So, because someone uses a tool to do something wrong, we should not use that tool?
I have said no such thing.
Also, your link has nothing to do with "restrain(ing) free speech. You drank the Kool-aid on that one. Restricting people from trespassing is not a restriciton of free speech, but rather an affirmation of property rights.
Trespassing? This had nothing to do with private property. He wasn't allowed within 150 feet of Rockefeller center. That includes much public property and a church.
In the article you link to, he admits trespassing when he says "I went to his home and office" presumably without permission.
You don't need permission to go to someone's home and office. He left when he was asked to leave.
That's illegal
Please cite the law which says that a journalist can't go to someone's house, knock on his door, and speak to his maidservant.
and has nothing to do with free speech, freedom of the press, or any other part of the 1st.
He's a journalist preparing a public interest piece, and because Rennert didn't want him to make his story public he lied to a judge and got him to hinder his production. That's most certainly a violation of the first amendment.
More importantly, it's a perfectly good reason to get a restraining order.
Apparently the mayor of New York City, a Republican who doesn't like Moore in any way, disagreed with you. If Moore was trespassing, maybe that's a reason to get a restraining order for him not to enter Rennert's private property (really all you need is a trespass notice). It wouldn't be a reason to keep Moore 150 feet away from Rennert's private property, and it doesn't matter because Moore wasn't breaking any laws in the first place.
People already stand to gain a great deal of money by tampering with odometers when selling cars. Dealers stand to gain the same way, to lower the mileage when selling used cars. Is this a signifigant problem today?
Not really. And with the odometers being checked every year or two it'd be even more difficult. As it is I believe they're only checked when the owner changes.
That said, I don't approve of an odometer-based tax system, and I disagree that there is a need to do any more tracking of highway usage than we do already.
For now I agree because the gas tax is close enough of an approximation. However, to those who don't think it is close enough, I'd much prefer checking of odometers to tracking of every movement using GPS.
Making highways into tollways is perfectly adequate.
California highway traffic is bad enough as it is. Add in toll booths and it'll probably get worse (although maybe not, as slowing down the traffic might relieve congestion and actually speed things up). In any case, it's likely that some sort of electronic toll collection system would be used, and that's almost as bad as GPS (at least you're only tracked when you're on the highway). Of course an anonymous electronic toll collection system could be implemented. But I doubt that's going to happen.
I don't care for the GPS to track how much you should pay in taxes (uhm you do that at the gas pump, you drive more, you buy more gas, your car pollutes more by burning more? you pay more).
And what about those people with hybrids or electric who use the roadways too? They might not pollute as much (of course how much you pollute consists of more factors than just how much gas you burn), but they still do use and cause wear and tear to taxpayer funded resources.
Not that I think the cons outweigh the pros, but there is a need for a better way to measure roadway usage, and that need is getting bigger and bigger every day. Would it be hard to make a system which was anonymous? No, but that system would be easier to thwart. Would many people tamper with their odometers to save a few hundred a year in highway taxes? Maybe. Unlike the efforts in purchasing off-roadway or black market fuel this would be a once a year thing with a pretty significant payoff.
You know, it probably doesn't matter all that much even if the information is public, because only those with money or power (really the same thing) will be able to process the information.
What we should do is greatly restrict the powers of the federal government. In fact, the federal government should only take care of those things which it needs to, things like interstate commerce, a unified currency, wars with foreign nations, these types of things. We could create a document ensuring that the federal government is only allowed to do these things, and we could call it the Constitution. Then we wouldn't have to worry about the federal government getting involved in things like who drives a car, drinks beer, or walks down the street.... [that was sarcasm for the humor impaired]
The Secretary of Homeland Defense can override ANY law short of the Constitution when it comes to building barriers at borders.
Theoretically the secretary can suspend all your rights at the border, and you can be strip searched and held in secret if you leave the USA and fail to declare the gift you bought your children when you come back through customs.
Of course, people aren't found guilty of "not being born in this country", they are found guilty of being in the country illegally.
Being in the country illegally implies they are not a US citizen which implies that they renounced their citizenship or were born outside the country. Anyway, I'd be interested in seeing the actual law.
I suspect immigration law is very different from criminal or civil law, specifically because it deals with people who are not citizens of this country.
But shouldn't you have to prove that they aare not citizens of the country in order to apply immigration law? Can the government really kick me, a US citizen, out of the country, unless I can prove to them that I was born here? Wouldn't that violate my Fifth Amendment rights?
