If you READ the law, they make it a crime of "criminal trespass" to be on public property if you're an illegal alien. Talk about over-charging. This is plain stupid, as well as blatantly racist.
The only stats I can find disagree - there are slightly MORE Americans who immigrate to Canada than Canadians who immigrate to the US, 82,50 vs 7,900. You may be confusing workers who cross the border under NAFTA with immigrants, or you may be confusing the number of entries (one person can have multiple entries reported).
"But if we do that there won't be any more Saturday Morning Cartoons!!!"
Big deal, Better that than have them sitting there watching ad after ad for Count Chocula, Captain Crunch, and McDonalds.
It's not like there aren't a bunch of different things that kids can do...
The only ones upset with the advertising bans are the advertisers, and their shills. The parents are quite happy, no more having to listen to someone else's screaming kids in the supermarket, and the kids are too busy with other stuff.
What would happen if you were to get 20 people to go to McDonalds and all watch Supersize Me on their smartphones and laptops, all in sync, audio on but not loud enough to be "disturbing the peace", seated throughout the restaurant so that the patrons of fat food couldn't help but see and hear it?
Misses the point of the parent poster - even the possibility of hassles to legal citizens is a deterrent to doing business in Arizona. Same as many people won't visit the US because of the security theatre you indulge in.
> Avoiding delays is as easy as keeping a driver's license or other government-issued ID with you.
You must be really fun on the beach. "Is that your identification in your trunks or are you just happy to see me?"
Seriously, where are you going to keep it when you're swimming? Your butt crack? Leave it back on shore with the sun block, so anyone can walk off with it?
Oh, right - people don't swim in Arizona unless they're wetbacks.
Seriously, making it a crime not to have papers on you is dumb. What about the kid going to grade 2? Pack her ID with her lunch? Yeah, riiiiight. One more thing to get lost, stolen, bartered for a jelly sandwich.
That date format has been obsolete since the '80s. YYYYMMDD, YYYY/MM/DD YYYY-MM-DD, or any other separator of your choice. It's not just a good idea, it's the only all-digit format that is accurately human-interpretable 100% of the time, sorts great even in plaintext, AND even "them damn fuhren'rs" can grok it.
Because the world will NOT end on 2012-12-21. And that's a bet I can't lose.
I know someone who did exactly that. Went to the US for 6 months, met some guy, they dated, they felt they had a future together, got engaged. She went back to Canada to tell her parents the good news in person, and on the way back to the US was denied entry. So he came to Canada to marry her and brought her back as his wife. They've been married for a couple of decades and have kids.
Contrast that with the opposite scenario - I know of over a few dozen Americans (half of whom you'd classify as "good ole white folk" types) who have illegally come to Canada and we've given up on trying to get rid of them by shipping them back to the US.
The worst part - they don't fit in. They want to have all the benefits of Canada, but keep acting like big-mouthed Americans. Except for the 4 draft dodgers. They just had this air of sadness around them. You could tell that, come amnesty time, they'd head back to the US - we were just a port of convenience.
Maybe we should treat Americans the way Americans treat Mexicans?
Words certainly DO have meaning. To the extent that it is possible is VERY broad in scope.
It is technically feasible to use devices that support encryption. Or is Mass. only able to buy iPhones, and not Androids? So, since it IS technically possible to meet the requirements, and at a reasonable price, they have to, due to the ambiguous wording of the law.
This is what happens when people mandate the methods and not the outcomes. Stupid laws written by stupid people. Just like the security theatre playing at every US airport.
Better to just say "$5k per breech" and leave it to businesses to figure out what the optimum combo of hardware, software, and PEOPLE is - because the most important aspect is the people, not the hardware or software. Good people can make up for leaky hardware and software, but even the best hardware and software won't stop crappy staff from leaking like a sieve. You don't solve technical problems by larding on another layer of technology. You fix the people problem.
It's a million times more than the $0 a day that many jurors get for the first 10 to 50 days of jury duty (varies by jurisdiction).
Also, it would be tax-free by law, since taxing it would be interfering with the independence of the jury process.
It's not enough to tempt people to lie about any potential bias that should cause them to be dismissed from jury duty.
