilize our personal identifiers.
It dosn't help that introducing "biometrics" often also goes with upping the "value" of the documents in question either.
Biometrics have been, can be, and will be spoofed. PIN numbers can be stolen via hacking or social engineering.
If criminals are on the inside they don't even need to do anything so crude. A number of "phantom withdrawals" from bank accounts turn out to be due to bank staff ordering additional cards for that customers account. If must be assumed that any organisation beyond a certain size will criminals working for it.
So far, however, the Government has not made it very clear which of the various cards are being replaced with this one, so we'll see how that goes.
The actual problem is in having this single card replace seventeen. Especially since the examples are not all obviously related. This effectivly makes this card considerably "higher value" than any of those it replaces. Especially if third parties start accepting them as identity documents. Not only do you have the problem of "identity theft" with multi-purpose documents you also have the potential of "privilage elevation" when organised crime gets write access to the databases.
To keep a car running, you need regular maintenance. You can do this yourself if you are skilled,
To do this you also typically need to get yourself tools unrelated to driving a car or you can pay someone else to do it. Either way, there are regular inspections (in most countries) to make sure it isn't going to fall apart at 70mph on a crowded motorway. Computers don't have this.
The myth has grown up that computers should not need this, even though they are more complex than cars. Whilst few drivers would even think of messing with the bolts which hold the engine in their car many computer "users" are quite happy to do so. Even claiming that it is their #deity# given right to do so.
They need as much maintenance because they are also complicated equipment. Most of the slashdot readers are aware of this, and just do it themselves. Most of the general public are not aware of this, and don't know enough to perform even rudimentary maintenance.
Yet are often expected to do so and not activly prevented from doing so. Even though far simpler machines typically have markings stating "no user servicable parts" and/or requiring special tools.
Either they shouldn't be allowed to operate computers, or there should be enforced checkups to remove bots etc.
Or even start treating computers like every other machine on the planet, with a distinction being made between using and maintaining/servicing/modifying. Even where the same person is doing both things.
No, computers *can* work fine without knowing their inner workings. Ever used a Mac?
If you designed cars so that drivers could (even were expected to) radically alter the engine, transmission, EMS, etc in all sorts of arbitrary ways then they probably wouldn't work too well either. They'd also be hard to service if mechanics were expected to use only the driving controls...
Create an open source patent organization and start applying for software patents on behalf of open source coders for every little piece of innovation. The idea is to keep the threshold of what qualifies as innovation low to generate a huge list of patent applications.
All you will do is pay out money for the applications. Even if you get any patents you'd still need to enforce them.
You talk about corporations having "equal status with individuals," but this is simply not the case. As a sibling poster mentioned, corporations cannot vote.
In many cases, especially with a very limited candidate pool and an over representation of "career politicans", being able to lobby is far more important than being able to vote.
There are many other aspects of the law that apply only to "natural persons" and not to "corporate persons."
So why have 21 different versions of Vista if NOT to have a consumer version with as much protection as possible with as few services running as possible? A business office version you assume will be configured by an IT guy that has difficult to admin - but very flexible and detailed - firewall options. Yes.
It might well be the business version which wants a very restricted set of services on by default... Maybe whilst they are at it Microsoft could think of things like only turning on the wireless service if there is wireless hardware fitted, etc...
I'm not sure it does make sense. These are customers who do micro-manage the computers. They have mechanisms in place to install everything from the OS to the most basic of apps with a preset configurations.
Including any relevent firewall rules. Quite possibly including preventing the end user from being able to change these rules at all.
This move does nothing for them when the first thing they do on receipt of the computer is wipe the drive and intall their in-house "flavor".
How many "enterprise customers" would do anything else in the first place?
Unless they have changed the rules in the last few years, the ratings on computer games are only advisory in the UK.
As are classifications on films and videos.
Some stores enforce the rules, some do not. Some store employees are under the impression that they have to enforce them for legal reasons, others are not.
While the symbols on the box are the same as for films, the legal ramifications are different.
