The concept of supporting the various individuals who put there life on the line to protect us on a daly basis is paramount, but I do not see how this ID card will put them in harms way. They have ID's now, do they list a P.O. Box or other non street address. Nice thought, and a hell of a way to open your. The thought of Dead Cops stirs a lot of emotion, but the point of the ID somehow leading to additional acts of violence against public servants is not made.
2. Stolen Identities.
Perhaps you have been asleep, but the little black strip on the back of your current drivers license contains a wealth of information. About you! If, for example, you happen to want to have a drink in a dry area of Texas, you will need to hand your ID to the bar tender for him/her to swipe the card and verify you have a uni-card membership. Again, your statements are based on fear and not of reality. And if you think this information is not sold of now, I ask you where all the junk mail (paper based) I receive comes from.
3. Government Spying.
So, now the government can look into my record within a state database. Ok, and I assume they cant do this now? Thats funny, the state of Florida was well aware that I moved from Texas to NJ when I called to update my address with the child support agency. Get over it Bill, "one database to rule them all" is not going to change anything. Other than make it easier on all of the agencies.
4. Papers, Please.
So, my passport, drivers license and SS card are not a form of identification. But now I will be burdened with a single ID that will be. Seems like a good idea to me, less to keep track of.
I have not seen the technical specifications for the recommended card, but the example you have on your site shows the implementation with a "smart card". If this is the recommended technology, and if hey are smart, it will be. Then you have very little to worry about. Go take a look at the smart card specifications. They are very, VERY secure.
By the way, the smart card system also has a provision for "no contact" reading. Now I may be wrong, a technology may have already been proposed. And if so, I will be interested to see how.
But I bet it has not been. And if that is the case, you have used the current fear surrounding RFID to cloud reality and make your statement seem more important.
5. Unsafe Roads.
Ok, this is just laughable. You obviously live in a part of our country that has no one driving without a license. Because, not giving someone a license is, by no stretch of the word, NOT going to prevent someone from getting behind the weal of a car.
So, in conclusion I still have no idea why people are so worked up over all of this. But I invite all of you to clearly state a valid concern. Otherwise, go complain about something else. Or better yet do something constructive with your time.
Most of the comments seem to use the 'its broke, therefore its not usable' definition.
A usability issue is one that inhibits a users ability to complete a given task. Either the system is to convoluted for the user to understand how to complete the task, or its just so well hidden that the user gives up. But the fact that the task is technically compellable, makes this a usability issue.
A usefulness issue in one that fails to provide the user with the ability to complete a task. Either the system does not allow for the action, or completing the action with the system has no benefit. (the user can do it faster / better without the system)
This is a fundamental difference. A usable system can be secure, and an insecure system can not be useful. (at least not for very long if its Win XP).
Im wondering if this level of functionality and speed becomes helpful when applied to consumer devices. Or situations where the average user is not able, or capoble, to make changes at this level.
Things like mobile phones. The consumer wont have the abilities to re compile, if say; they connect device like a camera.
The mobile can recognize the device, and retrieve the drivers from the hardware. Then a quick rebuild, and the mobile is configured for the new hardware. (of course a re-boot is still necessary)
"...with the computer giant instructing labels that the compatible secure CDs must contain additional multimedia content, such as bonus tracks, "as a quid pro quo for adding effective [DRM] into the consumer experience"."
This is a classic marketing move on Microsoft's part. First, you hit them with the down side. You will have to include this information on all of the CD's you produce. Before anyone can think of the potential options, Microsoft gives an example that the music industry is ok with, "bonus tracks".
Not so bad on its surface, but what "bonus tracks" could Microsoft possible what to add? The obvious answer is commercials! Just like DVD's. Microsoft will control, and license, the area that will play to every user before they listen to there music. Each time they play the CD.
It's a brilliant move, but one that is very scary at the same time.
"This is stifling innovation, not protecting anyone."
No, Apple is trying to do just that, protect their customers! Not from competition, or from a particularly bad format. But from the experience of incompatibility.
People buy Apple products for a number of reasons, but once you remove the designers and technologists you end up with a large percentage that just want a system that works. Every Time! If apple allows 'Un Authorized" distributors, it can no longer control the user experience. Imagine:
Your father / mother buys an iPOD, downloads a number of songs from iTunes and is generally happy with the device. They turn it on and press the play button and music comes out the head phones. Now they see an add stating that Real has the same music, at a better price / a better selection / whatever. They then go and download a number of songs from Real. Now Apple updated the iPOD, adding functionality and lo and behold the music the user downloaded from Real no longer plays.
Q: Who do you think they are going to call?
A: Apple!
Q: How will this affect the reputation of Apple?
A: Badly!
Q: How will this affect the reputation of Real?
A: Real Who? The user will never associate the problem with the file!
So, although I do not care for the DMCA, I think Apple has every right to fight Real on this. They are protecting their brand and the people who pay a premium for the luxury of having a system that works every time they turn it on.
The rational for an auction may be a Benefit for the technology community. Getting an IPO stock allocation is almost impossible for most investors, and without a VERY large trading account, or a good friend at the issuing company, you have no chance.