If a suspected illegal immigrant cannot produce the documentation proving he/she is here legally, he/she will likely be deported. An affirmative defense is required in cases such as this.
If you didn't have to show an ID or a passport to your employer, I'm suprised.
Thinking about it I was kind of surprised myself, but I wasn't.
Every time I've started a new job I needed to show one of those pieces of identification for the I-9 form.
I've never seen an I-9 form. Does it only apply to people who don't claim that they're US citizens, because that would explain why I've never seen one (I always claim to be a US citizen, since I am one).
It takes real effort to live without an ID and generaly requires you to break the law (illegal labor).
Well, in order to work for a legit company you've gotta get a social security number and matching name/address, and that requires breaking the law I'd assume. But it's not very hard, there are firms which will provide you with such information, and some of them even provide you with a social security card. This information might be fake (a household of 4 having 10 fake people in it) or real (a citizen could sell the SSN/information to the company, one citizen could easily have 3 or 4 low paying jobs before triggering any suspicion), I don't know exactly how that part works. And as I said, none of the employers I worked for in Florida ever checked my social security card.
The only people I can think of who live completely wihtout one are either under 18 or illegals.
I've heard stories of people from Mexico who took the long walk to the US and were living here without a problem. They just get a social security number from one of those places and try not to get pulled over. If they get caught, and get deported, they just have to walk over again. The government doesn't even really care as long as the people aren't claiming any benefits. They still get their taxes through withholding, and as of 2003 there is over $375 billion in social security taxes collected by these workers. These people are contributing taxes to the social security system but aren't claiming the benefits. And yet you get certain politicians who make it out like it's costing the American taxpayer. It's apparently extremely common in the agriculture industry.
So we should be the world's dumping ground for criminals and vagrants?
I never said that. Of course, I've got no problem with vagrants.
But the problem of Mexico exporting their criminals here is bad enough even with the laws in place.
I'm not even sure what the laws are. It seems hard to be able to prove someone wasn't born in this country, and I'm under the impression that we citizens are innocent until proven guilty. Does this only apply to people who can prove that they're citizens?
I wouldn't say any significant line has been crossed, then.
OTOH, with linked databases the check could be done in less than a minute from a hand-carried or car-mounted radio-PDA-type thing. Equally effective, less apparent intrusion.
Add in facial recognition software (after all, everyone's face is in the database), and the check can be done without any intrusion. I guess that's a lot of power being given to the federal government, which could be used in a bad way. I guess the only thing I can say is that it's really inevitable. Once you've given the state governments all that information it's just a matter of time before they link it. The only real solution would be to eliminate state IDs altogether, and I'm not sure if that'd be a good idea or not (the corporations would still get the information, you'd quickly see all credit cards come with photo IDs). Or I suppose you could make it public information that everyone can access. Then at least the people would be on the same ground as the government.
Finally, the problem of fake IDs is a huge one for states and goes beyond simple liquor/cigarette purchases. Think about people with suspended or invalid licenses
The best solution to that is to simply not have an ID in the first place, and really that's where we're heading. For the purposes of driving, in states that use the new technologies, the ID itself is redundant. If you're pulled over, the officer could just as easily ask you for your name and address, then go back to his in-car computer and pull up a digital picture of you to confirm that you're telling the truth. Add in some decent facial recognition software and you could probably get to the point where the officer just has to say "You're Bill Jones, right?" Of course, whether we should require good drivers to register with the government is a question all to itself. Maybe one day facial recognition software will reach the point where we don't have to, and only people with suspended licenses need to be in the database. I doubt it's there at this stage.
check-cashing IDs for stolen checks
It seems to me that's an extremely rare problem, or maybe I'm missing what you're saying. You mean someone steals a check, then creates an ID with that person's information and their photo, and cashes it, before the check is reported stolen? That's pretty hard to do, and it's really up to the banks to protect against it, not the government. I've cashed a few checks in my life and the banks have always been incredibly paranoid about it anyway. Many require fingerprints in addition to ID. One actually called my grandfather on the phone at 8 in the morning to confirm that the check was valid. In any case, it's a matter of a private contractual relationship between the client and the bank. In my opinion it's not the responsibility of the government to provide this type of security. You don't see the government building bank vaults, do you?
proof of residence for voting and other purposes
You don't need ID to register or to vote, and it's highly unlikely you ever will. Presumably the check of residence happens when you register, and if you don't show ID your vote is held aside to make sure no one with ID voted under your name. I'm not sure exactly how they go about checking your residency when you register. Probably not very well, but it's not too difficult in theory to at least check that you receive mail at the address you say. Do you need to have your voter card in order to vote? I don't remember. In theory it's still possible to register multiple times under different names and/or addresses, but if you get caught you face up to 5 years in prison and is it really worth it for a few extra votes?