Only in the sense that the classifications on the latter are likely to be enforced. But in many cases any enforcement is local. The BBFC classification is only a guide to the local council who actually have the power to make decisions about showing in cinemas.
I think they are just trying to completely spell everything out for the corporations that act like children and try to find all the loopholes in the law.
Isn't that what lawyers usually do... Children are usually only able to spot blatent loopholes.
I guess this is the kind of bill that comes out when our elected officials are completely bereft of the intelligence and courage needed to do the hard things that really need to be done. This kind of law has been invalidated in state after state, so this is just stupid and a waste at this point. Indeed, this is no longer news at all.
It might be news to find an elected official who actually has the intelligence, courage and decency to actually do their job though...
Are they going to ban violent sports games like football, boxing and hockey? There is a lot of hitting in those games.
In both real and computer versions of these games. Yet often the actual games, where serious injuries even death are not unknown, are considered "family entertainment". Someone had a really strange set of priorities...
The article's point wasn't that the patent shouldn't necessarily have been granted, just that the Patent Office should have considered prior art as a factor in its decision.
The US Patent Office appears to have a specific method for finding "prior art". Which whilst it often results in false negatives, AFAIK, never results in false positives.
with extended consumer rights would be just fine. The extended consumer rights would clearly mandate that consumer has rights to make backup copies and a copy it for personal viewing purposes, and no DRM would be allowed to circuimvent those rights.
How about also "The clock starts with first publication". With a loophole resistant definition of "publication" i.e. from first publication anywhere on the planet, including "previews", "betas", "reviews", etc. Together with a requirement to deposit (ordinary) copies with relevent copyright libraries, until you do that you have no standing to claim "copyright infringement". This also has the useful side effect of making staggered a bad idea along with trying to get movies awards before letting the "plebs" see them. Not only have you wasted part of your limited distribution monopoly if "pirate" copies make their way to a market you couldn't be bothered with then you have no comeback.
Slashdot Mirror
From what I know it is also not only something you could be blackmailed for that could cause you to not get a clearance but just by the sheer fact you lied makes the FBI wonder what else you are lying about and what you may lie about in the future. They don't want to give a clearance to someone they don't trust.
:)
A pity the same criteria dosn't apply to elected officials
The list of people you provided were indicted, not captured. They are "most wanted" precisely because they have not been captured. You might have noticed this by the fact that a man named "Bin Laden" is at the top of the list. Wiretapping U.S. citizens has not led to the capture of any of these men, because these men and their associates almost certainly EXPECT that their phones are being tapped whether or not they are, and react accordingly.
Or they never phone US Citizens or they are dead or they never existed in the first place...
Wow! I bet they have a lot of terrorists to show for all that work. Right...?
If they get some names they can say it's working, if not then they claim that they need to do more snooping.
Most likely it works this way Budget ok: find some "terrorists", Want more money: don't find any.
And half of them are left-wing newspapers complaining of right-wing bias and the other haf are right-wing newspapers complaining of left-wing bias.
There probably would be bias if some group wasn't complaining about bias.
It is the core of the wiretapping issue that who is of interest is determined by a computer generated profile. Indeed, this is one of the things being cited as a defense of the wiretapping (because no human being looks at what's going on and makes a decision until the computer goes "Ping!").
If or more likely when this approach utterly fails to spot real dangers they people involved will say "if only we had more ability to snoop...". Thus establishing a positive feedback loop.
All this law would do is allow the spooks to troll leisurely, instead of having to actually intercept the data themselves. Your profile already exists, it just needs more "Innnnnnnnnnpput! Johnny Five alive!"
Where there is never "too much". The real suprise would be if this works any better in the USA than in the Deutsche Demokratische Republik.
You are aware that we have to take the very entitiy under investigation, word that terrorists (and associates) were the only one's caught in the NSA web (keeping in mind the NSA is forbidden from domestic spying)
You also only have the words of proven liers that these are the people actually being targeted.
Are you also aware that we have only declared war against a general idea (terrorism).
Not even that. Governments only tend to be interested in prosecuting a minority of terrorists in the first place, most they try to ignore another minority get government support. A general targeting of terrorists (which would be a radical change) would undoubtedly net quite a few anti-abortionists and "animal rights" activists.