In other words, it's a reasonable solution. Since I don't see YOU offering up a better idea, why don't you just STFU. Unlike you, I have served on a jury.
Property is generally deemed to have been mislaid or misplaced if it is found in a place where the true owner likely did intend to set it, but then simply forgot to pick it up again. For example, a wallet found in a shop lying on a counter near a cash register will likely be deemed misplaced rather than lost. Under common law principles, the finder of a misplaced object has a duty to turn it over to the owner of the premises, on the theory that the true owner is likely to return to that location to search for his misplaced item. If the true owner does not return within a reasonable time (which varies considerably depending on the circumstances), the property becomes that of the owner of the premises.
So, to quote you - "You do realize the law is based on more than just what you think it should be, don't you?" Look in a mirror. All you've provided is what YOU think the law should say. No citations. Your claims are, in your own words, "utter bullshit."
As for housing titles - there are now several cities helping people enforce adverse possession claims to abandoned homes, because they want SOMEONE to be responsible for them. Or are you too much of a feeb to look for that too?
... and if he HAD given out the passwords earlier, he would have actually been guilty. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Reminds me of the skit where, before a trip to Las Vegas, the husband tells the wife "don't give me any extra money." Then, after he's lost his stake, he's got her in a choke-hold - "Give me the damn money!"
This was political, through and through. There needs to be an overhaul of the US system of "justice" - or at least name change so it conforms to "truth in advertising" laws. Start by getting rid of the whole "N Circuit" system. It leads to contradictory rulings. And don't allow the election of judges at ANY level. Let them be appointed, and when there's a mistake made, throw out the person who appointed them.
And fix your campaign finance laws - no corporate donations - ever. Companies are not people and only in Bizarro-world would they have first amendment rights.
Want to get rid of most of the nuisance lawsuits? Make each side responsible for their own legal fees, win or lose. It works here. Hint - the lawyers don't like it, because it cuts down on the amount of work they can drum up.
And stop with the "jury tell-all" crap. Pay jurors a non-trivial amount for their service (say $100 a day), so people don't keep trying to duck it because they only get paid after 50 days of service, and bar them from speaking about their deliberations - to anyone - after the trial is done.
... but none of that's going to happen. It would be too reasonable. Just like letting gays and lesbians serve openly in the military is too reasonable. Or going after the ratings agencies (Moody's) - and their major shareholders (I'm looking at YOU, Warren Fuckit^WBuffett).
Extend no-fault to $25k, and bar lawyers from small claims courts unless they themselves are the party.
Bring in mandatory no-fault divorce. One of the parties no longer wants to be married should be the ONLY admissible reason for ending a marriage - end all the stupidity of digging up dirt on the other party or making accusations that half the time are either unfounded or gross misrepresentations. Again - the lawyers hated that one, because it cut down on their earnings.
Nice way to avoid quoting the whole paragraph. Where it is not technically feasible, they want you to use a different solution, such as SSL and webbased email, rather than send email to the device in question.
However, you should implement best practices by not sending unencrypted personal information in an email. There are alternative methods to communicate personal information other through email, such as establishing a secure website that requires safeguards such as a username and password to conduct transactions involving personal information.
Also, from the law itself (which is the authoritative text):
Encryption of all personal information stored on laptops or other portable devices;
Now, since it IS "technically feasible" to store email on certain smartphones in encrypted form, then you HAVE to use only those devices.
What does "technically feasible" mean?
"Technically feasible" means that if there is a reasonable means through technology to accomplish a required result, then that reasonable means must be used.
There's no option of saying "my xyz doesn't support it." Is there a device out there that supports it? Then that's what you have to use.
And if you want to argue reasonableness, go talk to Terry Childs.
I'm going to say it one last time: the article is wrong.
I am not quoting the article - the links I provided are direct links to the government's own web site. So telling me over and over that TFA is wrong has NOTHING to do with it. The Mass. FAQ requires encryption of email on all portable devices where that email that might contain PI. The law also mandates the obligatory use of antivirus software on all devices that handle PI - and this includes mainframes that run operating systems that don't need or even have a threat of virus, and embedded systems. Worse, all such systems and devices, some of which may not even HAVE an Internet connection, are now mandated to have one so that they can be updated - " and is set to receive the most current security updates on a regular basis." - NOT "and can be updated manually." Think of things like bulk tape archive jukeboxes.
