My bank doesn't go as far as you're talking about, but at least they signature every machine allowed to connect to my account. I'm not sure what it is that they do, exactly. I know there's a bunch of cookies involved (I think. Just for grins, I tried copying them to my laptop to see if it would let me in but it wouldn't.
Yeah, there's any number of better approaches to financial security than are being used now, none of which are free, and none of which banks really see a reason to spend money on. It's pretty obvious at this point that any collateral damage caused by poor security is acceptable to them. Maybe a bit rough on the rest of us though.
Well, ATM security is based around the idea of limiting or preventing losses due to external access, having no benefit whatsoever if the system itself is compromised. Also, given how easy it is for anyone (even an ex-con who was put away for wire fraud and helped with an MSNBC expose on the subject) to buy an ATM machine directly from the manufacturer and get it tied into the banking network... well. There was a big theft ring with several hundred compromised ATMs that was busted up in New York a few years ago, millions of dollars in losses. I thought then that it was only the tip of the iceberg, and it appears I was right.
The things aren't exactly trustworthy to begin with, and given the security track record of companies like Diebold, I find ATMs a risky way to get money. I will sometimes use the one inside my bank, but it's not that hard to go the cashier or the drive-up and get cash. Forget about using the "Money Machine" at the local gas station.
I've found it's simply safer to spend it just after it hits my bank account.
Yeah, most Americans do that. It goes awful fast nowadays. Like the old Depression-era joke:
Two men are sitting next to a hot dog stand having lunch. One looks down at his meal and says, "You know, one end of this thing tastes like hot dog, and the other tastes like bread."
The other guy responds with "Yeah... these days it's hard to make both ends meat."
Since Lawrence Lessig tend to write sensible arguments whenever he writes something, I would hardly call this and outbreak of common sense.
Then again, the Wall Street Journal publishing a story like this could point to a sudden outbreak of common sense in the editor. Or maybe they just want to sell more copies, who knows.
Well, if they feel that giving the likes of Lawrence Lessig more press will sell more copies, that would indicate that the public is becoming more and more aware of these issues. That's a good thing, any way you slice it.
Once something is in the public domain it cannot be taken back.
That isn't entirely true... Congress, in effect, retroactively removed many works from the public domain when it extended copyright. We had a deal with those bastards: all copyrighted works are a loan from the public domain (T. Jefferson), and in exchange for a limited monopoly that domain, our domain, was to be enriched. The entertainment companies (who, themselves, have often acquired their copyrights through dubious means) love to complain about how we're "stealing" their oh-so-precious material, but the reality is that much, much more was outright stolen from us by Congress at the behest of those self-same corporate leeches.
You know, if these companies thought on a smaller scale, they could just work out a deal with individuals where if a copyrighted work is unintentionally embedded into that individual's content, that individual could pay a reasonably small fee to continue using it without harassment, so long as it remains used only that particular context.
Sure, if we had some kind of micropayment system that could service such things (we don't), and if people should be harassed in such a manner (they shouldn't) and if the big rightsholders making all these threats would do anything but keep that money for themselves and continue ripping off the artists (and they will)... why, then that's a great idea. Keep in mind, that when it comes to music and entertainment in general, the people who own the copyrights are generally not the people who did the creating. Those are generally transferred to the publishers in exchange for access to their production facilities and distribution channels. That is the fundamental flaw in the media companies arguments: they aren't protecting anyone's rights, anyone's profits, but their own. Creative minds are cattle to these people, no more than that.
In the meantime, I think we're better off sticking with fair use, and making sure the big boys respect our rights as much as they want us to respect theirs.
But farmers are sensible enough to know that it would be totally impractical to try to charge for the oxygen their plants release into the atmosphere.
That, actually, is not the question. It wasn't practical (until very recently, historically speaking) for copyright holders to exert remote control over the distribution and use of their products either. Now it is, and they're trying to do just that (by both technological and legal measures.) The real question is whether farms would do it if they could. And the answer is, yes, they probably would.
Also, in order to control terrorism even more,the world could follow EU steps and unify its economies, creating three large economic groups: eurasia, estasia and oceania.
Huh. Oceania... aren't we at war with them or something?
Americans are allowed more weapons by their government simply because they are more gullible.
Not at all. We have weapons because they haven't found a legal justification for taking them all away (and believe me, they've tried.) The Supreme Court just ruled that firearm ownership is, indeed, a personal right. The Constitution isn't quite dead yet, apparently.
