The government needs to amend the current laws so that people who suffer at the hands of identity thieves due to the negligence of these companies have the right to sue for damages. The threat of massive class action lawsuits would put the fear of God into these data aggregation companies. Perhaps then their executives would begin to take security more seriously.
The original test, as specified in the aforementioned 1950 paper, called for the use of mechanical teletypes to input queries and for responses to be printed on paper tape. The pictures in the article show iMacs, laptops, and other modern tools being used to facilitate the communication with the intelligent agent. While deference to the original specifications of the Turing test in this regard is not essential it would have been interesting to break out the old teletypes with the paper tape.
The problem is choice. Some people would say that choice is good, but from a business perspective, choice is expensive too and sometimes the benefits of choice do not outweigh the costs.
The law does not recognize someone as a legally responsible adult until the age of 18. Who among us did NOT do some fairly stupid things when we were teenagers?
Technically this is not correct. If you use GPL software in your solution or source code then you all of the source code and improvements become subject to the GPL. Hypothetically speaking, if the project is kept secret inside the company and nobody outside the company knows about the modifications then nobody outside the company will think to ask for the source code. However, practically speaking, if the modifications are valuable, the information would leak sooner or later and the company would then be required to release the source code to anyone that asked for it. The GPL does not require you to publicize changes, but it does require you to relinquish the source code if somebody asks. In such a case you may charge a nominal fee, but the fee can be no more than the cost of physical media or transfer fees such as paper, blank CDs or DVDs, postage if applicable, and the like. For my part I have always wondered what would happen if a company flouted the restrictions of the GPL and dared the open source community to see them in court. Who would serve as the plaintiff and if damages were paid where would they go?
Reading comprehension and math skills are important, however the proper use of technology in the classroom can enhance the learning experience by providing quantitative tracking of student progress, reading and math exercises targeted to expose and eliminate weaknesses in individual students, and visualizations which help students appreciate the interconnected nature of concepts and ideas. The current primary school education system, at least here in the United States, is not particularly efficient at meeting the needs of individual students. This is especially true of students who are highly intelligent, yet deviate from the norm with regard to learning methods and problem solving strategies. The conformity that is imposed under the current education system, with the possible exception of some special high schools and universities, stifles the creativity and stunts the growth of these students which do not fall into one of the pigeon holes created by the public education bureaucracy. The use of technology in the classroom, while not always immediately effective at present, should be encouraged so that the long term benefits and possibilities of these learning tools are fully explored and realized, our children deserve no less.
Especially when that trade costs many American workers their jobs, and results in a massive trade deficit that's only good for China, American executives, and their puppet politicians.
Be careful what you wish for because you may actually receive it. The road of trade isolationism and protectionism leads to lazy non-competitive domestic firms which produce low quality goods and services at very high prices because they are shielded by law from foreign competition through tariffs, quotas, subsidies and the like. Experience has show this to be true time and again all over the world (India, Latin America, Britain) The problem with free trade is that the benefits are not very tangible to the average citizen in the short run, but any job loss which can be even remotely connected with free trade is. People are quick to blame their problems on free trade, but are they really willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for clothing, household goods, and other common purchases simply because they were made entirely here in the United States? The truth is that without free trade many Americans would still be living in desperately poor conditions, unable to afford even the most basic consumer goods because of the high costs of domestic production. Wal-Mart has its problems to be sure, but it is a Godsend to many lower income Americans because it provides reasonable quality goods at reasonable prices that would otherwise be unaffordable to them. There is a balance of interests of course, but the next time you feel like knocking free trade think about what your life might be like without it.
I would like to see them explore the 29th Century Federation, which was alluded to in the third season Voyager two-part episode "Future's End" in which the Federation sends small one man ships to any point in the galaxy at any time: past, present, or future using space folding technology.
The last time I checked the RIAA is neither an ISP nor a Law Enforcement agency, although they would like to style themselves as such when it comes to pursuing twelve-year-olds for their lunch money. As for Comcast, their privacy policy reeks of corporate hypocrisy. It should be abundantly clear, after reading that agreement, that privacy and security are important to Comcast only insofar as they do not interfere with profits or fail to decieve the customers with the illusion that they [Comcast] are "looking out for the privacy of their subscribers." This is the same type of flawed corporate reasoning which attempts to place a finite and limited value on a trustworthy relationship with customers and investors.