I moved to Florida over a year ago and I haven't had to use my ID yet. I have one, in case I get pulled over, and I gave the number to my car insurance company (which I got in case I get pulled over), but even they haven't actually looked at the ID. I don't sign my credit cards, so I've occassionally been asked to show my ID when using them, but I could always just use the debit option or pay cash. None of the employers I've worked for asked me to show ID. I just filled out a W-4 with my name, address, and SSN.
I could easily live without an ID. The only real problem would be cashing out of state checks. Fortunately the only ones I ever get are from family in states which I visit somewhat frequently. The only reason I even got a Florida drivers license is because I like to speed and I didn't want to go to jail for driving without auto insurance (I probably wouldn't even go to jail for that but it's a risk I'm not willing to take).
The bad part is the connection that will be made when a commercial entity needs your drivers license for one reason another, scans it, and it enters a commercial database where it will be crossed linked to other databases.
C'mon now, you don't think this is already done? Linking drivers licenses certainly doesn't make it very much easier. To get two spots in the database you'd have to move between states, get a new drivers license, then sign up for new cards, never use the same credit card or checking account, etc. Of course, they don't check ID for most shopper cards I've gotten, although I suppose I've never had a scannable ID.
I bet libraries will require it eventually.
Every library card I've ever gotten has required me to show ID or otherwise prove my residency.
What state do you live in? In many states there are self-insurance options for safe drivers with such driving histories. In others you can drop certain coverages. I only pay $300/year for insurance in Florida.
The line is clearly crossed when you ID card is required for more arbitrary purposes - like standing in a place where someone doesn't like your face. Unlinked driver's licenses aren't terribly useful for that, linked ones are.
You lost me there. Why does it matter whether or not the drivers licenses are linked? It's quite simple for a cop to detain a person while radioing to headquarters to contact the state in question and get the information in the database. In fact, this happens quite often when an out of state driver is involved in a traffic stop.
I somehow doubt that this federal ID program (which some say is "tantamount" to a National ID -- you don't say!) would have prevented them from getting valid driver's licenses.
No, but there have been other changes made to how you get a valid drivers license which might have.
It's not really a big deal, but at the same time there is a founding principle that is being violated, that of dual sovereignty. Yes, most countries have a national ID to begin with, but the United States isn't most countries. We are a collection of sovereign states who are supposed to make up their own rules about things like driving. An equivalent would be the EU creating a mandatory connected database for the drivers licenses of all the member countries. Who knows, maybe they have already done so. I expect they one day will if not, as the EU is quickly becoming a lot like the United States. That's Orwellian enough right there.
I like having states control the laws. I like that possession of pot is an infraction (like a speeding ticket) in New York and California and not a felony. I like that in New Jersey cops are not allowed to search my vehicle without a warrant, even if they coerce me into signing my rights away. I like that in Florida I don't have to buy any liability insurance to drive a car. I like that in New Hampshire I don't have to pay sales tax or income tax. Sure, in a perfect world we'd have one nation that incorporates all these features, but it seems to me that the bigger you make government, the more draconian the laws become.
You speak about fake IDs being used in bars, but you know what, that's just another law which was usurped by the federal government. It wasn't very long ago that states had the power to set their own drinking age. 29 states had drinking ages lower than 21. Now take a look at the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984. The US coerced the states into raising the drinking age to 21 by threatening their highway funding. Some states are more lax than others in enforcing the laws, because this enables them to keep their highway funds while still being somewhat lenient about the drinking age.
So how are we harmed by this? Mainly by giving more power to the federal government to enforce its more ridiculous laws.
The ability of that code to ever be a work in progress is also largely determined by the skill of the original programmer.
Are you saying some programmers might right the perfect code? Even if they did (and c'mon, no one writes perfect code), there would still be the possibility for enhancement as hardware changes come about. Maybe I'm grasping at straws on that one, but there's always at least some improvement you can do to any software.
