Now, are you saying it is my responsibility to investigate the security practices of a store before buying anything with a credit card there?
No. However, it is your responsibility to:
(1) assess the risks of handing someone your credit card to be processed.
(2) becoming aware of your rights and obligations under the terms of your credit card contract.
(3) understanding and acting on your right to sue the store if they mishandled your information.
Now, am I more free because BOA can treat my identity and money this way?
Yes
Is it my responsibility to audit their security policies?
No. It is your responsibility to stop doing business with them immediately if you do not like how they are doing business. If action on their part leads to losses for you, you also have the right to sue them for damages in a court of law.
But private industry is not in the business of providing public goods.
This is a fallacy pushed by people in love with government and growing government.
In practical terms, this means a private entity has a choice between handling data in a way that a client should trust, and creating the impression that is doing these things, it will take the option that maximizes its profits.
Only an extremely short-sighted company would do this. The kind that go out of business in a blazing glory of lawsuits because they opted for the quick buck.
Let me give you an example.
Disney World has an amazing safety record on their rides. These rides are ridden MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of times, and have had only a handful of accidents through the years. An even tinier portion of those have been deaths (some of which may not have even been due to the ride, but just coincidence).
Yet after a recent accident where a 4-year old died while riding a hugely popular ride, you hear calls for government to standardize the rides, to provide more oversight.
Why?
Disney World doesn't need any more incentive to keep its rides safe. If the rides are not safe, people will not come to Disney World. If the people do not come to Disney World, they will go out of business.
When treating our data with unconscionable laxity is no longer profitable or an acceptable risk, companies will find a better way to cut costs or increase revenue, ways that will benefit us, the public instead of pulling the wool over our eyes.
Man, you're so close. What you say is right, but you are assuming the only way to get their is with government oversight. WRONG. The free market can apply the pressure necessary for them to do the right thing, eventually.
Here's another real-world example of this very thing. Vonage and some of the other voip providers have recently come under threat of lawsuits, because their 911 service is, to put it bluntly, quite shitty. These lawsuits provided the impetus necessary to get their ass in gear, and in the next few months they will be rolling out a much improved 911 service that compares to land-line 911 service.
No government oversight needed. Free market applied pressure, and the results are coming.
I work for an online retailer and we lose thousands of dollars every day to fraud. We have attempted to get the government to intervene but unless it is over $50,000 they don't tend to help us. We had a case where a guy stole $25,000 worth of goods from us using fraudulent cards. We knew where he lived but the police/feds refused to do anyhing about it.
You fail to tell us what it is your online retailer does to combat fraud. Anything? I do online retail also. There are many tools available now to help combat fraud, where if things are handled properly, you will be insured against major losses.
Every freedom, every liberty, and every convenience that society provides to you has attendant responsibilities. Taxes happen to be some of those.
That's right. And I have no problem paying taxes to cover the expenses of what the Constitution sets forth, namely defense, law and order.
You want a democracy? You need an educated society. You want an educated society? You need schools. You want schools?
Think of the children, in other words?
The incentive to be educated is to improve your lot in life. Competition in the private market could bring the cost of education down as it has in every other market. But there's a monopoly in that field of education: "public" schools. And the quality of those schools sucks, primarily because they are run by the government.
In a perfect world with a perfect government, it would be great for everyone to chip in and fund public schools. But this world is not perfect, the money is wasted through politics and bureacracy, and the schools are doing a horrible job.
It's also not in the best interest to let the government educate your children, as they have an incentive to make the government look better than it really is.
If you want to give more of your money to the government each month, that is your business. However, you have no right to vote for or encourage the government to take money away from anyone else.
The U.S. used to be about freedom and liberty, and people like you through the years have ruined it.
Look, ass. I'm on here defending the right of everyone to keep the money they've earned, including rich people like you. Even though I'm not financially rich yet, it is a goal, one that many people share. In the meantime, I fight an uphill battle against people with similar financial situations as myself, trying to convince them to turn away from class warfare.
So you could help out the cause of individual liberty a bit more if you didn't rub your success in people's faces. In other words, shut your fucking cake-hole.
If the rich are only taxed by what they spend, the amount of tax they'll pay will be negligible to them.
Yet since the rich spend so much more than the non-rich, they are still paying way more than most everybody else. This is why it's called the FairTax. If the rich paid disproportionately more than they have, compared to poorer people, how would that be fair? It wouldn't be, just vindictive.