I have not, in any of the posts, quoted anything except the governments' own website.
So, tell us all how you're supposed to run an antivirus and a malware on some device running QNX? And do you really want to set systems to anything except MANUAL updating?
The law is stupid because it mandates the actions, and not the end results. Typical security theatre of the ignorant, by the ignorant, for the ignorant.
The law applies to stored email on any portable device - and the devices I listed, which are VERY common in business use, do NOT offer "whole-disk" encryption. How do you propose to handle that except through a ban at the server from transferring email to any device except a thin client?
There's no such thing as "Trucrypt for the iPhone." There's no such thng as "Bitlocker for the iPad".
So stop spouting stupidities and realize that the law is fatally flawed.
1. Since it was found in a place of business, and not public property, he was supposed to hand it in to the owner of the business, not the police.
2. When you refuse the return of something, you have abandoned it. I find your dog. I try to return it to you. You refuse. You change your mind the next day - too bad , it's legally mine now. Doesn't matter if you had it micro-chopped and tattooed and registered and everything else. Abandoning something means just that - you've given up your rights to it.
Items found inside a business are to be turned over to the owner of the place, not the police, on the assumption that the owner will retrace their steps. If they don't, it becomes the property of the owner of the premises;
The price is irrelevant, since the owner REFUSED to take it back.
If I find your phone, offer it back to you, and you say "No", then it's now MY phone. You have knowingly abandoned it. You don't get a "do-over." Same applies to your car or home - I can, with proper proof that this actually happened, get a judge to transfer title to me.
Example - you're parking in X's spot. Finally, one day, X sends you a notice giving you 30 days to either stop parking in their spot, come to some arrangement to continue parking in their spot, or that X will consider the vehicle abandoned. X has the notice served on you, and you do nothing. A month later, X goes to court and the judge orders the car transferred to their name.
Heck, people can even do it to houses without notice - see adverse possession.
The accompanying FAQ says that email with customer info stored on portable devices has to be encrypted ON THE DEVICE. That means no corporate email for iPads, smartphones, etc. Think about it.
The law was written by people who believe that when technology causes a problem, more technology - rather than fixing the PEOPLE problem - is the solution.
It will be about as effective as all the security theatre since 9/11.
Are you so retarded you can't read? First, for sending and receiving: From the govt. FAQ
Must I encrypt my email if it contains personal information?
If it is not technically feasible to do so, then no. However, you should implement best practices by not sending unencrypted personal information in an email. There are alternative methods to communicate personal information other through email, such as establishing a secure website that requires safeguards such as a username and password to conduct transactions involving personal information.
Record or Records, any material upon which written, drawn, spoken, visual, or electromagnetic information or images are recorded or preserved, regardless of physical form or characteristics.
and
Encryption of all personal information stored on laptops or other portable devices;
So any email containing personal info on a laptop or a smartphone, iPad or other device MUST be encrypted. Or are you going to just ban all laptops, smartphones, etc/?
It's mandatory in the text. Your interpretation is reasonable - and if it were to stop there, I wouldn't be beefing about it. However, if you've ever argued in court, you know that when a fine is involved, reasonable doesn't enter into it. "What does the law say?" "You have to be running an up-to-date antivirus." "Were you running one on that device?" "No." "$5,000 per name, 200,000 names, $100 million fine. See you in bankruptcy court."
Microsoft is going to just love this. The best alternative is, as I point out, to ignore the law as unconstitutionally vague and over-reaching, and instead practice smart computing:
unplug every machine that runs Windows from the Internet.
where you only need to test a value, store a one-way hash instead
where you need to keep a value, use two-way encryption
don't let anyone walk out out customer data on a laptop or usb key - you should be preventing this anyway
ban gmail, hotmail, and all other freemail services, since you cannot guarantee that they comply with the storage requirements (and they won't let you look at their internal setup to verify it anyway) - and you shouldn't be using them for business OR personal stuff anyway;
train everyone as to what private information is, and to always err on the side of being conservative. If in doubt, consider it private.
unplug most of the printers. Saves on toner AND prevents leaks.
where possible, thin clients only.
instead of a web interface, consider distributing a Java app with its own encryption and individual-user watermarking on both ends. Browsers should not be trusted with sensitive data.