I'm not sure where you're getting this "ignorance" bit from. We all see what's happening around us, we all have a pretty good idea who is responsible. None of us really has any good ideas for getting us out of this mess. Neither do our leaders it seems, so I guess the ignorance goes right to the top.
So far as our doing anything with all those guns, well, the government and our corporate leaders haven't managed to do enough economic damage to us (yet). Put it this way: a people who have something to lose are the ones least likely to try anything melodramatic with armed revolutions. Take away everything they've worked for all their lives, leave them with nothing, not even hope... now you have a recipe for rebellion. The middle class is rapidly disappearing, the ranks of the poor are swelling, and industry and manufacturing are leaving the country as fast as we can be properly sold out.
Things aren't bad enough yet. They will be, though. And when they are, history will record those who hung on to their guns as being the lucky ones.
We aren't. We are worried about unjustified and unjustifiable governmental intrusion into our private and public lives. Governments aren't worried about terrorism either, but they want us to think they are.
You seem to think that the reason is to protect You. It is them that they are worried about.
Not even that. They aren't worried about being taken out by a terrorist: they simply have a form of mental illness. One sci-fi story I read referred to this condition as possemania, colloquially translated as power madness. Of course, in this story anyone desiring political power had to be tested for any signs of this disease, and treated if necessary.
We require psychological evaluations of bus drivers, heavy equipment operators, scientists, airline and military pilots... all manner of people in critical positions. People who, by the nature of their work, can hurt many other people if they have mental problems. We deny people employment in many areas if they are incapable of handling the responsibility (you wouldn't want a paranoid schizophrenic in charge of a bioweapons lab, now would you?)
It thoroughly pisses me off that, to be a politician, to be a leader, a job which can result in the deaths of millions, requires only that you can convince enough people to cast their vote in your direction. The sad thing is, the people most likely to have that ability are the true sociopaths... such individuals are very good at telling people exactly what they want to hear. The kind of people you really don't want holding high office.
Hell, I think we should give every politician a yearly polygraph test, with the results made public. "Have you committed any illegal acts this past year, Mr. President? Not you, Mr. Cheney, wait your turn." Sure, polygraph tests aren't admissible as evidence in a court of law... but in the court of public opinion they could be very useful. I know they're not particularly reliable, but then again neither are our politicians. At least then, we'd have some feedback.
I think the GP was pointing out that unfettered access to citizen's personal information has effects that go far beyond government surveillance or terrorism. Take identity theft, for example... a very real possibility given the poor handling of information security demonstrated by, well, pretty much every government and financial institution in the world.
By implementing this system in such a fundamentally flawed manner, the U.K is guaranteeing that thousands of individuals and families will suffer financial ruin and possibly criminal charges. All that.. for what?
The total number of deaths in road accidents fell slightly by 1 per cent to 3,201 in 2005 from 3,221 in 2004.
The total number of road casualties of all severities... approximately 271,000 in Great Britain
Yes, you are right... guilty of skim reading it, sorry. I don't know what the difference between a death and a casualty is supposed to be.
I always thought they were pretty much synonymous. At least, our military (I'm an American) always refers to deaths as casualties. I know this, because I hear it in the news every day with regards to Iraq.
Power is power, and if a law isn't very specific it will be used for other purposes. Kind of like why dogs lick their balls... because they can.
Hell, in my State they passed a seatbelt law some years ago. It was claimed that not wearing one's seatbelt was only a secondary offense, which would only be ticketed if one was pulled over for some other reason. However, it was noted by many at the time that the law permitted a seatbelt violation to be a primary offense. All of us who were following this at the time knew it was only a matter of time. The Governor was questioned about it, and replied that, oh, they would never use that power. When asked, well, they why is it there... he just shrugged.
Yeah, right. Given that traffic tickets are a major source of revenue in this State, it didn't take long for things to change, once they got us accustomed to being ticketed for not wearing a belt in the first place. Incrementalism at work folks, and if you believe our legislators weren't planning this from the start you've got blinders on.
The scary thing about the U.K. right now (and the U.S., for that matter) is that these governments no longer seem concerned about incrementalism, about having to justify anything to their respective peoples. They just pass ever more invasive laws, seemingly on a whim and with no concern for what any mere citizen needs or wants.
British citizens can be extradited to the United States with no evidence presented (Extradition Act 2003)
I hate to say it (given that I live in the post-Patriot-Act United States) but you might be better of being extradited here, even now. Of course, it's unlikely that will be the case indefinitely, given how things are going over here.