I'm your typical "middle class" guy, but even I'm against reducing taxation for the rich. If anything, they should be taxed more, they won't go broke anyway.
No, but you will, when they cut your job or pay you less, so that they can pay more taxes to government. You do realize "the rich" are the people that create businesses and jobs, and lend money to banks so they can lend it to you, right?
Yet you want to take the money away from them, even more so than it is being done now, and for what? So the government has more money it can use to buy votes with pork spending? To waste on needless bureacracies? To pilfer more of our rights?
Don't give in to class warfare. It's a cheap ploy.
Yeah, and the worst public schools and one of the highest crime rates in the country.
Even taking your comments at face value, without researching them to see if they are true, you wouldn't believe what extra money and freedom can get you. Private schooling and tutors, housing in safer neighborhoods, just for starters.
Hurray for rugged self-reliance!
I live in California. Are you really going to try and tell me its so much safer and the government schools are much better?
I won't. I prefer private toll roads using a standardized electronic payment system, so I can control how much money is spent on the roads by controlling how much I use them.
Besides, a lot of that money comes from the federal government. I guarantee you, 90% of the money California brings in is a totally WASTED and mis-spent.
So, you want to pay more tax than you already are? To replace the income tax a national sales tax would have to be around 30%... unless you're a millionaire you're going to lose.
This is absolutely, positively 100% false! The summary of why it is false: you keep all your income, you get a prebate to cover the tax spent on necessities, and even though the cost of new items increases due to the sales tax, the prices should remain about the same as they are now because the businesses that produce these new goods no longer have to pay hidden taxes while creating them. Therefore nearly everyone will keep more money each year, and the government will still get the same amount of money to waste each year (or more) because we are now able to tax the underground economy, tourists, and grow our economy through tax havens for foreign (and national) businesses.
Please spend more than 1 minute reading about the FairTax before spreading FUD. Thank you.
Whoops, I deleted a sentence from my post and left out the meaning. Here is what meant:
Of all the tax proposals, especially including our current thousand-page tax code, the FairTax is the simplest and fairest proposal I have seen. That is why I support it, bring it up when the topic comes up, tell my friends about it, and write my congressmen and senators about it.
Subtract the flat rate from your income and pay the result. Simple!
Now define "income" in a way that the lobbyists in DC can't exploit.
Of all the tax proposals, especially including our current thousand-page tax code, it is the simplest and fairest proposal I have seen. That is why I support it, bring it up when the topic comes up, tell my friends about it, and write my congressmen and senators about it.
(How about reducing spending so you don't need to collect as much income tax? They currently take FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS from me each month in state income taxes.)
No, I am just going by what the article said. They said Lindy DESIGNED the costume. Anyhow, I wasn't trying to be a prick, I was curious to find out who his friend is and what role he actually played in the batsuit.
The suit was made by a friend of mine, who happens to be a big fan, so he put the effort in to make the suit look right. Of all the batman films so far, it's probably the one that most closely mirrors the comics.
Who is your friend? The article specifically mentions, "The Batsuit for 'Batman Begins' was created by costume designer Lindy Hemming."
Actually, they don't, because the majority of the computer public truly believe that Microsoft Windows and Office comes free with the PC. Most new Macs come with OS X and iLife free. Despite being true or not true, this is the perception out there.
And Linux advocates think Linux is free as in beer, even though my time to install, configure and maintain it is not.
Those hidden costs are a bitch, aren't they. The knife cuts both ways.
You misspelled "advertisement". Its not spelled a-r-t-i-c-l-e.
It's only an advertisement if it was paid for. Since you can't prove it was paid for, you might want to shut up about it.
If Slashdot didn't post articles about new products and services that seem interesting, it would be quite boring.
Their "editors" do suck at editing 90% of the time, but I assume even they have the integrity to mark advertisements as such. Imagine the fallout if anyone could ever prove Slashdot received compensation for the placement of stories.
Slashdot Mirror
Now, are you saying it is my responsibility to investigate the security practices of a store before buying anything with a credit card there?
No. However, it is your responsibility to:
(1) assess the risks of handing someone your credit card to be processed.
(2) becoming aware of your rights and obligations under the terms of your credit card contract.
(3) understanding and acting on your right to sue the store if they mishandled your information.
Now, am I more free because BOA can treat my identity and money this way?
Yes
Is it my responsibility to audit their security policies?
No. It is your responsibility to stop doing business with them immediately if you do not like how they are doing business. If action on their part leads to losses for you, you also have the right to sue them for damages in a court of law.