That last one would end a lot of the bank phishing schemes - especially if it was used for ALL communications with your bank, not just bank balances and payments. Forget a bootable linux dvd with a browser for banking - use a bootable usb key with a Java app that talks directly to the bank - no browser. No problem with other tabs being open, or an extension that sniffs the clipboard, (remember Final Measure? I have a neutered copy of it sitting around) or keyboard, or whatever. It could even store your data, encrypted, on the thumb drive, and require two tokens - one from you, and one from the bank server, to do the decryption. No password from you, no decryption. No token from the bank, no decryption. At the end of each session, it could change the bank token and re-encrypt everything so that having one of your banks' previous tokens just won't work.
That's all a lot saner than "you must be running up-to-date antivirus software." Mandate the outcome - no leaks - not the process.
Well, they DID poison John-Paul # 1 to keep the Banco Abrosia scandal under wraps. That "sort of" worked. Hey, a billion dollars was a lot of money back then...
Slashdot Mirror
If you READ the law, they make it a crime of "criminal trespass" to be on public property if you're an illegal alien. Talk about over-charging. This is plain stupid, as well as blatantly racist.
The only stats I can find disagree - there are slightly MORE Americans who immigrate to Canada than Canadians who immigrate to the US, 82,50 vs 7,900. You may be confusing workers who cross the border under NAFTA with immigrants, or you may be confusing the number of entries (one person can have multiple entries reported).
Why not? McDonalds already took the "Meal" out of it.
"Junk calories" does not a meal make.
Toys "R" US wishes they sold as many toys as McDonalds. McDonalds is the largest toy distributor in the world. Think about it ...
"But if we do that there won't be any more Saturday Morning Cartoons!!!"
Big deal, Better that than have them sitting there watching ad after ad for Count Chocula, Captain Crunch, and McDonalds.
It's not like there aren't a bunch of different things that kids can do ...
The only ones upset with the advertising bans are the advertisers, and their shills. The parents are quite happy, no more having to listen to someone else's screaming kids in the supermarket, and the kids are too busy with other stuff.
What would happen if you were to get 20 people to go to McDonalds and all watch Supersize Me on their smartphones and laptops, all in sync, audio on but not loud enough to be "disturbing the peace", seated throughout the restaurant so that the patrons of fat food couldn't help but see and hear it?
Misses the point of the parent poster - even the possibility of hassles to legal citizens is a deterrent to doing business in Arizona. Same as many people won't visit the US because of the security theatre you indulge in.
Stephen Hawking doesn't want to have a word with you.
You must be really fun on the beach. "Is that your identification in your trunks or are you just happy to see me?"
Seriously, where are you going to keep it when you're swimming? Your butt crack? Leave it back on shore with the sun block, so anyone can walk off with it?
Oh, right - people don't swim in Arizona unless they're wetbacks.
Seriously, making it a crime not to have papers on you is dumb. What about the kid going to grade 2? Pack her ID with her lunch? Yeah, riiiiight. One more thing to get lost, stolen, bartered for a jelly sandwich.
"This sig is 12-21-2012 compliant."
That date format has been obsolete since the '80s. YYYYMMDD, YYYY/MM/DD YYYY-MM-DD, or any other separator of your choice. It's not just a good idea, it's the only all-digit format that is accurately human-interpretable 100% of the time, sorts great even in plaintext, AND even "them damn fuhren'rs" can grok it.
Because the world will NOT end on 2012-12-21. And that's a bet I can't lose.
Contrast that with the opposite scenario - I know of over a few dozen Americans (half of whom you'd classify as "good ole white folk" types) who have illegally come to Canada and we've given up on trying to get rid of them by shipping them back to the US.
The worst part - they don't fit in. They want to have all the benefits of Canada, but keep acting like big-mouthed Americans. Except for the 4 draft dodgers. They just had this air of sadness around them. You could tell that, come amnesty time, they'd head back to the US - we were just a port of convenience.