What solved the problem of the greater good? In this case, it was not a top-down, wholesale change of laws but a simple, bottom-up, 100% voluntary introduction of new licenses into the fray.
I think you've got a good point there. Changing the laws might not be necessary (though it would probably speed things up).
There was a great book that I read a while back called "The Lever of Riches" which talked about various nations' approaches to patent law over the years and how the prosperity of nations has risen and fallen based on having the right or wrong balance.
I'll see if I can get a copy (wouldn't it be great if I could just download it off Kazaa). I'm fairly convinced that free software is the way to go, but I'm still rather on the fence when it comes to open content. It's kind of hard to produce a great novel without some sort of funding, and it's really hard to fund a novel sans copyright when you don't know what the outcome is going to be before it's finished.
What are your thoughts on why software copyrights are so overwhelmingly negative, in comparison to others? How is writing a business rules engine or game AI engine, for example, different from writing a textbook or a novella in the context of copyright?
The biggest reason is probably the fact that software is pretty much always a work in progress. It's meant to be extended and to be debugged. You can have a sequel to a novella, but that's about it. It's not anything like programming where you can nearly always build on an old work and make it better. Besides this storytelling generally works best with one or a very small number of writers. Software thrives on having lots of programmers. Textbooks and other non-fiction I believe falls closer to the software end of things. This is one of the reasons the world of open content is thriving almost exclusively on non-fiction works like Wikipedia.
Another difference is with regard to funding. The creation of a business rules engine could be funded by a consortium of businesses which would use the engine. Perhaps a game AI engine could be funded through an online service for the game, but that really depends on the type of game. As I said, games tend to be the low point of my argument. Many game creators would probably have to rely on DRM to stay in business (and unlike many Slashdotters, I've got no problem with DRM in theory, and while I don't like using crippleware I think it's much less harmful than relying on FBI agents and civil lawsuits). Of course, there aren't very many successful civil lawsuits over game piracy, and the FBI almost never gets involved in such things, so the game creators are already forced to rely on DRM and/or online services to a large extent. When it comes to funding the writing of a novella, your options are very limited. Steven King tried one method, and it really didn't work. Perhaps part of the problem is you can't really define the specifications of a work of fiction very well. With software it's rather easy to specify what you want and put it in a contract, and you can somewhat easily make checkpoints along the way to ensure that your money is being spent wisely. Again it seems textbooks, and other non-fiction works, fall more on the software end of things.
Is this a reasonable distinction to make from a legal point of view? It seems it certainly is. If my education on the matter was correct I believe there was much legal argument over whether or not software should fall under copyright law in the first place. The line between "expression", which is copyrightable, and "idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery", which is not copyrightable, is rather thin when it comes to software (although, incidently, not as much so with games where at least the characters and rules fall rather clearly into the expression camp). When a programmer makes tax software is she expressing herself, or is she just describing a process? I'd say the latter, but Congress clearly intends software to fall under the scope of copyright at this point so that's not going to change without new law.
Hmmm, let's see, you claim that authentication is the same as encryption
I did no such thing. I said "There is no method of authentication." You said "Look at the "envelope". It will tell you which machine you're talking to." I said "Real authentication would be more like the way HTTPS works." You said "No. HTTPS is about encryption." "HTTPS only provides an encrypted channel so some other means of authentication can be used." I said "Same thing."
Let me put it in really simple terms so maybe you can understand it. When I go to https://www.citi.com/, do I know if I'm talking to citibank? Yes. When I get an email from phisher@citi.com do I know if it's from citibank? No.
You don't know what authentication or encryption is and you don't understand how https works.
You are terribly mistaken.
Again, you claimed that SMTP doesn't have authentication.
I proved that it does.
There is an extension to SMTP which no one uses which could be used for authentication. But it is by no means part of the standard protocol.
Slashdot Mirror
So, because someone uses a tool to do something wrong, we should not use that tool?
I have said no such thing.
Also, your link has nothing to do with "restrain(ing) free speech. You drank the Kool-aid on that one. Restricting people from trespassing is not a restriciton of free speech, but rather an affirmation of property rights.
Trespassing? This had nothing to do with private property. He wasn't allowed within 150 feet of Rockefeller center. That includes much public property and a church.
In the article you link to, he admits trespassing when he says "I went to his home and office" presumably without permission.