But private industry is not in the business of providing public goods.
This is a fallacy pushed by people in love with government and growing government.
In practical terms, this means a private entity has a choice between handling data in a way that a client should trust, and creating the impression that is doing these things, it will take the option that maximizes its profits.
Only an extremely short-sighted company would do this. The kind that go out of business in a blazing glory of lawsuits because they opted for the quick buck.
Let me give you an example.
Disney World has an amazing safety record on their rides. These rides are ridden MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of times, and have had only a handful of accidents through the years. An even tinier portion of those have been deaths (some of which may not have even been due to the ride, but just coincidence).
Yet after a recent accident where a 4-year old died while riding a hugely popular ride, you hear calls for government to standardize the rides, to provide more oversight.
Why?
Disney World doesn't need any more incentive to keep its rides safe. If the rides are not safe, people will not come to Disney World. If the people do not come to Disney World, they will go out of business.
When treating our data with unconscionable laxity is no longer profitable or an acceptable risk, companies will find a better way to cut costs or increase revenue, ways that will benefit us, the public instead of pulling the wool over our eyes.
Man, you're so close. What you say is right, but you are assuming the only way to get their is with government oversight. WRONG. The free market can apply the pressure necessary for them to do the right thing, eventually.
Here's another real-world example of this very thing. Vonage and some of the other voip providers have recently come under threat of lawsuits, because their 911 service is, to put it bluntly, quite shitty. These lawsuits provided the impetus necessary to get their ass in gear, and in the next few months they will be rolling out a much improved 911 service that compares to land-line 911 service.
No government oversight needed. Free market applied pressure, and the results are coming.
I work for an online retailer and we lose thousands of dollars every day to fraud. We have attempted to get the government to intervene but unless it is over $50,000 they don't tend to help us. We had a case where a guy stole $25,000 worth of goods from us using fraudulent cards. We knew where he lived but the police/feds refused to do anyhing about it.
You fail to tell us what it is your online retailer does to combat fraud. Anything? I do online retail also. There are many tools available now to help combat fraud, where if things are handled properly, you will be insured against major losses.
Every freedom, every liberty, and every convenience that society provides to you has attendant responsibilities. Taxes happen to be some of those.
That's right. And I have no problem paying taxes to cover the expenses of what the Constitution sets forth, namely defense, law and order.
You want a democracy? You need an educated society. You want an educated society? You need schools. You want schools?
Think of the children, in other words?
The incentive to be educated is to improve your lot in life. Competition in the private market could bring the cost of education down as it has in every other market. But there's a monopoly in that field of education: "public" schools. And the quality of those schools sucks, primarily because they are run by the government.
In a perfect world with a perfect government, it would be great for everyone to chip in and fund public schools. But this world is not perfect, the money is wasted through politics and bureacracy, and the schools are doing a horrible job.
It's also not in the best interest to let the government educate your children, as they have an incentive to make the government look better than it really is.
If you want to give more of your money to the government each month, that is your business. However, you have no right to vote for or encourage the government to take money away from anyone else.
The U.S. used to be about freedom and liberty, and people like you through the years have ruined it.
Look, ass. I'm on here defending the right of everyone to keep the money they've earned, including rich people like you. Even though I'm not financially rich yet, it is a goal, one that many people share. In the meantime, I fight an uphill battle against people with similar financial situations as myself, trying to convince them to turn away from class warfare.
So you could help out the cause of individual liberty a bit more if you didn't rub your success in people's faces. In other words, shut your fucking cake-hole.
If the rich are only taxed by what they spend, the amount of tax they'll pay will be negligible to them.
Yet since the rich spend so much more than the non-rich, they are still paying way more than most everybody else. This is why it's called the FairTax. If the rich paid disproportionately more than they have, compared to poorer people, how would that be fair? It wouldn't be, just vindictive.
I'm your typical "middle class" guy, but even I'm against reducing taxation for the rich. If anything, they should be taxed more, they won't go broke anyway.
No, but you will, when they cut your job or pay you less, so that they can pay more taxes to government. You do realize "the rich" are the people that create businesses and jobs, and lend money to banks so they can lend it to you, right?
Yet you want to take the money away from them, even more so than it is being done now, and for what? So the government has more money it can use to buy votes with pork spending? To waste on needless bureacracies? To pilfer more of our rights?
Don't give in to class warfare. It's a cheap ploy.