What? the Feds use Linux? Surely you jest sir. These bureaucrats are the same ones that allow Medicare to be billed $20 each for individual foil-sealed packages of aspirin. These people don't save money they spend your money for you in ways that even the most foolish American consumer would be hard pressed to emulate. Besides, who would want to use Linux when even Gartner says that Windows has a lower total cost of ownership and better performance than Linux *smirks*, and hey if Gartner says so then it must be true...sheesh.
I seem to recall that during scenes in the film where the computer interface was being used the operators were physically passing back and forth what looked like large acrylic disks and inserting them into the drives. It was a strange dichotomy to see an apparently sophisticated interface coupled with such an archaic manner of data transport (i.e. sneaker net). It was as if the idea of local area network had not occurred to them (or perhaps not to the producers or set designers anyway).
The fight over cheap broadband access has striking parallels with the fight for cheap access to electricity that took place between the Government controlled public works projects, such as the Bonneville Power Administration, and the private power produced by the monopolistic corporations during the early 1930s. The private power corporations used many of the same arguments that we are hearing againg today from the telcos including, "public access is un-American" and "the people that supprot this are communists", etc...
There may indeed be some hypocrisy among Slashdot members with regard to the issue of copyright, intellectual property rights, and licensing. However, for my part, I am not against the RIAA or the MPAA licensing their copyrighted works in any manner that they wish as long as the terms of the agreements are consistent with the applicable laws. The grievances that I and many others have against organizations (MPAA, RIAA, et al) stem from several sources. First, these organizations are engaged in aggressive attempt to undermine the balance of copyright by rewriting the copyright laws in their favor. They forget that the purpose of copyright is, as determined by our founding fathers in Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution:
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."
It is not, as the RIAA and MPAA would have us believe, to protect artists against those who would steal the fruits of their labor. Copyright is a contract which defines a balance of power between creators and the public to promote the common good. It does not exist to protect profits and revenues that are derived form coincidental past inefficiencies in production and distribution which brings me to my second point. These organizations also seek legislative protection against new technologies which threaten their entrenched business models when it is clear that no compelling reason exists for the Congress to override the overwhelming public interest in the beneficial economic process of creative destruction to artificially shelter, through legislative Fiat, the existing firms from the discipline of the marketplace. I am not against copyright, nor am I anti-business, but I feel that organizations like the RIAA and MPAA are acting in bad faith to the detriment of us all when they seek to beat the marketplace into submission with the cudgel of draconian, un-American, and unconstitutional legislation.
they're selling starter edition at a huge loss in one market that they otherwise wouldn't be able to sell in at all, apart from that activity being subsidized by other markets.
Do not think of it as a loss, but rather as Microsoft accepting less profit than they would otherwise receive on an American or European sale. The profit margins on Windows at the 1st world prices are extremely high so Microsoft is definitely not taking a loss.
the slashdot socialists should like it, fundamentally. those that can afford to, pay more, which lets MS offer software to those that cant afford it at a loss.
Microsoft does not offer the software to those that cannot pay the US price because they are altruistic; they do it because they would rather have some profit than no profit. If people cannot afford software they will either pirate it or do without. If there are no sales then there is no profit and since some profit is better than no profit Microsoft is willing to sell Windows for less in less wealthy countries.
i could make the argument that for the average computer user, XP starter is a heck of a lot better than any linux distro, and if XPS is something MS is taking a loss on, it's down right charitable of them to try and target lower income situations (and making the higher income portions of the market place pay for it)
See above comments...Microsoft is a completely separate entity from the Bill and Melinda Gates Charitable Foundation. In the case of Windows sales, charity has nothing to do with it. Microsoft would rather have some profit on some sales than no profit on any sales.
naturally i'm just a bit too cynical to buy that completely, but it probably bears consideration. set aside any fanboy hatred of MS for a moment, and consider what will get people in developing countries on the computer/internet wave with the least effort... XP starter edition, or gentoo ?
That would depend upon how well and easily the platform in question met the needs of the individual. The lower penetration of Windows in poorer parts of the world means that these people are likely to be ambivalent about choosing one or the other.
