If you were being censored, would you rather hear:
Here are the results you asked for.
Or:
Here are the results you asked for, but not all of them, as your government asked us to hide some from you.
?
If you don't know that you are being censored, it's hard to complain about it, isn't it? On the other hand, if you do know that you are being censored, you can begin to work out what it is that you shouldn't know about. By knowing what it is that you shouldn't know (eg something about student protests, and tanks), you have a better chance at finding out what exactly happened.
the date of every application by him/her confirming the contents of his entry (with or without changes)
Is this on the card or the register? Even if it is on the register, you could really increase their storage costs by checking every day that no one has messed with your details...
I mean, think of what would happen if someone were to change something without you knowing? Where would you be then? The only way is to constantly check that the government is doing a good job of keeping your details correct.
Of course, this does have the problem that the staff may get annoyed, and you find that you are labeled a troublemaker...
I recall at least one story (the name escapes me. If anyone knows it, please let me know) where the robots decided that they were Human, and the meatsacks that built them were not. Who do you think got protected by the first law, and who was obeyed by the second?
First point: I am Australian, so this doesn't affect me (yet!).
1. It is compulsory.
2. You need to pay for it.
Those two statements taken together cause a problem for me. If the government wants me to have the ID, they can pay for it. Most of the other forms of ID I have or want, I pay for in various ways: Driver's License - Pay about $60 a year (not sure of exact cost any more), Bank card (of any description) - Bank fees to support it, etc.
However, the most interesting way of looking at a problem like this is not "what's so bad about this?" but "what could I do if I got hold of someone else's card, and had no moral qualms about using it?".
The most interesting one that was come up with was closing someone's bank account. That is, draining the account of money, closing it so no more could be put in, cancelling linked credit cards, preventing any direct debits from occuring, and preventing pay being deposited. How would you cope with the complete loss of money now, money later, and lack of credit cards until you could prove who you are? How do you prove who you are, other than to show the card (which by this time, you already know to be stolen or no longer valid as it was cloned)?
More importantly, it becomes the single point of failure. One document loss currently, and you are in for a bit of inconvenience. One ID card loss, and you are so inconvenienced that it's just not funny.
The other major concern for this card (this bit actually answers your question), is that currently, the government departments can't share information about you between them. The database behind the card not only allows, but actually forces, them to. Suddenly anything any department of the government has about you is available to any public servant with the desire (or boredom) to look it up, for any reason, or no reason at all.
If there was strict access control to the database, with detailed audit logs, and as a citizen, you had the right to see who accessed it; there might be fewer concerns, but not many. People want the illusion of privacy, even if they don't have privacy in fact.
I think that answers most of your questions, so I just have to add:
You must be new here:-)
Thank you for the technical reasons for using "contactless chips".
I guess then, that the only problem (or at least, a large one) is in using an easy-to-guess encryption key.
Perhaps a barcode (about 112 bits?) that does not have anything else to do with the passport (other than being printed in it) as the encryption key? The passport will need to be in "about the right place" rather than exactly, and the machine can grab the barcode, and decrypt the signal still in about 2-3 seconds (I'm guessing, based on the numbers you gave) rather than the 10-15 for contact chips.
Also, to keep this ontopic for the subject line:
It only needs to be sufficiently difficult to get the information. For example - 2 hours at less than 10 metres: Movie, Theatre, etc
The need to guess 112 bits worth of encryption key, or actually read the key - much more time (or much more obvious).
Ah. I was unaware of this. Being from outside the US (in Australia), I assumed that 'civil disobedience' was exactly what I described: breaking a stupid law, on the grounds that if enough people did it, then it would be considered unenforcable, and dropped as a law.
If anyone knows the truth (and is still reading the discussion), please comment here.
Perhaps, but in that case, they* boiled the frog too fast. These days, the public is essentially calling "Will you hurry up and raise the temperature, it's not safe enough for us?"
I'm always reminded of this conversation from a clueless manager (can't remember where it's from, if not from Scott Adams, it should be sent to him):
Manager: Can I get a copy of the *something* reports, please?
Engineer: Yep. Will tomorrow be OK?
Manager (condescending voice): If I wanted them tomorrow, I would have waited until tomorrow to ask for them.
Engineer (head explodes from the stupidity):...
You know, it occurs to me that the hardware does not know what software is being run - it only knows what instructions it needs to execute. It then begs the question as to how the chip knows that these instructions should not be run.
Any hints? (No, I didn't RTFA, if it's in there, just tell me that)
Can you then sue the ISP for breach of privacy? Since RIAA is not a government agency, the ISP is not required to give out information to them, just because a letter is sent. Or is this one of those stupid "We didn't think about the consequences of the" DMCA properties?
Not a troll, genuinely interested, and not from the United States of America, so I am unaware of exactly where the legalities lie.
Re:Question for all the coders out there..
on
How to Write Comments
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Believe it or not, one place it comes from is presentation slides (PowerPoint, or just plain overhead transparencies).
It lets you get the whole example on the page in a font that is readable from the back of the lecture hall.
Personally, I prefer it like this. The opening brace on the line with the conditional (for, while, if, etc), the conditional block indented, and the close-brace at the same indent as the start of the conditional. I tried a few other ways*, but didn't like them: they weren't readable enough for me.
* Other ways tried:
Open and close brace on separate lines to condition, at the same indent, code indented further (which you have above)
Braces and code indented further than the conditional, but lined up with each other
Braces indented from conditional (lined up with each other), code indented from braces [this was the worst]
It's largely a matter of personal choice, or project code rules, really.