Yeah, and the worst public schools and one of the highest crime rates in the country.
Even taking your comments at face value, without researching them to see if they are true, you wouldn't believe what extra money and freedom can get you. Private schooling and tutors, housing in safer neighborhoods, just for starters.
Hurray for rugged self-reliance!
I live in California. Are you really going to try and tell me its so much safer and the government schools are much better?
Don't ask for roads, then. :)
I won't. I prefer private toll roads using a standardized electronic payment system, so I can control how much money is spent on the roads by controlling how much I use them.
Besides, a lot of that money comes from the federal government. I guarantee you, 90% of the money California brings in is a totally WASTED and mis-spent.
So, you want to pay more tax than you already are? To replace the income tax a national sales tax would have to be around 30%... unless you're a millionaire you're going to lose.
This is absolutely, positively 100% false! The summary of why it is false: you keep all your income, you get a prebate to cover the tax spent on necessities, and even though the cost of new items increases due to the sales tax, the prices should remain about the same as they are now because the businesses that produce these new goods no longer have to pay hidden taxes while creating them. Therefore nearly everyone will keep more money each year, and the government will still get the same amount of money to waste each year (or more) because we are now able to tax the underground economy, tourists, and grow our economy through tax havens for foreign (and national) businesses.
Please spend more than 1 minute reading about the FairTax before spreading FUD. Thank you.
www.fairtax.org
Whoops, I deleted a sentence from my post and left out the meaning. Here is what meant:
Of all the tax proposals, especially including our current thousand-page tax code, the FairTax is the simplest and fairest proposal I have seen. That is why I support it, bring it up when the topic comes up, tell my friends about it, and write my congressmen and senators about it.
Subtract the flat rate from your income and pay the result. Simple!
Now define "income" in a way that the lobbyists in DC can't exploit.
Of all the tax proposals, especially including our current thousand-page tax code, it is the simplest and fairest proposal I have seen. That is why I support it, bring it up when the topic comes up, tell my friends about it, and write my congressmen and senators about it.
The only reason it's not national is
Sorry, unless the next thing you said was "politics," then you are wrong.
What could possiblie go wrong?
(How about reducing spending so you don't need to collect as much income tax? They currently take FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS from me each month in state income taxes.)
Look jamie, it's very simple.
Put your opinions into the article submission, where they belong!!!
"A much better way to cut down on spam is to use $technology_I_created."
I don't get the "snappier" jokes. Anyone?
I don't either.
But this meme definitely feels much snappier!
One Perl developer cursed Microsoft... while another inexplicably chose to quote from JRR Tolkien's classic The Lord of the Rings .
That crazy Larry Wall, always inexplicably quoting Tolkien!
Vader is Dutch for "father."
You are confusing DESIGNER with BUILDER.
No, I am just going by what the article said. They said Lindy DESIGNED the costume. Anyhow, I wasn't trying to be a prick, I was curious to find out who his friend is and what role he actually played in the batsuit.
The suit was made by a friend of mine, who happens to be a big fan, so he put the effort in to make the suit look right. Of all the batman films so far, it's probably the one that most closely mirrors the comics.
Who is your friend? The article specifically mentions, "The Batsuit for 'Batman Begins' was created by costume designer Lindy Hemming."
Lindy Hemming is either a woman, or one of the ugliest men I've ever seen.
Then when you're done with that guy, you beat the shit out of the guy that was laughing at you.
Using an interjection when you mean a adjectival phrase is an amateur mistake. Check your God-damned grammar.
Oh, the pain, the pain of it all.
Actually, they don't, because the majority of the computer public truly believe that Microsoft Windows and Office comes free with the PC. Most new Macs come with OS X and iLife free. Despite being true or not true, this is the perception out there.
And Linux advocates think Linux is free as in beer, even though my time to install, configure and maintain it is not.
Those hidden costs are a bitch, aren't they. The knife cuts both ways.
Of course I paid that. Jeez, I listed it right under my las vegas winnings and my eBay profits.
You misspelled "advertisement". Its not spelled a-r-t-i-c-l-e.
It's only an advertisement if it was paid for. Since you can't prove it was paid for, you might want to shut up about it.
If Slashdot didn't post articles about new products and services that seem interesting, it would be quite boring.
Their "editors" do suck at editing 90% of the time, but I assume even they have the integrity to mark advertisements as such. Imagine the fallout if anyone could ever prove Slashdot received compensation for the placement of stories.