If Microsoft does indeed have monopoly power (e.g., they face a downward sloping demand curve) then they would maximize their profits by price discrimination. Price discrimination means charging each group of customers the maximum amount that they are willing or able to pay for the product or service. This is the winning strategy for any monopoly assuming that they are not legally restricted from price discriminating. Thus, this type of behavior by Microsoft is not surprising, but rather entirely expected as per the textbook examples of unrestricted monopolies.
That does not change the fact that the entity which is compromised is responsible for the fraud. If it was the information broker then they are liable, if it was the background checked and trusted client of the information broker then they are liable. It is not difficult to determine liability in these cases. The information is already compromised at that point, but that wasn't the point. The point was that the law should be structured so that the negligent party, whoever that may be in the chain, is responsible for monetary damages. The only way to get people to take security seriously in the business world is to hit them where it hurts, the bottom line, if they fail in their fiduciary responsibilities.
Negligence is one of those things that cannot always be exactly defined for all situations in the letter of the law. That is why the laws define negligence in general terms and it is up to the courts to determine on a case by case basis what is and is not negligence. If the court decides that someone is negligent then the penalties prescribed by the laws regarding negligence apply. The purpose of the judicial branch is to interpret the laws.
Better security means, in the case of ChoicePoint and LexisNexis, some basic detective work and background checking of clients. How about using their own records to see if an applicant for data access is actually a convicted felon? With regard to the technical side of the issue, database records should use only artificial primary keys and identifiers which serve no other purpose than to uniquely identify database records. The use of natural primary keys, such as SSNs, in databases has led to all sorts of security problems in the past and should be avoided and discouraged. There are other best practices but since this is not a treatise on proper database design I will not get into all of them here. Satisfied?
BTW: Some of the databases which I have designed and built have hundreds of users and millions of records so I speak from experience.
I am curious about how the *AAs gained access to a restricted research network. Granted those people who were sharing non-research related files were probably violating the terms of use as well, but that does not excuse the unauthorized breaking and entry of the *AAs, if indeed that is how they got in, into a private research network. Couldn't the *AAs be busted too for breaking in or paying an insider? This is a legal grey area at the very least.
I did not suggest that it should be made illegal to sell data which is gathered or derived, but rather that access to such information must be controlled so that the consumer, and that includes us property owners too, is not needlessly exposed to the real and growing threat of identity theft. Those companies which store and provide this information must bear financial responsibility (e.g, legal liability) for compromise of their databases or negligence in screening clients for access. These companies should be paying damages to the effected consumers commensurate to the losses in both time, money, and lost credit opportunities that they (the consumers) have wrongfully suffered because of these companies' mistakes. A free credit report for one year does not begin to cut it. Additionally, certain types of information, such as SSNs, which have dual uses both to establish identity and apply for credit, need to be more tightly regulated. The companies that whine that SSNs are needed as unique IDs in databases are just being lazy. I develop databases as part of my profession and there are ways to develop databases that meet business needs and still respect people's privacy. ChoicePoint and LexisNexis need to be called to account for playing fast and lose with people's personal data so that it becomes known that sloppy security and negligence in screening access will not be tolerated. I am sympathetic to the landlord's plight, but the system as it is cannot continue to operate as it has been with the huge uncompensated costs to consumers in time and money when their identities get stolen. It may mean that the landlord has to pay a bit more for his access to this information to cover the security costs. He can pass that onto his tenants if he wishes, but surely you can agree that everyone is better off with better security in such matters given the growing threat and massive damages caused by identity theft.
It's about the money because some (most) programmers have themselves or possibly a family to feed and the mortgage really is due at the end of the month. The college student existence with no money and free as in beer is fun for a while, but eventually we all have bigger goals and those usually, but not always, require money.
The high profile database compromises of the last several months have served to push this issue to the forefront of the public consciousness and fueled public frustration. This is an obvious case of negative externality and should clearly be addressed with legislation that imposes regulatory requirements on companies which engage in the business of selling information. In this case the consumer, who is a third party to the transactions between these companies and their clients, is severely harmed by the negative effects of lax security at these companies. They, the consumers, do not share in any of the profits generated by this industry, but they do share in huge risks for rather dubious, in my opinion anyway, benefits. These companies have a clear conflict of interest when it comes to balancing the demands of security with the demands of the shareholders for profit and without regulatory relief that imposes severe financial liability for breaches, security and the consumer will lose every time. I am generally in favor of less government, however in the case of negative externalities the correct solution is definitely legislation and regulation.
