As a security technologist, I regularly encounter people who say the United States should adopt a national ID card. How could such a program not make us more secure, they ask?
The suggestion, when it's made by a thoughtful civic-minded person like Nicholas Kristof in the New York Times, often takes on a tone that is regretful and ambivalent: Yes, indeed, the card would be a minor invasion of our privacy, and undoubtedly it would add to the growing list of interruptions and delays we encounter every day; but we live in dangerous times, we live in a new world....
It all sounds so reasonable, but there's a lot to disagree with in such an attitude.
The potential privacy encroachments of an ID card system are far from minor. And the interruptions and delays caused by incessant ID checks could easily proliferate into a persistent traffic jam in office lobbies and airports and hospital waiting rooms and shopping malls.
But my primary objection isn't the totalitarian potential of national IDs, nor the likelihood that they'll create a whole immense new class of social and economic dislocations. Nor is it the opportunities they will create for colossal boondoggles by government contractors. My objection to the national ID card, at least for the purposes of this essay, is much simpler.
It won't work. It won't make us more secure.
In fact, everything I've learned about security over the last 20 years tells me that once it is put in place, a national ID card program will actually make us less secure.
My argument may not be obvious, but it's not hard to follow, either. It centers around the notion that security must be evaluated not based on how it works, but on how it fails.
It doesn't really matter how well an ID card works when used by the hundreds of millions of honest people that would carry it. What matters is how the system might fail when used by someone intent on subverting that system: how it fails naturally, how it can be made to fail, and how failures might be exploited.
The first problem is the card itself. No matter how unforgeable we make it, it will be forged. And even worse, people will get legitimate cards in fraudulent names.
Two of the 9/11 terrorists had valid Virginia driver's licenses in fake names. And even if we could guarantee that everyone who issued national ID cards couldn't be bribed, initial cardholder identity would be determined by other identity documents... all of which would be easier to forge.
Not that there would ever be such thing as a single ID card. Currently about 20 percent of all identity documents are lost per year. An entirely separate security system would have to be developed for people who lost their card, a system that itself is capable of abuse.
Additionally, any ID system involves people... people who regularly make mistakes. We all have stories of bartenders falling for obviously fake IDs, or sloppy ID checks at airports and government buildings. It's not simply a matter of training; checking IDs is a mind-numbingly boring task, one that is guaranteed to have failures. Biometrics such as thumbprints show some promise here, but bring with them their own set of exploitable failure modes.
But the main problem with any ID system is that it requires the existence of a database. In this case it would have to be an immense database of private and sensitive information on every American -- one widely and instantaneously accessible from airline check-in stations, police cars, schools, and so on.
The security risks are enormous. Such a database would be a kludge of existing databases; databases that are incompatible, full of erroneous data, and unreliable. As computer scientists, we do not know how to keep a database of
>What about multiple TVs (If I buy another Tivo, I have to move to the room that recorded the show to watch it)?
Would be nice. The high end (way expensive) replay models do this I guess.
>What about interfacing with my cable box so I don't have to build an 'IR Tent'?
Did you try plugging in the data cable? Mine already does this -- no ir tent for me. I believe you need a digital cable box.
>What about dual tuners on the more expensive models?
Available now for all the DirectTV tivos (even record two things, and watch a third pre-recorded!), but not on the regulars probably because you wouldn't be able to get digital cable or pay stations on the built in tivo tuner.
You might want to check to see if your data cable is working and supported now. A nice surprise with version 3.0 was that I now have the serial cable going directly into my digital cable box -- no more ir mistakes! And it's faster too.
I'm familiar with the DVD protections. However, with the mod chip, there have already been arbitrary tested XBE files run. The DVDrom DOES spin the normal way -- it just reads the game files from the outside in. It reads other discs, like DVDs, normally.
This means that I can get an Xbox now not only for the games, but to use as a custom media computer.