You don't need permission to go to someone's home and office. He left when he was asked to leave.
That's illegal
Please cite the law which says that a journalist can't go to someone's house, knock on his door, and speak to his maidservant.
and has nothing to do with free speech, freedom of the press, or any other part of the 1st.
He's a journalist preparing a public interest piece, and because Rennert didn't want him to make his story public he lied to a judge and got him to hinder his production. That's most certainly a violation of the first amendment.
More importantly, it's a perfectly good reason to get a restraining order.
Apparently the mayor of New York City, a Republican who doesn't like Moore in any way, disagreed with you. If Moore was trespassing, maybe that's a reason to get a restraining order for him not to enter Rennert's private property (really all you need is a trespass notice). It wouldn't be a reason to keep Moore 150 feet away from Rennert's private property, and it doesn't matter because Moore wasn't breaking any laws in the first place.
People already stand to gain a great deal of money by tampering with odometers when selling cars. Dealers stand to gain the same way, to lower the mileage when selling used cars. Is this a signifigant problem today?
Not really. And with the odometers being checked every year or two it'd be even more difficult. As it is I believe they're only checked when the owner changes.
That said, I don't approve of an odometer-based tax system, and I disagree that there is a need to do any more tracking of highway usage than we do already.
For now I agree because the gas tax is close enough of an approximation. However, to those who don't think it is close enough, I'd much prefer checking of odometers to tracking of every movement using GPS.
Making highways into tollways is perfectly adequate.
California highway traffic is bad enough as it is. Add in toll booths and it'll probably get worse (although maybe not, as slowing down the traffic might relieve congestion and actually speed things up). In any case, it's likely that some sort of electronic toll collection system would be used, and that's almost as bad as GPS (at least you're only tracked when you're on the highway). Of course an anonymous electronic toll collection system could be implemented. But I doubt that's going to happen.
More important, is upon commission of a crime you are knowingly risking loss of several of your rights (privacy being a big one).
That might be a useful argument if it weren't for the fact that many if not most Americans commit several crimes every single day.
I don't care for the GPS to track how much you should pay in taxes (uhm you do that at the gas pump, you drive more, you buy more gas, your car pollutes more by burning more? you pay more).
And what about those people with hybrids or electric who use the roadways too? They might not pollute as much (of course how much you pollute consists of more factors than just how much gas you burn), but they still do use and cause wear and tear to taxpayer funded resources.
Not that I think the cons outweigh the pros, but there is a need for a better way to measure roadway usage, and that need is getting bigger and bigger every day. Would it be hard to make a system which was anonymous? No, but that system would be easier to thwart. Would many people tamper with their odometers to save a few hundred a year in highway taxes? Maybe. Unlike the efforts in purchasing off-roadway or black market fuel this would be a once a year thing with a pretty significant payoff.
They are talking about people who violate restraining orders here. The vast majority of those cases involve domsetic violence.
And from that fact we can rest assured that restraining orders can never be used to restrain free speech.
"The Y2K problem never existed, but the draconion measures we took were justified."
You know, it probably doesn't matter all that much even if the information is public, because only those with money or power (really the same thing) will be able to process the information.
What we should do is greatly restrict the powers of the federal government. In fact, the federal government should only take care of those things which it needs to, things like interstate commerce, a unified currency, wars with foreign nations, these types of things. We could create a document ensuring that the federal government is only allowed to do these things, and we could call it the Constitution. Then we wouldn't have to worry about the federal government getting involved in things like who drives a car, drinks beer, or walks down the street.... [that was sarcasm for the humor impaired]
The Secretary of Homeland Defense can override ANY law short of the Constitution when it comes to building barriers at borders.
Theoretically the secretary can suspend all your rights at the border, and you can be strip searched and held in secret if you leave the USA and fail to declare the gift you bought your children when you come back through customs.
Wouldn't that violate your Constitutional rights?
Of course, people aren't found guilty of "not being born in this country", they are found guilty of being in the country illegally.
Being in the country illegally implies they are not a US citizen which implies that they renounced their citizenship or were born outside the country. Anyway, I'd be interested in seeing the actual law.
I suspect immigration law is very different from criminal or civil law, specifically because it deals with people who are not citizens of this country.