Most people currently living on this planet will not be remembered even fifty years after their death. There may be some family members one hundred years or so down the line who remembers your name, dates of birth and death, and a few meager facts such as your profession; perhaps your name will be in some government records for a few hundred years. However, once the last person who actually knew you as a living person is gone you will most likely be forgotten. In time even our current civilization will fall and all records written or otherwise of average people will probably not survive the chaos. In the grand scheme of history very few people are destined to achieve lasting remembrance. If empires, kings, tyrants, and conquerors have been forgotten how much less will an average modern person be remembered in the millennia ahead?
It was refreshing to see that the term hacker, as it was used in the article, was more closely in line with the original meaning of the term among those who identified themselves as "hackers" in the late 1980's and early 1990's. In the United States the marketers are already conducting a full-scale assault on the hearts and minds of our children in an attempt to breed the next generation of mindless consumers. Any type of program that encourages original thinking, awareness of privacy, and pursuit of full and accurate information is anathema to these marketers. It is ironic that corporations, pushing everything from junk foods, trendy clothing, and mass market entertainment to corporate propaganda that is passed off as factual "classroom materials", have nearly unlimited access to middle and secondary school students while a program which attempts to present an alternative position that encourages students to think for themselves and reach informed conclusions is quickly squelched. Is it any wonder that we are largely a nation of debtors?
I have used Visual Studio in my development work for the past five years on various projects small and large including thick clients, web services, database projects, and web applications. The Visual Studio interface is intuitive (from a developer's perspective anyway), the workspaces are well organized, and the overall quality of the development environment appears to be excellent. I have heard many others say that Visual Studio is the finest development tool currently available. However, I would be interested to know which tools, in your opinion, are better than Visual Studio? Bear in mind that the Visual Studio team at Microsoft includes many of their best and brightest with a multi-million dollar budget. You will forgive me if I am skeptical that any freely available tools could be better.
Slashdot Mirror
The government needs to amend the current laws so that people who suffer at the hands of identity thieves due to the negligence of these companies have the right to sue for damages. The threat of massive class action lawsuits would put the fear of God into these data aggregation companies. Perhaps then their executives would begin to take security more seriously.
The original test, as specified in the aforementioned 1950 paper, called for the use of mechanical teletypes to input queries and for responses to be printed on paper tape. The pictures in the article show iMacs, laptops, and other modern tools being used to facilitate the communication with the intelligent agent. While deference to the original specifications of the Turing test in this regard is not essential it would have been interesting to break out the old teletypes with the paper tape.
The problem is choice. Some people would say that choice is good, but from a business perspective, choice is expensive too and sometimes the benefits of choice do not outweigh the costs.
The law does not recognize someone as a legally responsible adult until the age of 18. Who among us did NOT do some fairly stupid things when we were teenagers?
Technically this is not correct. If you use GPL software in your solution or source code then you all of the source code and improvements become subject to the GPL. Hypothetically speaking, if the project is kept secret inside the company and nobody outside the company knows about the modifications then nobody outside the company will think to ask for the source code. However, practically speaking, if the modifications are valuable, the information would leak sooner or later and the company would then be required to release the source code to anyone that asked for it. The GPL does not require you to publicize changes, but it does require you to relinquish the source code if somebody asks. In such a case you may charge a nominal fee, but the fee can be no more than the cost of physical media or transfer fees such as paper, blank CDs or DVDs, postage if applicable, and the like. For my part I have always wondered what would happen if a company flouted the restrictions of the GPL and dared the open source community to see them in court. Who would serve as the plaintiff and if damages were paid where would they go?
Reading comprehension and math skills are important, however the proper use of technology in the classroom can enhance the learning experience by providing quantitative tracking of student progress, reading and math exercises targeted to expose and eliminate weaknesses in individual students, and visualizations which help students appreciate the interconnected nature of concepts and ideas. The current primary school education system, at least here in the United States, is not particularly efficient at meeting the needs of individual students. This is especially true of students who are highly intelligent, yet deviate from the norm with regard to learning methods and problem solving strategies. The conformity that is imposed under the current education system, with the possible exception of some special high schools and universities, stifles the creativity and stunts the growth of these students which do not fall into one of the pigeon holes created by the public education bureaucracy. The use of technology in the classroom, while not always immediately effective at present, should be encouraged so that the long term benefits and possibilities of these learning tools are fully explored and realized, our children deserve no less.