Slashdot Mirror
"Forty four dead stone lions."
If that's not hard enough, try it in Chinese.
I have only one thing to say about language reform: /1984
Language reform is double plus (un)good.
"No, Eureka! is Greek for 'My bath is too hot!'" -- The Doctor
If you were being censored, would you rather hear:
Here are the results you asked for.
Or:
Here are the results you asked for, but not all of them, as your government asked us to hide some from you.
?
If you don't know that you are being censored, it's hard to complain about it, isn't it? On the other hand, if you do know that you are being censored, you can begin to work out what it is that you shouldn't know about. By knowing what it is that you shouldn't know (eg something about student protests, and tanks), you have a better chance at finding out what exactly happened.
Which is also a stupid design...
A bunch of guys in HAZMAT suits around Congress.
"Yeah, it's full of toxic crap. They're called 'Politicians'."
Now that would be a protest that would get some interest.
I don't know who said it first, but it is accurate.
Is this on the card or the register? Even if it is on the register, you could really increase their storage costs by checking every day that no one has messed with your details...
I mean, think of what would happen if someone were to change something without you knowing? Where would you be then? The only way is to constantly check that the government is doing a good job of keeping your details correct.
Of course, this does have the problem that the staff may get annoyed, and you find that you are labeled a troublemaker...
I recall at least one story (the name escapes me. If anyone knows it, please let me know) where the robots decided that they were Human, and the meatsacks that built them were not. Who do you think got protected by the first law, and who was obeyed by the second?
(Crow-eater here - That's in South Australia for the rest of the world)
1. It is compulsory.
2. You need to pay for it.
Those two statements taken together cause a problem for me. If the government wants me to have the ID, they can pay for it. Most of the other forms of ID I have or want, I pay for in various ways: Driver's License - Pay about $60 a year (not sure of exact cost any more), Bank card (of any description) - Bank fees to support it, etc.
However, the most interesting way of looking at a problem like this is not "what's so bad about this?" but "what could I do if I got hold of someone else's card, and had no moral qualms about using it?".
The most interesting one that was come up with was closing someone's bank account. That is, draining the account of money, closing it so no more could be put in, cancelling linked credit cards, preventing any direct debits from occuring, and preventing pay being deposited. How would you cope with the complete loss of money now, money later, and lack of credit cards until you could prove who you are? How do you prove who you are, other than to show the card (which by this time, you already know to be stolen or no longer valid as it was cloned)?
More importantly, it becomes the single point of failure. One document loss currently, and you are in for a bit of inconvenience. One ID card loss, and you are so inconvenienced that it's just not funny.
The other major concern for this card (this bit actually answers your question), is that currently, the government departments can't share information about you between them. The database behind the card not only allows, but actually forces, them to. Suddenly anything any department of the government has about you is available to any public servant with the desire (or boredom) to look it up, for any reason, or no reason at all.
If there was strict access control to the database, with detailed audit logs, and as a citizen, you had the right to see who accessed it; there might be fewer concerns, but not many. People want the illusion of privacy, even if they don't have privacy in fact.
I think that answers most of your questions, so I just have to add: :-)
You must be new here
Well, if that Wonka was Dr Wonka from the 2005 movie, I'd be scared not too!
I guess then, that the only problem (or at least, a large one) is in using an easy-to-guess encryption key.
Perhaps a barcode (about 112 bits?) that does not have anything else to do with the passport (other than being printed in it) as the encryption key? The passport will need to be in "about the right place" rather than exactly, and the machine can grab the barcode, and decrypt the signal still in about 2-3 seconds (I'm guessing, based on the numbers you gave) rather than the 10-15 for contact chips.
Also, to keep this ontopic for the subject line:
It only needs to be sufficiently difficult to get the information. For example - 2 hours at less than 10 metres: Movie, Theatre, etc
The need to guess 112 bits worth of encryption key, or actually read the key - much more time (or much more obvious).
It can't take that much longer to put the edge of the passport against the stop, and press the button, now, can it?
Besides, if it requires contact, it should be fairly obvious if someone is trying to steal your data...
If anyone knows the truth (and is still reading the discussion), please comment here.
If I get caught, then the **AA and the government can have at me
indicates that you are performing civil disobedience, and I wish you well.
"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" -- (probably paraphrased) Voltaire?
I hate to point this out to you, but you need a username before the "@" symbol. That could be why no one is sending anything. Hope this helps.
Oh, wait...
*whoever they are
Manager: Can I get a copy of the *something* reports, please?
Engineer: Yep. Will tomorrow be OK?
Manager (condescending voice): If I wanted them tomorrow, I would have waited until tomorrow to ask for them.
Engineer (head explodes from the stupidity):...
Any hints? (No, I didn't RTFA, if it's in there, just tell me that)
Not a troll, genuinely interested, and not from the United States of America, so I am unaware of exactly where the legalities lie.
It lets you get the whole example on the page in a font that is readable from the back of the lecture hall.
Personally, I prefer it like this. The opening brace on the line with the conditional (for, while, if, etc), the conditional block indented, and the close-brace at the same indent as the start of the conditional. I tried a few other ways*, but didn't like them: they weren't readable enough for me.
* Other ways tried:
Open and close brace on separate lines to condition, at the same indent, code indented further (which you have above)
Braces and code indented further than the conditional, but lined up with each other
Braces indented from conditional (lined up with each other), code indented from braces [this was the worst]
It's largely a matter of personal choice, or project code rules, really.
Now someone else join in...