Much like the Dreamcast, it will play cds of mp3s, emulators of all sorts, and divx movies. The dreamcast was JUST a bit too slow to make some emulators and divx playback useful, while the Xbox should be the opposite (all the 2d systems should run nicely now).
Yes, I could just build a cheap computer to do this, in fact I have, but having those nice controllers in a relatrively tidy box next to your tube is pretty cool. Not to mention the tv out cards I've used just haven't been that great so far. And for the less computer savvy, being able to pop a divx movie into the xbox drive and have it autoplay is pretty cool.
We're also going to see some cool freeware games on the Xbox. There are a few decent ones on the dreamcast, but since developers can use directx on an x86 architexture, there will be a LOT more on the xbox.
Unfortantely, being able to run unsigned code also means being able to run ripped copies of real xbox games. So piracy will be a big feature of this as well. Not much you can do there.
Ideally someone will develope a hardware-free method of running unsigned code. This would really let grass roots console developement take off.
And yeah -- it will make a pretty cool 200 dollar linux box.
The genres aren't that compatible. Who would want to mix Destiny's Child Pop with Nirvana's grunge? The fans of each genre don't play well with each other. Upbeat "Bootylicious" mixed with a mellow "Teen Spirit." Ick.
Well, that IS the point. Mixing two songs that are the same is uninteresting; you can create something totally new by combining two things you never would have thought could have coexisted. To quote a friend of mine:
You'll realize what has been missing in your life until now... Hearing Public Enemy rap over "Come On Eileen" by Dexy's Midnight Runners. So cool!
The genres aren't that compatible. Who would want to mix Destiny's Child Pop with Nirvana's grunge? The fans of each genre don't play well with each other. Upbeat "Bootylicious" mixed with a mellow "Teen Spirit." Ick.
Well, that IS the point. Missing two songs that are the song is uninteresting; you can create something totally new by combining two things you never would have thought could have coexisted. To quote a friend of mine:
You'll realize what has been missing in your life until now... Hearing Public Enemy rap over "Come On Eileen" by Dexy's Midnight Runners. So cool!
>The ruling isn't saying "all games aren't speech." It's saying "game's aren't always protected speech."
Actually, as far as I can tell, that's EXACTLY what it is saying. Games are never speech. I don't think anyone would have a program with the second statement.
'From his ruling, [US District Judge] Limbaugh appears to believe that no amount of contextual information, or additional narrative, in a game is enough to make it a work of art or expression worthy of the name 'free speech.''
I can't seem to find the actual text of the ruling though, so who knows.
Regulation or ratings or whatever is a different issue. It just happened that this judgement came in response to an issue of regulation. Regulaee it like movies are done now -- great. No problem with that. Don't regulate it based entirely on the idea that games are never ever to be considered under the first amendment.
And the article mentioned a lot of violent games. Medal of Honor, Max Payne (MEGA violent), Deus Ex, etc. Of those only Deus Ex is really the shit though -- good game.
The majority of the really good shows are on networks like HBO which have NO ads. I'd rather never have ads and just pay for the premium stations I want. Let ad-supported tv die. Good riddance.
Not at all. What's good in a literary sense and what's good in a game sense are almost always two different things.
i meant merit in a literary sense. a game can be judged in a literary sense in addition to a game sense. The reverse is perhaps almost never true though (fun to think of places where it might be: Run Lola Run, psychologically at least? choose your own adventure novels? some contempory novels which aren't meant to be read linearly?)
I'm not familiar with The Longest Joureny, but I am with the first two--and they're not action games AFAIK.
That's just the point though -- the Scorpion King receives the same protection as any other movie right? Being considered an action/popcorn movie/game or whatever is of no relevance.
A lot of small time writers, take http://www.sheldonpacotti.com/ throw their hearts into games, in this case an action/shooter game Deus Ex. I'm sure he'd take offense to the idea that his work is not being to to express or convey anything at all.