Especially when that trade costs many American workers their jobs, and results in a massive trade deficit that's only good for China, American executives, and their puppet politicians.
Be careful what you wish for because you may actually receive it. The road of trade isolationism and protectionism leads to lazy non-competitive domestic firms which produce low quality goods and services at very high prices because they are shielded by law from foreign competition through tariffs, quotas, subsidies and the like. Experience has show this to be true time and again all over the world (India, Latin America, Britain) The problem with free trade is that the benefits are not very tangible to the average citizen in the short run, but any job loss which can be even remotely connected with free trade is. People are quick to blame their problems on free trade, but are they really willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for clothing, household goods, and other common purchases simply because they were made entirely here in the United States? The truth is that without free trade many Americans would still be living in desperately poor conditions, unable to afford even the most basic consumer goods because of the high costs of domestic production. Wal-Mart has its problems to be sure, but it is a Godsend to many lower income Americans because it provides reasonable quality goods at reasonable prices that would otherwise be unaffordable to them. There is a balance of interests of course, but the next time you feel like knocking free trade think about what your life might be like without it.
I would like to see them explore the 29th Century Federation, which was alluded to in the third season Voyager two-part episode "Future's End" in which the Federation sends small one man ships to any point in the galaxy at any time: past, present, or future using space folding technology.
The last time I checked the RIAA is neither an ISP nor a Law Enforcement agency, although they would like to style themselves as such when it comes to pursuing twelve-year-olds for their lunch money. As for Comcast, their privacy policy reeks of corporate hypocrisy. It should be abundantly clear, after reading that agreement, that privacy and security are important to Comcast only insofar as they do not interfere with profits or fail to decieve the customers with the illusion that they [Comcast] are "looking out for the privacy of their subscribers." This is the same type of flawed corporate reasoning which attempts to place a finite and limited value on a trustworthy relationship with customers and investors.
What? the Feds use Linux? Surely you jest sir. These bureaucrats are the same ones that allow Medicare to be billed $20 each for individual foil-sealed packages of aspirin. These people don't save money they spend your money for you in ways that even the most foolish American consumer would be hard pressed to emulate. Besides, who would want to use Linux when even Gartner says that Windows has a lower total cost of ownership and better performance than Linux *smirks*, and hey if Gartner says so then it must be true...sheesh.
I seem to recall that during scenes in the film where the computer interface was being used the operators were physically passing back and forth what looked like large acrylic disks and inserting them into the drives. It was a strange dichotomy to see an apparently sophisticated interface coupled with such an archaic manner of data transport (i.e. sneaker net). It was as if the idea of local area network had not occurred to them (or perhaps not to the producers or set designers anyway).
The fight over cheap broadband access has striking parallels with the fight for cheap access to electricity that took place between the Government controlled public works projects, such as the Bonneville Power Administration, and the private power produced by the monopolistic corporations during the early 1930s. The private power corporations used many of the same arguments that we are hearing againg today from the telcos including, "public access is un-American" and "the people that supprot this are communists", etc...
public vs private power
There may indeed be some hypocrisy among Slashdot members with regard to the issue of copyright, intellectual property rights, and licensing. However, for my part, I am not against the RIAA or the MPAA licensing their copyrighted works in any manner that they wish as long as the terms of the agreements are consistent with the applicable laws. The grievances that I and many others have against organizations (MPAA, RIAA, et al) stem from several sources. First, these organizations are engaged in aggressive attempt to undermine the balance of copyright by rewriting the copyright laws in their favor. They forget that the purpose of copyright is, as determined by our founding fathers in Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution:
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."