But shouldn't you have to prove that they aare not citizens of the country in order to apply immigration law? Can the government really kick me, a US citizen, out of the country, unless I can prove to them that I was born here? Wouldn't that violate my Fifth Amendment rights?
If a suspected illegal immigrant cannot produce the documentation proving he/she is here legally, he/she will likely be deported. An affirmative defense is required in cases such as this.
That's terrible.
If you didn't have to show an ID or a passport to your employer, I'm suprised.
Thinking about it I was kind of surprised myself, but I wasn't.
Every time I've started a new job I needed to show one of those pieces of identification for the I-9 form.
I've never seen an I-9 form. Does it only apply to people who don't claim that they're US citizens, because that would explain why I've never seen one (I always claim to be a US citizen, since I am one).
It takes real effort to live without an ID and generaly requires you to break the law (illegal labor).
Well, in order to work for a legit company you've gotta get a social security number and matching name/address, and that requires breaking the law I'd assume. But it's not very hard, there are firms which will provide you with such information, and some of them even provide you with a social security card. This information might be fake (a household of 4 having 10 fake people in it) or real (a citizen could sell the SSN/information to the company, one citizen could easily have 3 or 4 low paying jobs before triggering any suspicion), I don't know exactly how that part works. And as I said, none of the employers I worked for in Florida ever checked my social security card.
The only people I can think of who live completely wihtout one are either under 18 or illegals.
I've heard stories of people from Mexico who took the long walk to the US and were living here without a problem. They just get a social security number from one of those places and try not to get pulled over. If they get caught, and get deported, they just have to walk over again. The government doesn't even really care as long as the people aren't claiming any benefits. They still get their taxes through withholding, and as of 2003 there is over $375 billion in social security taxes collected by these workers. These people are contributing taxes to the social security system but aren't claiming the benefits. And yet you get certain politicians who make it out like it's costing the American taxpayer. It's apparently extremely common in the agriculture industry.
So we should be the world's dumping ground for criminals and vagrants?
I never said that. Of course, I've got no problem with vagrants.
But the problem of Mexico exporting their criminals here is bad enough even with the laws in place.
I'm not even sure what the laws are. It seems hard to be able to prove someone wasn't born in this country, and I'm under the impression that we citizens are innocent until proven guilty. Does this only apply to people who can prove that they're citizens?
Just time and appearances.
I wouldn't say any significant line has been crossed, then.
OTOH, with linked databases the check could be done in less than a minute from a hand-carried or car-mounted radio-PDA-type thing. Equally effective, less apparent intrusion.
Add in facial recognition software (after all, everyone's face is in the database), and the check can be done without any intrusion. I guess that's a lot of power being given to the federal government, which could be used in a bad way. I guess the only thing I can say is that it's really inevitable. Once you've given the state governments all that information it's just a matter of time before they link it. The only real solution would be to eliminate state IDs altogether, and I'm not sure if that'd be a good idea or not (the corporations would still get the information, you'd quickly see all credit cards come with photo IDs). Or I suppose you could make it public information that everyone can access. Then at least the people would be on the same ground as the government.
Finally, the problem of fake IDs is a huge one for states and goes beyond simple liquor/cigarette purchases. Think about people with suspended or invalid licenses
The best solution to that is to simply not have an ID in the first place, and really that's where we're heading. For the purposes of driving, in states that use the new technologies, the ID itself is redundant. If you're pulled over, the officer could just as easily ask you for your name and address, then go back to his in-car computer and pull up a digital picture of you to confirm that you're telling the truth. Add in some decent facial recognition software and you could probably get to the point where the officer just has to say "You're Bill Jones, right?" Of course, whether we should require good drivers to register with the government is a question all to itself. Maybe one day facial recognition software will reach the point where we don't have to, and only people with suspended licenses need to be in the database. I doubt it's there at this stage.
check-cashing IDs for stolen checks
It seems to me that's an extremely rare problem, or maybe I'm missing what you're saying. You mean someone steals a check, then creates an ID with that person's information and their photo, and cashes it, before the check is reported stolen? That's pretty hard to do, and it's really up to the banks to protect against it, not the government. I've cashed a few checks in my life and the banks have always been incredibly paranoid about it anyway. Many require fingerprints in addition to ID. One actually called my grandfather on the phone at 8 in the morning to confirm that the check was valid. In any case, it's a matter of a private contractual relationship between the client and the bank. In my opinion it's not the responsibility of the government to provide this type of security. You don't see the government building bank vaults, do you?
proof of residence for voting and other purposes
You don't need ID to register or to vote, and it's highly unlikely you ever will. Presumably the check of residence happens when you register, and if you don't show ID your vote is held aside to make sure no one with ID voted under your name. I'm not sure exactly how they go about checking your residency when you register. Probably not very well, but it's not too difficult in theory to at least check that you receive mail at the address you say. Do you need to have your voter card in order to vote? I don't remember. In theory it's still possible to register multiple times under different names and/or addresses, but if you get caught you face up to 5 years in prison and is it really worth it for a few extra votes?
everyone I know can't live without an ID.