And speech is incredibly vast anyway. A PAINTING is speech.
I, personally, haven't seen any games that merit the same protection as half the novels I read. While I can think of a theoretical video game that would do such, I don't know of any offhand that meet the standard.
By 'merit' I guess you mean that they just aren't good enough? There a plenty of games with writing far better than half of the novels out there (maybe not better than the half you read, but you didn't mention what you read). Try Planescape: Torment, The Longest Journey, Grim Fandango, etc. etc. So maybe a lot of games are more like Hollywood action movies -- they crank them out and make some quick dough. Most MOVIES are frequently just as vacuos. Doesn't mean they aren't protected just like the good ones though.
That's a really interesting point -- there might be some kind of parallel between sleep and nutrition.
But I don't think it extends to stress. Stress is bad. Bad bad. Stress prolongs your life in the short term, but causes an enormous number of well understood problems.
So oddly enough, maybe the people who live the longest are sleep deprived, mal nurished, and totally chill and relaxed.
Re:Twins at light speed "example" breaks relativit
on
Time Travel
·
· Score: 1
The twin paradox is used by some people who don't understand relativity as a proof that it must be incorrect -- because how could they both be younger and older than the other. I'm not trying to do that. I was merely explaining that the paradox is resolved because it is no longer a Special Relativity problem as soon as you have acceleration -- Special Relativity applies only to inertial frames of reference.
You are correct in saying that this is not a paradox when the twins are speeding away from each other -- it only makes sense to speak of age from a particular frame of reference. But after turning around and coming home, the paradox is not resolved by them being the same age -- one IS younger than the other. This is an overvable phenomenon. There have been atomic clocks put onto jetliners and flown around the earth and the tiny bit of time dilation has been measured.
http://hepweb.rl.ac.uk/ppUK/PhysFAQ/twin_intro.h tm l
Re:Twins at light speed "example" breaks relativit
on
Time Travel
·
· Score: 1
But isn't there a different between them -- one twin undergoes acceleration (to turn around} and the other does not. This takes it out of the realm of special relativity into General relativity, and indeed, one twin will be younger than the other.
It is true that while one twin is speeding away from the other, it is nonsensical to speak of one being younger than the other since they would both see the other as dilated. It's the turning around that does it.
1) There are TONS of deep and complicated strategy games (many have already been pointed out in other comments) but...
2) They don't sell all that well.
3) Many 'simple' games are quite deep when you explore them fully.
4) Starcraft, on fastest speed, is mostly brute force so unless you are against someone who is the same speed there isn't much variation. But try a game at a slower pace!
Re:Vote Nader if you want a communist
on
The PS2 Experience
·
· Score: 1
Actually, though the Green Party supports Nader, they have different platforms. The Green Party ratified Nader's platform when he was selected as a candidate. You can see the Nader's real platform at www.votenader.com
Actually, there is an amazing amount of energy lost in the power lines. I learned it in an engineering class -- something like 1/2 or 2/3 or all the energy put in is lost to resistance.
It's one reason why home based fuel cells would be more efficicent -- more efficient to ship the fuel and to the energy conversion yourself (assuming you have a good fuel cell).
WOOAH! Even forgetting about the presidency, VOTE!
on
Should You Vote?
·
· Score: 1
There are more things to vote for than merely a presidential race. In MA, we have a number of 'questions' on the ballot. Other places do too! Some of these are pretty important: There is one concerning universal health care for example.
I always mention to other college students the question regarding cannabis reform too -- this usually rings them in.
I didn't have a pc at the time, but this was done all the time with games on my old apple IIc. And it really made them a bitch to copy as well. I'm not sure if it was ever done with PC games, but I'd say that it probably was, back when there wasn't too much variance in the graphics/sound hardware to support (ie, before soundblasters etc.)
I've heard the same about heroin. I have friends who frequently place all sorts of exotic substanced in their body, and THEY won't touch heroin. Opium, sure, even cocaine on occasion, but DEFINATELY not heroin.