It is not, as the RIAA and MPAA would have us believe, to protect artists against those who would steal the fruits of their labor. Copyright is a contract which defines a balance of power between creators and the public to promote the common good. It does not exist to protect profits and revenues that are derived form coincidental past inefficiencies in production and distribution which brings me to my second point. These organizations also seek legislative protection against new technologies which threaten their entrenched business models when it is clear that no compelling reason exists for the Congress to override the overwhelming public interest in the beneficial economic process of creative destruction to artificially shelter, through legislative Fiat, the existing firms from the discipline of the marketplace. I am not against copyright, nor am I anti-business, but I feel that organizations like the RIAA and MPAA are acting in bad faith to the detriment of us all when they seek to beat the marketplace into submission with the cudgel of draconian, un-American, and unconstitutional legislation.
they're selling starter edition at a huge loss in one market that they otherwise wouldn't be able to sell in at all, apart from that activity being subsidized by other markets.
Do not think of it as a loss, but rather as Microsoft accepting less profit than they would otherwise receive on an American or European sale. The profit margins on Windows at the 1st world prices are extremely high so Microsoft is definitely not taking a loss.
the slashdot socialists should like it, fundamentally. those that can afford to, pay more, which lets MS offer software to those that cant afford it at a loss.
Microsoft does not offer the software to those that cannot pay the US price because they are altruistic; they do it because they would rather have some profit than no profit. If people cannot afford software they will either pirate it or do without. If there are no sales then there is no profit and since some profit is better than no profit Microsoft is willing to sell Windows for less in less wealthy countries.
i could make the argument that for the average computer user, XP starter is a heck of a lot better than any linux distro, and if XPS is something MS is taking a loss on, it's down right charitable of them to try and target lower income situations (and making the higher income portions of the market place pay for it)
See above comments...Microsoft is a completely separate entity from the Bill and Melinda Gates Charitable Foundation. In the case of Windows sales, charity has nothing to do with it. Microsoft would rather have some profit on some sales than no profit on any sales.
naturally i'm just a bit too cynical to buy that completely, but it probably bears consideration. set aside any fanboy hatred of MS for a moment, and consider what will get people in developing countries on the computer/internet wave with the least effort... XP starter edition, or gentoo ?
That would depend upon how well and easily the platform in question met the needs of the individual. The lower penetration of Windows in poorer parts of the world means that these people are likely to be ambivalent about choosing one or the other.
If Microsoft does indeed have monopoly power (e.g., they face a downward sloping demand curve) then they would maximize their profits by price discrimination. Price discrimination means charging each group of customers the maximum amount that they are willing or able to pay for the product or service. This is the winning strategy for any monopoly assuming that they are not legally restricted from price discriminating. Thus, this type of behavior by Microsoft is not surprising, but rather entirely expected as per the textbook examples of unrestricted monopolies.
That does not change the fact that the entity which is compromised is responsible for the fraud. If it was the information broker then they are liable, if it was the background checked and trusted client of the information broker then they are liable. It is not difficult to determine liability in these cases. The information is already compromised at that point, but that wasn't the point. The point was that the law should be structured so that the negligent party, whoever that may be in the chain, is responsible for monetary damages. The only way to get people to take security seriously in the business world is to hit them where it hurts, the bottom line, if they fail in their fiduciary responsibilities.
Negligence is one of those things that cannot always be exactly defined for all situations in the letter of the law. That is why the laws define negligence in general terms and it is up to the courts to determine on a case by case basis what is and is not negligence. If the court decides that someone is negligent then the penalties prescribed by the laws regarding negligence apply. The purpose of the judicial branch is to interpret the laws.
Better security means, in the case of ChoicePoint and LexisNexis, some basic detective work and background checking of clients. How about using their own records to see if an applicant for data access is actually a convicted felon? With regard to the technical side of the issue, database records should use only artificial primary keys and identifiers which serve no other purpose than to uniquely identify database records. The use of natural primary keys, such as SSNs, in databases has led to all sorts of security problems in the past and should be avoided and discouraged. There are other best practices but since this is not a treatise on proper database design I will not get into all of them here. Satisfied?
BTW: Some of the databases which I have designed and built have hundreds of users and millions of records so I speak from experience.
I am curious about how the *AAs gained access to a restricted research network. Granted those people who were sharing non-research related files were probably violating the terms of use as well, but that does not excuse the unauthorized breaking and entry of the *AAs, if indeed that is how they got in, into a private research network. Couldn't the *AAs be busted too for breaking in or paying an insider? This is a legal grey area at the very least.