I moved to Florida over a year ago and I haven't had to use my ID yet. I have one, in case I get pulled over, and I gave the number to my car insurance company (which I got in case I get pulled over), but even they haven't actually looked at the ID. I don't sign my credit cards, so I've occassionally been asked to show my ID when using them, but I could always just use the debit option or pay cash. None of the employers I've worked for asked me to show ID. I just filled out a W-4 with my name, address, and SSN.
I could easily live without an ID. The only real problem would be cashing out of state checks. Fortunately the only ones I ever get are from family in states which I visit somewhat frequently. The only reason I even got a Florida drivers license is because I like to speed and I didn't want to go to jail for driving without auto insurance (I probably wouldn't even go to jail for that but it's a risk I'm not willing to take).
The bad part is the connection that will be made when a commercial entity needs your drivers license for one reason another, scans it, and it enters a commercial database where it will be crossed linked to other databases.
C'mon now, you don't think this is already done? Linking drivers licenses certainly doesn't make it very much easier. To get two spots in the database you'd have to move between states, get a new drivers license, then sign up for new cards, never use the same credit card or checking account, etc. Of course, they don't check ID for most shopper cards I've gotten, although I suppose I've never had a scannable ID.
I bet libraries will require it eventually.
Every library card I've ever gotten has required me to show ID or otherwise prove my residency.
What state do you live in? In many states there are self-insurance options for safe drivers with such driving histories. In others you can drop certain coverages. I only pay $300/year for insurance in Florida.
The line is clearly crossed when you ID card is required for more arbitrary purposes - like standing in a place where someone doesn't like your face. Unlinked driver's licenses aren't terribly useful for that, linked ones are.
You lost me there. Why does it matter whether or not the drivers licenses are linked? It's quite simple for a cop to detain a person while radioing to headquarters to contact the state in question and get the information in the database. In fact, this happens quite often when an out of state driver is involved in a traffic stop.
I somehow doubt that this federal ID program (which some say is "tantamount" to a National ID -- you don't say!) would have prevented them from getting valid driver's licenses.
No, but there have been other changes made to how you get a valid drivers license which might have.
Eh, if you don't like it, don't buy from them.
Maybe they think there shouldn't be any laws excluding certain people from simply being here.
What would be great is if it gave each person (who has a drivers license) a private/public keypair so they could electronically sign documents.
We could implement a P2P EBay. And EBay would go out of business. And the stock market would tumble. Ah, now I see why they didn't do that.
It's not really a big deal, but at the same time there is a founding principle that is being violated, that of dual sovereignty. Yes, most countries have a national ID to begin with, but the United States isn't most countries. We are a collection of sovereign states who are supposed to make up their own rules about things like driving. An equivalent would be the EU creating a mandatory connected database for the drivers licenses of all the member countries. Who knows, maybe they have already done so. I expect they one day will if not, as the EU is quickly becoming a lot like the United States. That's Orwellian enough right there.
I like having states control the laws. I like that possession of pot is an infraction (like a speeding ticket) in New York and California and not a felony. I like that in New Jersey cops are not allowed to search my vehicle without a warrant, even if they coerce me into signing my rights away. I like that in Florida I don't have to buy any liability insurance to drive a car. I like that in New Hampshire I don't have to pay sales tax or income tax. Sure, in a perfect world we'd have one nation that incorporates all these features, but it seems to me that the bigger you make government, the more draconian the laws become.
You speak about fake IDs being used in bars, but you know what, that's just another law which was usurped by the federal government. It wasn't very long ago that states had the power to set their own drinking age. 29 states had drinking ages lower than 21. Now take a look at the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984. The US coerced the states into raising the drinking age to 21 by threatening their highway funding. Some states are more lax than others in enforcing the laws, because this enables them to keep their highway funds while still being somewhat lenient about the drinking age.