By offering the initial release at auction, and thus bypassing the IPO process, Google has an opportunity to get its stock into the hands of the ?community? and not just institutional traders. Creating a level playing field for all who want to participate. (Im sure the SEC still has rules governing who can participate, but I haven?t found any with a quick search)
If you want a quick overview of the IPO process, and how it relates to traders. Have a look (atInvestopedia.com)
Slashdot Mirror
Thought Id take a moment and respond to the 5 points made in the seed article: http://www.unrealid.com/what.html
1. Dead Cops.
The concept of supporting the various individuals who put there life on the line to protect us on a daly basis is paramount, but I do not see how this ID card will put them in harms way. They have ID's now, do they list a P.O. Box or other non street address. Nice thought, and a hell of a way to open your. The thought of Dead Cops stirs a lot of emotion, but the point of the ID somehow leading to additional acts of violence against public servants is not made.
2. Stolen Identities.
Perhaps you have been asleep, but the little black strip on the back of your current drivers license contains a wealth of information. About you! If, for example, you happen to want to have a drink in a dry area of Texas, you will need to hand your ID to the bar tender for him/her to swipe the card and verify you have a uni-card membership. Again, your statements are based on fear and not of reality. And if you think this information is not sold of now, I ask you where all the junk mail (paper based) I receive comes from.
3. Government Spying.
So, now the government can look into my record within a state database. Ok, and I assume they cant do this now? Thats funny, the state of Florida was well aware that I moved from Texas to NJ when I called to update my address with the child support agency. Get over it Bill, "one database to rule them all" is not going to change anything. Other than make it easier on all of the agencies.
4. Papers, Please.
So, my passport, drivers license and SS card are not a form of identification. But now I will be burdened with a single ID that will be. Seems like a good idea to me, less to keep track of. I have not seen the technical specifications for the recommended card, but the example you have on your site shows the implementation with a "smart card". If this is the recommended technology, and if hey are smart, it will be. Then you have very little to worry about. Go take a look at the smart card specifications. They are very, VERY secure.
By the way, the smart card system also has a provision for "no contact" reading. Now I may be wrong, a technology may have already been proposed. And if so, I will be interested to see how. But I bet it has not been. And if that is the case, you have used the current fear surrounding RFID to cloud reality and make your statement seem more important.
5. Unsafe Roads.
Ok, this is just laughable. You obviously live in a part of our country that has no one driving without a license. Because, not giving someone a license is, by no stretch of the word, NOT going to prevent someone from getting behind the weal of a car.
So, in conclusion I still have no idea why people are so worked up over all of this. But I invite all of you to clearly state a valid concern. Otherwise, go complain about something else. Or better yet do something constructive with your time.
Most of the comments seem to use the 'its broke, therefore its not usable' definition.
A usability issue is one that inhibits a users ability to complete a given task. Either the system is to convoluted for the user to understand how to complete the task, or its just so well hidden that the user gives up. But the fact that the task is technically compellable, makes this a usability issue.
A usefulness issue in one that fails to provide the user with the ability to complete a task. Either the system does not allow for the action, or completing the action with the system has no benefit. (the user can do it faster / better without the system)
This is a fundamental difference. A usable system can be secure, and an insecure system can not be useful. (at least not for very long if its Win XP).
Im wondering if this level of functionality and speed becomes helpful when applied to consumer devices. Or situations where the average user is not able, or capoble, to make changes at this level.
Things like mobile phones. The consumer wont have the abilities to re compile, if say; they connect device like a camera.
The mobile can recognize the device, and retrieve the drivers from the hardware. Then a quick rebuild, and the mobile is configured for the new hardware. (of course a re-boot is still necessary)
This is a classic marketing move on Microsoft's part. First, you hit them with the down side. You will have to include this information on all of the CD's you produce. Before anyone can think of the potential options, Microsoft gives an example that the music industry is ok with, "bonus tracks".
Not so bad on its surface, but what "bonus tracks" could Microsoft possible what to add? The obvious answer is commercials! Just like DVD's. Microsoft will control, and license, the area that will play to every user before they listen to there music. Each time they play the CD.
It's a brilliant move, but one that is very scary at the same time.
"This is stifling innovation, not protecting anyone."
No, Apple is trying to do just that, protect their customers! Not from competition, or from a particularly bad format. But from the experience of incompatibility.
People buy Apple products for a number of reasons, but once you remove the designers and technologists you end up with a large percentage that just want a system that works. Every Time! If apple allows 'Un Authorized" distributors, it can no longer control the user experience. Imagine:
Your father / mother buys an iPOD, downloads a number of songs from iTunes and is generally happy with the device. They turn it on and press the play button and music comes out the head phones. Now they see an add stating that Real has the same music, at a better price / a better selection / whatever. They then go and download a number of songs from Real. Now Apple updated the iPOD, adding functionality and lo and behold the music the user downloaded from Real no longer plays. Q: Who do you think they are going to call? A: Apple! Q: How will this affect the reputation of Apple? A: Badly! Q: How will this affect the reputation of Real? A: Real Who? The user will never associate the problem with the file!
So, although I do not care for the DMCA, I think Apple has every right to fight Real on this. They are protecting their brand and the people who pay a premium for the luxury of having a system that works every time they turn it on.
The rational for an auction may be a Benefit for the technology community. Getting an IPO stock allocation is almost impossible for most investors, and without a VERY large trading account, or a good friend at the issuing company, you have no chance. By offering the initial release at auction, and thus bypassing the IPO process, Google has an opportunity to get its stock into the hands of the ?community? and not just institutional traders. Creating a level playing field for all who want to participate. (Im sure the SEC still has rules governing who can participate, but I haven?t found any with a quick search) If you want a quick overview of the IPO process, and how it relates to traders. Have a look (atInvestopedia.com)