Maybe we should treat Americans the way Americans treat Mexicans?
Rule # 1 - the source of the problem is ALWAYS sitting between some keyboard and chair somewhere. Find that person!!!
Words certainly DO have meaning. To the extent that it is possible is VERY broad in scope.
It is technically feasible to use devices that support encryption. Or is Mass. only able to buy iPhones, and not Androids? So, since it IS technically possible to meet the requirements, and at a reasonable price, they have to, due to the ambiguous wording of the law.
This is what happens when people mandate the methods and not the outcomes. Stupid laws written by stupid people. Just like the security theatre playing at every US airport.
Better to just say "$5k per breech" and leave it to businesses to figure out what the optimum combo of hardware, software, and PEOPLE is - because the most important aspect is the people, not the hardware or software. Good people can make up for leaky hardware and software, but even the best hardware and software won't stop crappy staff from leaking like a sieve. You don't solve technical problems by larding on another layer of technology. You fix the people problem.
It's a million times more than the $0 a day that many jurors get for the first 10 to 50 days of jury duty (varies by jurisdiction).
Also, it would be tax-free by law, since taxing it would be interfering with the independence of the jury process.
It's not enough to tempt people to lie about any potential bias that should cause them to be dismissed from jury duty.
In other words, it's a reasonable solution. Since I don't see YOU offering up a better idea, why don't you just STFU. Unlike you, I have served on a jury.
So, quit saying that the law doesn't say that ...
Also, the car title example is used in law schools all over the country, so quit saying it's bullshit. Here's a step-by-step guide on how to get title to a car that the person refuses to remove from your parking space.
So, to quote you - "You do realize the law is based on more than just what you think it should be, don't you?" Look in a mirror. All you've provided is what YOU think the law should say. No citations. Your claims are, in your own words, "utter bullshit."
As for housing titles - there are now several cities helping people enforce adverse possession claims to abandoned homes, because they want SOMEONE to be responsible for them. Or are you too much of a feeb to look for that too?
Reminds me of the skit where, before a trip to Las Vegas, the husband tells the wife "don't give me any extra money." Then, after he's lost his stake, he's got her in a choke-hold - "Give me the damn money!"
This was political, through and through. There needs to be an overhaul of the US system of "justice" - or at least name change so it conforms to "truth in advertising" laws. Start by getting rid of the whole "N Circuit" system. It leads to contradictory rulings. And don't allow the election of judges at ANY level. Let them be appointed, and when there's a mistake made, throw out the person who appointed them.
And fix your campaign finance laws - no corporate donations - ever. Companies are not people and only in Bizarro-world would they have first amendment rights.
Want to get rid of most of the nuisance lawsuits? Make each side responsible for their own legal fees, win or lose. It works here. Hint - the lawyers don't like it, because it cuts down on the amount of work they can drum up.
And stop with the "jury tell-all" crap. Pay jurors a non-trivial amount for their service (say $100 a day), so people don't keep trying to duck it because they only get paid after 50 days of service, and bar them from speaking about their deliberations - to anyone - after the trial is done.
Bring in mandatory no-fault divorce. One of the parties no longer wants to be married should be the ONLY admissible reason for ending a marriage - end all the stupidity of digging up dirt on the other party or making accusations that half the time are either unfounded or gross misrepresentations. Again - the lawyers hated that one, because it cut down on their earnings.
Nice way to avoid quoting the whole paragraph. Where it is not technically feasible, they want you to use a different solution, such as SSL and webbased email, rather than send email to the device in question.
Also, from the law itself (which is the authoritative text):
Now, since it IS "technically feasible" to store email on certain smartphones in encrypted form, then you HAVE to use only those devices.
There's no option of saying "my xyz doesn't support it." Is there a device out there that supports it? Then that's what you have to use.
And if you want to argue reasonableness, go talk to Terry Childs.
I am not quoting the article - the links I provided are direct links to the government's own web site. So telling me over and over that TFA is wrong has NOTHING to do with it. The Mass. FAQ requires encryption of email on all portable devices where that email that might contain PI. The law also mandates the obligatory use of antivirus software on all devices that handle PI - and this includes mainframes that run operating systems that don't need or even have a threat of virus, and embedded systems. Worse, all such systems and devices, some of which may not even HAVE an Internet connection, are now mandated to have one so that they can be updated - " and is set to receive the most current security updates on a regular basis." - NOT "and can be updated manually." Think of things like bulk tape archive jukeboxes.