So how are we harmed by this? Mainly by giving more power to the federal government to enforce its more ridiculous laws.
The ability of that code to ever be a work in progress is also largely determined by the skill of the original programmer.
Are you saying some programmers might right the perfect code? Even if they did (and c'mon, no one writes perfect code), there would still be the possibility for enhancement as hardware changes come about. Maybe I'm grasping at straws on that one, but there's always at least some improvement you can do to any software.
What solved the problem of the greater good? In this case, it was not a top-down, wholesale change of laws but a simple, bottom-up, 100% voluntary introduction of new licenses into the fray.
I think you've got a good point there. Changing the laws might not be necessary (though it would probably speed things up).
There was a great book that I read a while back called "The Lever of Riches" which talked about various nations' approaches to patent law over the years and how the prosperity of nations has risen and fallen based on having the right or wrong balance.
I'll see if I can get a copy (wouldn't it be great if I could just download it off Kazaa). I'm fairly convinced that free software is the way to go, but I'm still rather on the fence when it comes to open content. It's kind of hard to produce a great novel without some sort of funding, and it's really hard to fund a novel sans copyright when you don't know what the outcome is going to be before it's finished.
What are your thoughts on why software copyrights are so overwhelmingly negative, in comparison to others? How is writing a business rules engine or game AI engine, for example, different from writing a textbook or a novella in the context of copyright?
The biggest reason is probably the fact that software is pretty much always a work in progress. It's meant to be extended and to be debugged. You can have a sequel to a novella, but that's about it. It's not anything like programming where you can nearly always build on an old work and make it better. Besides this storytelling generally works best with one or a very small number of writers. Software thrives on having lots of programmers. Textbooks and other non-fiction I believe falls closer to the software end of things. This is one of the reasons the world of open content is thriving almost exclusively on non-fiction works like Wikipedia.
Another difference is with regard to funding. The creation of a business rules engine could be funded by a consortium of businesses which would use the engine. Perhaps a game AI engine could be funded through an online service for the game, but that really depends on the type of game. As I said, games tend to be the low point of my argument. Many game creators would probably have to rely on DRM to stay in business (and unlike many Slashdotters, I've got no problem with DRM in theory, and while I don't like using crippleware I think it's much less harmful than relying on FBI agents and civil lawsuits). Of course, there aren't very many successful civil lawsuits over game piracy, and the FBI almost never gets involved in such things, so the game creators are already forced to rely on DRM and/or online services to a large extent. When it comes to funding the writing of a novella, your options are very limited. Steven King tried one method, and it really didn't work. Perhaps part of the problem is you can't really define the specifications of a work of fiction very well. With software it's rather easy to specify what you want and put it in a contract, and you can somewhat easily make checkpoints along the way to ensure that your money is being spent wisely. Again it seems textbooks, and other non-fiction works, fall more on the software end of things.
Is this a reasonable distinction to make from a legal point of view? It seems it certainly is. If my education on the matter was correct I believe there was much legal argument over whether or not software should fall under copyright law in the first place. The line between "expression", which is copyrightable, and "idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery", which is not copyrightable, is rather thin when it comes to software (although, incidently, not as much so with games where at least the characters and rules fall rather clearly into the expression camp). When a programmer makes tax software is she expressing herself, or is she just describing a process? I'd say the latter, but Congress clearly intends software to fall under the scope of copyright at this point so that's not going to change without new law.
Hmmm, let's see, you claim that authentication is the same as encryption
I did no such thing. I said "There is no method of authentication." You said "Look at the "envelope". It will tell you which machine you're talking to." I said "Real authentication would be more like the way HTTPS works." You said "No. HTTPS is about encryption." "HTTPS only provides an encrypted channel so some other means of authentication can be used." I said "Same thing."
Let me put it in really simple terms so maybe you can understand it. When I go to https://www.citi.com/, do I know if I'm talking to citibank? Yes. When I get an email from phisher@citi.com do I know if it's from citibank? No.
You don't know what authentication or encryption is and you don't understand how https works.
You are terribly mistaken.
Again, you claimed that SMTP doesn't have authentication.
I proved that it does.
There is an extension to SMTP which no one uses which could be used for authentication. But it is by no means part of the standard protocol.
I'll be going now.
Thank God. Go troll someone else.