I did not suggest that it should be made illegal to sell data which is gathered or derived, but rather that access to such information must be controlled so that the consumer, and that includes us property owners too, is not needlessly exposed to the real and growing threat of identity theft. Those companies which store and provide this information must bear financial responsibility (e.g, legal liability) for compromise of their databases or negligence in screening clients for access. These companies should be paying damages to the effected consumers commensurate to the losses in both time, money, and lost credit opportunities that they (the consumers) have wrongfully suffered because of these companies' mistakes. A free credit report for one year does not begin to cut it. Additionally, certain types of information, such as SSNs, which have dual uses both to establish identity and apply for credit, need to be more tightly regulated. The companies that whine that SSNs are needed as unique IDs in databases are just being lazy. I develop databases as part of my profession and there are ways to develop databases that meet business needs and still respect people's privacy. ChoicePoint and LexisNexis need to be called to account for playing fast and lose with people's personal data so that it becomes known that sloppy security and negligence in screening access will not be tolerated. I am sympathetic to the landlord's plight, but the system as it is cannot continue to operate as it has been with the huge uncompensated costs to consumers in time and money when their identities get stolen. It may mean that the landlord has to pay a bit more for his access to this information to cover the security costs. He can pass that onto his tenants if he wishes, but surely you can agree that everyone is better off with better security in such matters given the growing threat and massive damages caused by identity theft.
It's about the money because some (most) programmers have themselves or possibly a family to feed and the mortgage really is due at the end of the month. The college student existence with no money and free as in beer is fun for a while, but eventually we all have bigger goals and those usually, but not always, require money.
The high profile database compromises of the last several months have served to push this issue to the forefront of the public consciousness and fueled public frustration. This is an obvious case of negative externality and should clearly be addressed with legislation that imposes regulatory requirements on companies which engage in the business of selling information. In this case the consumer, who is a third party to the transactions between these companies and their clients, is severely harmed by the negative effects of lax security at these companies. They, the consumers, do not share in any of the profits generated by this industry, but they do share in huge risks for rather dubious, in my opinion anyway, benefits. These companies have a clear conflict of interest when it comes to balancing the demands of security with the demands of the shareholders for profit and without regulatory relief that imposes severe financial liability for breaches, security and the consumer will lose every time. I am generally in favor of less government, however in the case of negative externalities the correct solution is definitely legislation and regulation.
Most people currently living on this planet will not be remembered even fifty years after their death. There may be some family members one hundred years or so down the line who remembers your name, dates of birth and death, and a few meager facts such as your profession; perhaps your name will be in some government records for a few hundred years. However, once the last person who actually knew you as a living person is gone you will most likely be forgotten. In time even our current civilization will fall and all records written or otherwise of average people will probably not survive the chaos. In the grand scheme of history very few people are destined to achieve lasting remembrance. If empires, kings, tyrants, and conquerors have been forgotten how much less will an average modern person be remembered in the millennia ahead?
It was refreshing to see that the term hacker, as it was used in the article, was more closely in line with the original meaning of the term among those who identified themselves as "hackers" in the late 1980's and early 1990's. In the United States the marketers are already conducting a full-scale assault on the hearts and minds of our children in an attempt to breed the next generation of mindless consumers. Any type of program that encourages original thinking, awareness of privacy, and pursuit of full and accurate information is anathema to these marketers. It is ironic that corporations, pushing everything from junk foods, trendy clothing, and mass market entertainment to corporate propaganda that is passed off as factual "classroom materials", have nearly unlimited access to middle and secondary school students while a program which attempts to present an alternative position that encourages students to think for themselves and reach informed conclusions is quickly squelched. Is it any wonder that we are largely a nation of debtors?
I have used Visual Studio in my development work for the past five years on various projects small and large including thick clients, web services, database projects, and web applications. The Visual Studio interface is intuitive (from a developer's perspective anyway), the workspaces are well organized, and the overall quality of the development environment appears to be excellent. I have heard many others say that Visual Studio is the finest development tool currently available. However, I would be interested to know which tools, in your opinion, are better than Visual Studio? Bear in mind that the Visual Studio team at Microsoft includes many of their best and brightest with a multi-million dollar budget. You will forgive me if I am skeptical that any freely available tools could be better.
But I want the shiney things!