Well, this is true only if the entire CPU is calculating T&L. The whole point of offloading it to the graphics card is that is frees up a rather mundane graphic task so that the CPU can do other things like AI routines.
Slashdot Mirror
While it's true that something really really bad is hard to play, there are plenty of games appreciated for how bad they are.
Check out Crapterpiece Theatre on the 1UP show (a video podcast), which is an MST3K style show for example.
After you beat Tyson, you can fight a new circuit which has harder versions of some of the old fighters.
A lot of people don't seem to understand why people object to such a harmless concept as a national ID. Here's a good explanation from http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0404.html#1
***
As a security technologist, I regularly encounter people who say the United States should adopt a national ID card. How could such a program not make us more secure, they ask?
The suggestion, when it's made by a thoughtful civic-minded person like Nicholas Kristof in the New York Times, often takes on a tone that is regretful and ambivalent: Yes, indeed, the card would be a minor invasion of our privacy, and undoubtedly it would add to the growing list of interruptions and delays we encounter every day; but we live in dangerous times, we live in a new world....
It all sounds so reasonable, but there's a lot to disagree with in such an attitude.
The potential privacy encroachments of an ID card system are far from minor. And the interruptions and delays caused by incessant ID checks could easily proliferate into a persistent traffic jam in office lobbies and airports and hospital waiting rooms and shopping malls.
But my primary objection isn't the totalitarian potential of national IDs, nor the likelihood that they'll create a whole immense new class of social and economic dislocations. Nor is it the opportunities they will create for colossal boondoggles by government contractors. My objection to the national ID card, at least for the purposes of this essay, is much simpler.
It won't work. It won't make us more secure.
In fact, everything I've learned about security over the last 20 years tells me that once it is put in place, a national ID card program will actually make us less secure.
My argument may not be obvious, but it's not hard to follow, either. It centers around the notion that security must be evaluated not based on how it works, but on how it fails.
It doesn't really matter how well an ID card works when used by the hundreds of millions of honest people that would carry it. What matters is how the system might fail when used by someone intent on subverting that system: how it fails naturally, how it can be made to fail, and how failures might be exploited.
The first problem is the card itself. No matter how unforgeable we make it, it will be forged. And even worse, people will get legitimate cards in fraudulent names.
Two of the 9/11 terrorists had valid Virginia driver's licenses in fake names. And even if we could guarantee that everyone who issued national ID cards couldn't be bribed, initial cardholder identity would be determined by other identity documents... all of which would be easier to forge.
Not that there would ever be such thing as a single ID card. Currently about 20 percent of all identity documents are lost per year. An entirely separate security system would have to be developed for people who lost their card, a system that itself is capable of abuse.
Additionally, any ID system involves people... people who regularly make mistakes. We all have stories of bartenders falling for obviously fake IDs, or sloppy ID checks at airports and government buildings. It's not simply a matter of training; checking IDs is a mind-numbingly boring task, one that is guaranteed to have failures. Biometrics such as thumbprints show some promise here, but bring with them their own set of exploitable failure modes.
But the main problem with any ID system is that it requires the existence of a database. In this case it would have to be an immense database of private and sensitive information on every American -- one widely and instantaneously accessible from airline check-in stations, police cars, schools, and so on.
The security risks are enormous. Such a database would be a kludge of existing databases; databases that are incompatible, full of erroneous data, and unreliable. As computer scientists, we do not know how to keep a database of
Author's web site.
He has a bunch of his fiction online.
What I can't believe they don't do is add module upgrades.
Slap on an overpriced harddrive that clips on top or something -- people will eat it up.
Dvd burner -- same thing.
They could markup basic hardware and makes tons of cash.
>What about HDTV support?
Coming or so I hear.
>What about multiple TVs (If I buy another Tivo, I have to move to the room that recorded the show to watch it)?