I don't think I've ever seen a law enforcement show out of the USA where violating due process lead to innocents being screwed over but the reality is it happens all the time (weasel words, I don't know for sure but I'm guessing it's >0).
Most often in drama it's clearly indicated to the audience that the "criminals" are guilty.
What do you suggest insurance companies, banks, etc. use instead? Your name? Many people would get royally screwed that way, as some John Smith withdraws some other John Smith's money.
How many of these entities don't assign account/customer numbers... Then John A Smith can't impersonate John B Smith because they don't know John B Smith's number and have no easy way to find it out. Unless the business in question uses some insecure way of assigning their numbers, in which case as soon as this is found out their customers will go elsewhere.
Wouldn't you rather have one well thought out, secure identification system, than many disparate insecure systems like today?
The former only exists in fiction. There is plenty of fiction where the plot involves a supposedly secure system which is rather less secure in practice.
Unfortunately, we can't go back to the 19th century on this one.
There are better examples from the 20th as to why this is a bad idea.
The only way to prevent theft of identity is to have no identity, or at least have no universally-accepted identification code.
In order to make things more secure you need to avoid having high value documents or at least minimise them. High value documents are those which can do many things, including obtain other identity documents and those which have been overloaded secondary functionality. The US SSN is a good example as are many driver(s/ing) licences. (Even leading to the utterly daft situation of requiring people to produce one to purchase alcohol.)
Introducing yet another identifier, such as a biometric signature paired with a PIN code, and linking it to our existing identifiers will only make us more vulnerable to identity thieves once the thieves figure out how to successfully steal and utilize our personal identifiers.
It dosn't help that introducing "biometrics" often also goes with upping the "value" of the documents in question either.
Biometrics have been, can be, and will be spoofed. PIN numbers can be stolen via hacking or social engineering.
If criminals are on the inside they don't even need to do anything so crude. A number of "phantom withdrawals" from bank accounts turn out to be due to bank staff ordering additional cards for that customers account.
If must be assumed that any organisation beyond a certain size will criminals working for it.
So far, however, the Government has not made it very clear which of the various cards are being replaced with this one, so we'll see how that goes.
The actual problem is in having this single card replace seventeen. Especially since the examples are not all obviously related.
This effectivly makes this card considerably "higher value" than any of those it replaces. Especially if third parties start accepting them as identity documents. Not only do you have the problem of "identity theft" with multi-purpose documents you also have the potential of "privilage elevation" when organised crime gets write access to the databases.
To keep a car running, you need regular maintenance. You can do this yourself if you are skilled,
To do this you also typically need to get yourself tools unrelated to driving a car
or you can pay someone else to do it. Either way, there are regular inspections (in most countries) to make sure it isn't going to fall apart at 70mph on a crowded motorway. Computers don't have this.
The myth has grown up that computers should not need this, even though they are more complex than cars. Whilst few drivers would even think of messing with the bolts which hold the engine in their car many computer "users" are quite happy to do so. Even claiming that it is their #deity# given right to do so.
They need as much maintenance because they are also complicated equipment. Most of the slashdot readers are aware of this, and just do it themselves. Most of the general public are not aware of this, and don't know enough to perform even rudimentary maintenance.
Yet are often expected to do so and not activly prevented from doing so. Even though far simpler machines typically have markings stating "no user servicable parts" and/or requiring special tools.
Either they shouldn't be allowed to operate computers, or there should be enforced checkups to remove bots etc.
Or even start treating computers like every other machine on the planet, with a distinction being made between using and maintaining/servicing/modifying. Even where the same person is doing both things.
No, computers *can* work fine without knowing their inner workings. Ever used a Mac?
If you designed cars so that drivers could (even were expected to) radically alter the engine, transmission, EMS, etc in all sorts of arbitrary ways then they probably wouldn't work too well either.
They'd also be hard to service if mechanics were expected to use only the driving controls...