I have not, in any of the posts, quoted anything except the governments' own website.
So, tell us all how you're supposed to run an antivirus and a malware on some device running QNX? And do you really want to set systems to anything except MANUAL updating?
The law is stupid because it mandates the actions, and not the end results. Typical security theatre of the ignorant, by the ignorant, for the ignorant.
There's no such thing as "Trucrypt for the iPhone." There's no such thng as "Bitlocker for the iPad".
So stop spouting stupidities and realize that the law is fatally flawed.
1. Since it was found in a place of business, and not public property, he was supposed to hand it in to the owner of the business, not the police.
2. When you refuse the return of something, you have abandoned it. I find your dog. I try to return it to you. You refuse. You change your mind the next day - too bad , it's legally mine now. Doesn't matter if you had it micro-chopped and tattooed and registered and everything else. Abandoning something means just that - you've given up your rights to it.
Items found inside a business are to be turned over to the owner of the place, not the police, on the assumption that the owner will retrace their steps. If they don't, it becomes the property of the owner of the premises;
The price is irrelevant, since the owner REFUSED to take it back.
If I find your phone, offer it back to you, and you say "No", then it's now MY phone. You have knowingly abandoned it. You don't get a "do-over." Same applies to your car or home - I can, with proper proof that this actually happened, get a judge to transfer title to me.
Example - you're parking in X's spot. Finally, one day, X sends you a notice giving you 30 days to either stop parking in their spot, come to some arrangement to continue parking in their spot, or that X will consider the vehicle abandoned. X has the notice served on you, and you do nothing. A month later, X goes to court and the judge orders the car transferred to their name.
Heck, people can even do it to houses without notice - see adverse possession.
The accompanying FAQ says that email with customer info stored on portable devices has to be encrypted ON THE DEVICE. That means no corporate email for iPads, smartphones, etc. Think about it.
The law was written by people who believe that when technology causes a problem, more technology - rather than fixing the PEOPLE problem - is the solution.
It will be about as effective as all the security theatre since 9/11.
Are you so retarded you can't read? First, for sending and receiving: From the govt. FAQ
Next, for storage: http://www.mass.gov/Eoca/docs/idtheft/201CMR1700reg.pdf
and
So any email containing personal info on a laptop or a smartphone, iPad or other device MUST be encrypted. Or are you going to just ban all laptops, smartphones, etc/?
Avoid the parent link unless you want to waste LOTS of time. THX.
It's mandatory in the text. Your interpretation is reasonable - and if it were to stop there, I wouldn't be beefing about it. However, if you've ever argued in court, you know that when a fine is involved, reasonable doesn't enter into it. "What does the law say?" "You have to be running an up-to-date antivirus." "Were you running one on that device?" "No." "$5,000 per name, 200,000 names, $100 million fine. See you in bankruptcy court."
Microsoft is going to just love this. The best alternative is, as I point out, to ignore the law as unconstitutionally vague and over-reaching, and instead practice smart computing:
That last one would end a lot of the bank phishing schemes - especially if it was used for ALL communications with your bank, not just bank balances and payments. Forget a bootable linux dvd with a browser for banking - use a bootable usb key with a Java app that talks directly to the bank - no browser. No problem with other tabs being open, or an extension that sniffs the clipboard, (remember Final Measure? I have a neutered copy of it sitting around) or keyboard, or whatever. It could even store your data, encrypted, on the thumb drive, and require two tokens - one from you, and one from the bank server, to do the decryption. No password from you, no decryption. No token from the bank, no decryption. At the end of each session, it could change the bank token and re-encrypt everything so that having one of your banks' previous tokens just won't work.
That's all a lot saner than "you must be running up-to-date antivirus software." Mandate the outcome - no leaks - not the process.
Well, they DID poison John-Paul # 1 to keep the Banco Abrosia scandal under wraps. That "sort of" worked. Hey, a billion dollars was a lot of money back then ...