Would be nice. The high end (way expensive) replay models do this I guess.
>What about interfacing with my cable box so I don't have to build an 'IR Tent'?
Did you try plugging in the data cable? Mine already does this -- no ir tent for me. I believe you need a digital cable box.
>What about dual tuners on the more expensive models?
Available now for all the DirectTV tivos (even record two things, and watch a third pre-recorded!), but not on the regulars probably because you wouldn't be able to get digital cable or pay stations on the built in tivo tuner.
You might want to check to see if your data cable is working and supported now. A nice surprise with version 3.0 was that I now have the serial cable going directly into my digital cable box -- no more ir mistakes! And it's faster too.
I'm familiar with the DVD protections. However, with the mod chip, there have already been arbitrary tested XBE files run. The DVDrom DOES spin the normal way -- it just reads the game files from the outside in. It reads other discs, like DVDs, normally.
This means that I can get an Xbox now not only for the games, but to use as a custom media computer.
Much like the Dreamcast, it will play cds of mp3s, emulators of all sorts, and divx movies. The dreamcast was JUST a bit too slow to make some emulators and divx playback useful, while the Xbox should be the opposite (all the 2d systems should run nicely now).
Yes, I could just build a cheap computer to do this, in fact I have, but having those nice controllers in a relatrively tidy box next to your tube is pretty cool. Not to mention the tv out cards I've used just haven't been that great so far. And for the less computer savvy, being able to pop a divx movie into the xbox drive and have it autoplay is pretty cool.
We're also going to see some cool freeware games on the Xbox. There are a few decent ones on the dreamcast, but since developers can use directx on an x86 architexture, there will be a LOT more on the xbox.
Unfortantely, being able to run unsigned code also means being able to run ripped copies of real xbox games. So piracy will be a big feature of this as well. Not much you can do there.
Ideally someone will develope a hardware-free method of running unsigned code. This would really let grass roots console developement take off.
And yeah -- it will make a pretty cool 200 dollar linux box.
The genres aren't that compatible. Who would want to mix Destiny's Child Pop with Nirvana's grunge? The fans of each genre don't play well with each other. Upbeat "Bootylicious" mixed with a mellow "Teen Spirit." Ick.
Well, that IS the point. Mixing two songs that are the same is uninteresting; you can create something totally new by combining two things you never would have thought could have coexisted. To quote a friend of mine:
Well, that IS the point. Missing two songs that are the song is uninteresting; you can create something totally new by combining two things you never would have thought could have coexisted. To quote a friend of mine:
>The ruling isn't saying "all games aren't speech." It's saying "game's aren't always protected speech."
Actually, as far as I can tell, that's EXACTLY what it is saying. Games are never speech. I don't think anyone would have a program with the second statement.
'From his ruling, [US District Judge] Limbaugh appears to believe that no amount of contextual information, or additional narrative, in a game is enough to make it a work of art or expression worthy of the name 'free speech.''
I can't seem to find the actual text of the ruling though, so who knows.
Regulation or ratings or whatever is a different issue. It just happened that this judgement came in response to an issue of regulation. Regulaee it like movies are done now -- great. No problem with that. Don't regulate it based entirely on the idea that games are never ever to be considered under the first amendment.
And the article mentioned a lot of violent games. Medal of Honor, Max Payne (MEGA violent), Deus Ex, etc. Of those only Deus Ex is really the shit though -- good game.
The majority of the really good shows are on networks like HBO which have NO ads. I'd rather never have ads and just pay for the premium stations I want. Let ad-supported tv die. Good riddance.
i meant merit in a literary sense. a game can be judged in a literary sense in addition to a game sense. The reverse is perhaps almost never true though (fun to think of places where it might be: Run Lola Run, psychologically at least? choose your own adventure novels? some contempory novels which aren't meant to be read linearly?)
That's just the point though -- the Scorpion King receives the same protection as any other movie right? Being considered an action/popcorn movie/game or whatever is of no relevance.