While this is partially true, there is one significant difference. You don't have to pay MORE to call a cell phone than you would to call a land line. In Europe, you don't pay for incoming calls to your mobile phone, but it costs SIGNIFICANTLY more to call a mobile phone than another land line.
I always have to explain the different systems to those who don't travel between the USA and europe much.
No, it's completely true, and since this discussion was about Verizon's behavior here in the U.S. I didn't feel the need to make any distinctions. I don't know of any U.S. cell phone companies that don't operate this way. They were originally allowed to charge outrageous per-minute rates and implement ridiculous policies like charging for "airtime". This was done because they claimed they needed the extra money to build out their networks, and that once the equipment was in place the rates would drop.
Well, if there's one thing I've learned about the bulk of U.S. telecommunications providers is that they lie for fun and profit. They will say and do anything if it makes a buck. Sleazy operations at best. It's past time the Feds investigated these bloodsuckers for overcharging customers for the past couple decades. It's really egregious: I mean, they have a fraction of the physical plant to maintain than a regular landline company, yet they get away with charging substantially more money. Something is wrong with this picture.
As an example of how these people operate, do you know how to tell when Edward J "These are my pipes!" Whitacre is lying?
A typical result would be something on the order of: "Left school. Side door. Went to car. Got in. Went home." How in the nine hells did they ever earn a high school diploma?
I dunno, that example has something of an Emily Dickinson flavor to it. She may be teaching the next Robert Grenier or Aram Saroyan.
I wouldn't count on it.
I'm not saying these kids were stupid, but they certainly didn't qualify as educated.
There are places in the world where people walk for miles so they can carry back heavy vessels of water
I have it on good authority (Ensign Chekov, in fact) that this device is actually a Russian inwention, to make carrying heavy wessels easier for the typical peasant.
Slashdot Mirror
My bank doesn't go as far as you're talking about, but at least they signature every machine allowed to connect to my account. I'm not sure what it is that they do, exactly. I know there's a bunch of cookies involved (I think. Just for grins, I tried copying them to my laptop to see if it would let me in but it wouldn't.
Yeah, there's any number of better approaches to financial security than are being used now, none of which are free, and none of which banks really see a reason to spend money on. It's pretty obvious at this point that any collateral damage caused by poor security is acceptable to them. Maybe a bit rough on the rest of us though.
Well, ATM security is based around the idea of limiting or preventing losses due to external access, having no benefit whatsoever if the system itself is compromised. Also, given how easy it is for anyone (even an ex-con who was put away for wire fraud and helped with an MSNBC expose on the subject) to buy an ATM machine directly from the manufacturer and get it tied into the banking network ... well. There was a big theft ring with several hundred compromised ATMs that was busted up in New York a few years ago, millions of dollars in losses. I thought then that it was only the tip of the iceberg, and it appears I was right.
The things aren't exactly trustworthy to begin with, and given the security track record of companies like Diebold, I find ATMs a risky way to get money. I will sometimes use the one inside my bank, but it's not that hard to go the cashier or the drive-up and get cash. Forget about using the "Money Machine" at the local gas station.
Ppppphhhhhhttttt.
I've found it's simply safer to spend it just after it hits my bank account.
Yeah, most Americans do that. It goes awful fast nowadays. Like the old Depression-era joke:
... these days it's hard to make both ends meat."
Two men are sitting next to a hot dog stand having lunch. One looks down at his meal and says, "You know, one end of this thing tastes like hot dog, and the other tastes like bread."
The other guy responds with "Yeah
Since Lawrence Lessig tend to write sensible arguments whenever he writes something, I would hardly call this and outbreak of common sense. Then again, the Wall Street Journal publishing a story like this could point to a sudden outbreak of common sense in the editor. Or maybe they just want to sell more copies, who knows.
Well, if they feel that giving the likes of Lawrence Lessig more press will sell more copies, that would indicate that the public is becoming more and more aware of these issues. That's a good thing, any way you slice it.
Once something is in the public domain it cannot be taken back.
... Congress, in effect, retroactively removed many works from the public domain when it extended copyright. We had a deal with those bastards: all copyrighted works are a loan from the public domain (T. Jefferson), and in exchange for a limited monopoly that domain, our domain, was to be enriched. The entertainment companies (who, themselves, have often acquired their copyrights through dubious means) love to complain about how we're "stealing" their oh-so-precious material, but the reality is that much, much more was outright stolen from us by Congress at the behest of those self-same corporate leeches.