Create an open source patent organization and start applying for software patents on behalf of open source coders for every little piece of innovation. The idea is to keep the threshold of what qualifies as innovation low to generate a huge list of patent applications.
All you will do is pay out money for the applications. Even if you get any patents you'd still need to enforce them.
You talk about corporations having "equal status with individuals," but this is simply not the case. As a sibling poster mentioned, corporations cannot vote.
In many cases, especially with a very limited candidate pool and an over representation of "career politicans", being able to lobby is far more important than being able to vote.
There are many other aspects of the law that apply only to "natural persons" and not to "corporate persons."
Like many aspects of criminal law...
not in the EU, as software patent are (still) not allowed :)
But "they" keep trying. The pro-software-patent lobby being something of a hydra.
So why have 21 different versions of Vista if NOT to have a consumer version with as much protection as possible with as few services running as possible? A business office version you assume will be configured by an IT guy that has difficult to admin - but very flexible and detailed - firewall options. Yes.
It might well be the business version which wants a very restricted set of services on by default...
Maybe whilst they are at it Microsoft could think of things like only turning on the wireless service if there is wireless hardware fitted, etc...
I'm not sure it does make sense. These are customers who do micro-manage the computers. They have mechanisms in place to install everything from the OS to the most basic of apps with a preset configurations.
Including any relevent firewall rules. Quite possibly including preventing the end user from being able to change these rules at all.
This move does nothing for them when the first thing they do on receipt of the computer is wipe the drive and intall their in-house "flavor".
How many "enterprise customers" would do anything else in the first place?
Unless they have changed the rules in the last few years, the ratings on computer games are only advisory in the UK.
As are classifications on films and videos.
Some stores enforce the rules, some do not. Some store employees are under the impression that they have to enforce them for legal reasons, others are not.
While the symbols on the box are the same as for films, the legal ramifications are different.
Only in the sense that the classifications on the latter are likely to be enforced. But in many cases any enforcement is local. The BBFC classification is only a guide to the local council who actually have the power to make decisions about showing in cinemas.
Is there some clause in the US Constitution that says "Do something different to whatever those damn British do!"?
It's a cultural meme. Though probably closer to "Do something different from the rest of the planet".
Modern U.S & U.K law both share a common root and a lot of laws are identical between the two countries.
This goes way beyond law...
I think they are just trying to completely spell everything out for the corporations that act like children and try to find all the loopholes in the law.
Isn't that what lawyers usually do... Children are usually only able to spot blatent loopholes.
I guess this is the kind of bill that comes out when our elected officials are completely bereft of the intelligence and courage needed to do the hard things that really need to be done. This kind of law has been invalidated in state after state, so this is just stupid and a waste at this point. Indeed, this is no longer news at all.
It might be news to find an elected official who actually has the intelligence, courage and decency to actually do their job though...
Are they going to ban violent sports games like football, boxing and hockey? There is a lot of hitting in those games.
In both real and computer versions of these games. Yet often the actual games, where serious injuries even death are not unknown, are considered "family entertainment". Someone had a really strange set of priorities...
The article's point wasn't that the patent shouldn't necessarily have been granted, just that the Patent Office should have considered prior art as a factor in its decision.
The US Patent Office appears to have a specific method for finding "prior art". Which whilst it often results in false negatives, AFAIK, never results in false positives.
I'd say 25 years copyright,
Why 25 years, as opposed to 10.
with extended consumer rights would be just fine. The extended consumer rights would clearly mandate that consumer has rights to make backup copies and a copy it for personal viewing purposes, and no DRM would be allowed to circuimvent those rights.
How about also "The clock starts with first publication". With a loophole resistant definition of "publication" i.e. from first publication anywhere on the planet, including "previews", "betas", "reviews", etc. Together with a requirement to deposit (ordinary) copies with relevent copyright libraries, until you do that you have no standing to claim "copyright infringement".
This also has the useful side effect of making staggered a bad idea along with trying to get movies awards before letting the "plebs" see them. Not only have you wasted part of your limited distribution monopoly if "pirate" copies make their way to a market you couldn't be bothered with then you have no comeback.