A lot of small time writers, take http://www.sheldonpacotti.com/ throw their hearts into games, in this case an action/shooter game Deus Ex. I'm sure he'd take offense to the idea that his work is not being to to express or convey anything at all.
And speech is incredibly vast anyway. A PAINTING is speech.
By 'merit' I guess you mean that they just aren't good enough? There a plenty of games with writing far better than half of the novels out there (maybe not better than the half you read, but you didn't mention what you read). Try Planescape: Torment, The Longest Journey, Grim Fandango, etc. etc. So maybe a lot of games are more like Hollywood action movies -- they crank them out and make some quick dough. Most MOVIES are frequently just as vacuos. Doesn't mean they aren't protected just like the good ones though.
That's a really interesting point -- there might be some kind of parallel between sleep and nutrition.
But I don't think it extends to stress. Stress is bad. Bad bad. Stress prolongs your life in the short term, but causes an enormous number of well understood problems.
So oddly enough, maybe the people who live the longest are sleep deprived, mal nurished, and totally chill and relaxed.
The twin paradox is used by some people who don't understand relativity as a proof that it must be incorrect -- because how could they both be younger and older than the other. I'm not trying to do that. I was merely explaining that the paradox is resolved because it is no longer a Special Relativity problem as soon as you have acceleration -- Special Relativity applies only to inertial frames of reference.
h tm l
You are correct in saying that this is not a paradox when the twins are speeding away from each other -- it only makes sense to speak of age from a particular frame of reference. But after turning around and coming home, the paradox is not resolved by them being the same age -- one IS younger than the other. This is an overvable phenomenon. There have been atomic clocks put onto jetliners and flown around the earth and the tiny bit of time dilation has been measured.
http://hepweb.rl.ac.uk/ppUK/PhysFAQ/twin_intro.
But isn't there a different between them -- one twin undergoes acceleration (to turn around} and the other does not. This takes it out of the realm of special relativity into General relativity, and indeed, one twin will be younger than the other.
It is true that while one twin is speeding away from the other, it is nonsensical to speak of one being younger than the other since they would both see the other as dilated. It's the turning around that does it.
1) There are TONS of deep and complicated strategy games (many have already been pointed out in other comments) but...
2) They don't sell all that well.
3) Many 'simple' games are quite deep when you explore them fully.
4) Starcraft, on fastest speed, is mostly brute force so unless you are against someone who is the same speed there isn't much variation. But try a game at a slower pace!
Actually, though the Green Party supports Nader, they have different platforms. The Green Party ratified Nader's platform when he was selected as a candidate. You can see the Nader's real platform at www.votenader.com
Actually, there is an amazing amount of energy lost in the power lines. I learned it in an engineering class -- something like 1/2 or 2/3 or all the energy put in is lost to resistance.
It's one reason why home based fuel cells would be more efficicent -- more efficient to ship the fuel and to the energy conversion yourself (assuming you have a good fuel cell).
There are more things to vote for than merely a presidential race. In MA, we have a number of 'questions' on the ballot. Other places do too! Some of these are pretty important: There is one concerning universal health care for example.
I always mention to other college students the question regarding cannabis reform too -- this usually rings them in.
I didn't have a pc at the time, but this was done all the time with games on my old apple IIc. And it really made them a bitch to copy as well. I'm not sure if it was ever done with PC games, but I'd say that it probably was, back when there wasn't too much variance in the graphics/sound hardware to support (ie, before soundblasters etc.)
I've heard the same about heroin. I have friends who frequently place all sorts of exotic substanced in their body, and THEY won't touch heroin. Opium, sure, even cocaine on occasion, but DEFINATELY not heroin.
Well, this is true only if the entire CPU is calculating T&L. The whole point of offloading it to the graphics card is that is frees up a rather mundane graphic task so that the CPU can do other things like AI routines.