That isn't entirely true
You know, if these companies thought on a smaller scale, they could just work out a deal with individuals where if a copyrighted work is unintentionally embedded into that individual's content, that individual could pay a reasonably small fee to continue using it without harassment, so long as it remains used only that particular context.
Sure, if we had some kind of micropayment system that could service such things (we don't), and if people should be harassed in such a manner (they shouldn't) and if the big rightsholders making all these threats would do anything but keep that money for themselves and continue ripping off the artists (and they will) ... why, then that's a great idea. Keep in mind, that when it comes to music and entertainment in general, the people who own the copyrights are generally not the people who did the creating. Those are generally transferred to the publishers in exchange for access to their production facilities and distribution channels. That is the fundamental flaw in the media companies arguments: they aren't protecting anyone's rights, anyone's profits, but their own. Creative minds are cattle to these people, no more than that.
In the meantime, I think we're better off sticking with fair use, and making sure the big boys respect our rights as much as they want us to respect theirs.
As a Constitutional matter I would be a lot more worried about the government deciding what constitutes "useful" when it comes to science and art.
As a practical matter, the United States' various governments have been deciding that for a long, long time.
But farmers are sensible enough to know that it would be totally impractical to try to charge for the oxygen their plants release into the atmosphere.
That, actually, is not the question. It wasn't practical (until very recently, historically speaking) for copyright holders to exert remote control over the distribution and use of their products either. Now it is, and they're trying to do just that (by both technological and legal measures.) The real question is whether farms would do it if they could. And the answer is, yes, they probably would.
Also, in order to control terrorism even more,the world could follow EU steps and unify its economies, creating three large economic groups: eurasia, estasia and oceania.
Huh. Oceania ... aren't we at war with them or something?
Americans are allowed more weapons by their government simply because they are more gullible.
Not at all. We have weapons because they haven't found a legal justification for taking them all away (and believe me, they've tried.) The Supreme Court just ruled that firearm ownership is, indeed, a personal right. The Constitution isn't quite dead yet, apparently.
... now you have a recipe for rebellion. The middle class is rapidly disappearing, the ranks of the poor are swelling, and industry and manufacturing are leaving the country as fast as we can be properly sold out.
I'm not sure where you're getting this "ignorance" bit from. We all see what's happening around us, we all have a pretty good idea who is responsible. None of us really has any good ideas for getting us out of this mess. Neither do our leaders it seems, so I guess the ignorance goes right to the top.
So far as our doing anything with all those guns, well, the government and our corporate leaders haven't managed to do enough economic damage to us (yet). Put it this way: a people who have something to lose are the ones least likely to try anything melodramatic with armed revolutions. Take away everything they've worked for all their lives, leave them with nothing, not even hope
Things aren't bad enough yet. They will be, though. And when they are, history will record those who hung on to their guns as being the lucky ones.
Why are we worrying about terrorism?
We aren't. We are worried about unjustified and unjustifiable governmental intrusion into our private and public lives. Governments aren't worried about terrorism either, but they want us to think they are.
"I could keep track of my wife and kids, check up on my gf" Maybe your wife should be the one keeping track of you ;)
Nah ... she's too busy checking up on her boyfriend.
You really must learn to ... resist ... inappropriate ... anti-American ... comments. I know it's difficult, but this is a thread about cell phones.
How Should I Teach a Basic Programming Course?
Very simply.
Yes, well, all this happened twenty-five years ago. She was afraid that if she went public it would ruin her career. And she was probably right.
You seem to think that the reason is to protect You. It is them that they are worried about.
Not even that. They aren't worried about being taken out by a terrorist: they simply have a form of mental illness. One sci-fi story I read referred to this condition as possemania, colloquially translated as power madness. Of course, in this story anyone desiring political power had to be tested for any signs of this disease, and treated if necessary.
... all manner of people in critical positions. People who, by the nature of their work, can hurt many other people if they have mental problems. We deny people employment in many areas if they are incapable of handling the responsibility (you wouldn't want a paranoid schizophrenic in charge of a bioweapons lab, now would you?)
... such individuals are very good at telling people exactly what they want to hear. The kind of people you really don't want holding high office.
... but in the court of public opinion they could be very useful. I know they're not particularly reliable, but then again neither are our politicians. At least then, we'd have some feedback.
We require psychological evaluations of bus drivers, heavy equipment operators, scientists, airline and military pilots
It thoroughly pisses me off that, to be a politician, to be a leader, a job which can result in the deaths of millions, requires only that you can convince enough people to cast their vote in your direction. The sad thing is, the people most likely to have that ability are the true sociopaths
Hell, I think we should give every politician a yearly polygraph test, with the results made public. "Have you committed any illegal acts this past year, Mr. President? Not you, Mr. Cheney, wait your turn." Sure, polygraph tests aren't admissible as evidence in a court of law
I think the GP was pointing out that unfettered access to citizen's personal information has effects that go far beyond government surveillance or terrorism. Take identity theft, for example ... a very real possibility given the poor handling of information security demonstrated by, well, pretty much every government and financial institution in the world.
.. for what?
By implementing this system in such a fundamentally flawed manner, the U.K is guaranteeing that thousands of individuals and families will suffer financial ruin and possibly criminal charges. All that
Why do governments build such systems? Because they can.
We're not so different from our animal friends, I mean, dogs lick their balls for the exact same reason.
Yes, you are right ... guilty of skim reading it, sorry. I don't know what the difference between a death and a casualty is supposed to be.
I always thought they were pretty much synonymous. At least, our military (I'm an American) always refers to deaths as casualties. I know this, because I hear it in the news every day with regards to Iraq.
Power is power, and if a law isn't very specific it will be used for other purposes. Kind of like why dogs lick their balls ... because they can.
... he just shrugged.
Hell, in my State they passed a seatbelt law some years ago. It was claimed that not wearing one's seatbelt was only a secondary offense, which would only be ticketed if one was pulled over for some other reason. However, it was noted by many at the time that the law permitted a seatbelt violation to be a primary offense. All of us who were following this at the time knew it was only a matter of time. The Governor was questioned about it, and replied that, oh, they would never use that power. When asked, well, they why is it there
Yeah, right. Given that traffic tickets are a major source of revenue in this State, it didn't take long for things to change, once they got us accustomed to being ticketed for not wearing a belt in the first place. Incrementalism at work folks, and if you believe our legislators weren't planning this from the start you've got blinders on.
The scary thing about the U.K. right now (and the U.S., for that matter) is that these governments no longer seem concerned about incrementalism, about having to justify anything to their respective peoples. They just pass ever more invasive laws, seemingly on a whim and with no concern for what any mere citizen needs or wants.
British citizens can be extradited to the United States with no evidence presented (Extradition Act 2003)
I hate to say it (given that I live in the post-Patriot-Act United States) but you might be better of being extradited here, even now. Of course, it's unlikely that will be the case indefinitely, given how things are going over here.
While this is partially true, there is one significant difference. You don't have to pay MORE to call a cell phone than you would to call a land line. In Europe, you don't pay for incoming calls to your mobile phone, but it costs SIGNIFICANTLY more to call a mobile phone than another land line. I always have to explain the different systems to those who don't travel between the USA and europe much.
No, it's completely true, and since this discussion was about Verizon's behavior here in the U.S. I didn't feel the need to make any distinctions. I don't know of any U.S. cell phone companies that don't operate this way. They were originally allowed to charge outrageous per-minute rates and implement ridiculous policies like charging for "airtime". This was done because they claimed they needed the extra money to build out their networks, and that once the equipment was in place the rates would drop.
Well, if there's one thing I've learned about the bulk of U.S. telecommunications providers is that they lie for fun and profit. They will say and do anything if it makes a buck. Sleazy operations at best. It's past time the Feds investigated these bloodsuckers for overcharging customers for the past couple decades. It's really egregious: I mean, they have a fraction of the physical plant to maintain than a regular landline company, yet they get away with charging substantially more money. Something is wrong with this picture.
As an example of how these people operate, do you know how to tell when Edward J "These are my pipes!" Whitacre is lying?
His lips move.
I dunno, that example has something of an Emily Dickinson flavor to it. She may be teaching the next Robert Grenier or Aram Saroyan.
I wouldn't count on it.
I'm not saying these kids were stupid, but they certainly didn't qualify as educated.
but if Sprint handles this the way they handle their cell phone business, they'll "monetize" it into near-uselessness.
There are places in the world where people walk for miles so they can carry back heavy vessels of water
I have it on good authority (Ensign Chekov, in fact) that this device is actually a Russian inwention, to make carrying heavy wessels easier for the typical peasant.