Re:Not only cost, but what about security?
on
WiFi Free-For-All
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Hopefully, commoditized internet will encourage the adoption of better security policies & protocols. Not right away, of course, but I think eventually it'll happen.
But then again, I'm ever the optimist!
And really, the worst that could happen is the current internet gets over-legislated and some new form of networking gains a large underground following while the unwashed masses suffer their daily torment of spam, worms, pop-ups, and DRM.
Think of it as a value-added service - Choice hotels wouldn't even have to mark-up the price of the rooms to cover the marginal cost of WiFi. If I, as a road-warrior, have a choice between a hotel with WiFi and a hotel without, I'm going to choose WiFi. Some people will choose it even for a price premium, but then you start getting into economic slopes & such that I haven't messed with in ages.
Similar for the airport - granted, the market there isn't as fluid, but if the airport starts gaining more interest because it offers free WiFi, it can gain more shops and fast food outlets (= rental revenue), and possible in the long run (and by a long shot) attract marginally more airline business.
Like most people, I think WiFi will become a commodity. It is a relatively inexpensive service to provide that provides a competitive advantage in the short term; as more companies adopt it, it lessens the competitive advantage because everyone has it, and hence, becomes a commodity. Consumers everywhere win!
You missed one key component. All of that requires:
1. Time 2. People who have a clue.
Most companies, organizations, and governments do not have #1. Many of them lack #2, as well. I *fully* agree with what everything you said, particularly the "And a process like I've outlined should be standard for any organization dealing with sensitive data." But the unfortunate fact is, we're a LONG ways from there. When companies think they can save money by outsourcing development, there's not a snowball's chance in hell they're going to waste precious resources protecting private data.
At least, not until it costs less to protect than it does to deal with the consequences. I despise our litigious society as much as the rest of/., but sometimes I think that's the only way to get ideas through thick corporate skulls.
Assume that you're just as good at revising some lawyer's contract as you'd expect that lawyer to be at revising your code. Act accordingly.
Wow... that's a wonderful analogy! Having the geek ego that I do, I often assume I can understand just about anything - the power of logical analysis is applicable everywhere, right? However, eventually I've realized that every profession / specialty has its own sets of assumptions and terminology that must be learned, and in the legal profession that set is HUGE. So yeah, get a lawyer - someone who knows that profession.
Ok, but what about the environmental effects of damning up a river? Sure, there's no pollution at the time of generation, but what about all of the land that has been substantially changed because what was once a mighty river is now a trickle?
Don't get me wrong - I'm all for hydro power. But "TNSTAAFL" - everything's got it price, and all of those costs need to be taken into consideration.
I think a better idea would be to use the same camera strategy as ATMs - have the cameras above the computers, facing the user. The user gets an iota of privacy (though not much more - they ARE in a public place, after all), and the cyber cafes get their security.
I read the article, and I agree with Sills - the measure seems far too Big Brotherly. After all, one possible use of internet cafes is for those who cannot afford a computer or an internet connection (I don't know what the statistics are, but this seems plausible) - is privacy a right only for the "rich-enough" to have? You have a spectrum - the more money you have, the more privacy you can afford. Not enough money, not as much privacy. But there's a difference between "not a lot" and "none at all" - and, IMHO, this measure unnecessarily chooses the latter.
I'd rather see the cafes deal with these issues themselves - if they want to install security cameras & armed guards, let 'em. If they want to advertise "secure, private browsing", let them do that instead. Laissez-faire!:)
A better analogy is an "all you can eat buffet". The local diner advertises this, and you go there armed with your sleeping bag and a toothbrush. After all - they are advertising "all you can eat", right? Doesn't that mean you should be able to pay your $5.99 and eat for the rest of your life, as much as you can? That's what they are advertising, isn't it?
But, everyone knows its not REALLY all you can eat - it's all you can eat at a single sitting. So here, you are actually limited by time, not quantity (with the understanding that you can't increase current quantity to make up for future needs by sticking french bread in your laptop bag).
Besides being opposite, the only difference in broadband advertising is that not everyone understands the concept of access-time and bandwidth. Here, you can "eat" all month long, at any time - but you can only eat so much per month.
Note that I don't agree with the "our limits are secrets" schtick - I think that's foul. But unless an ad says "unlimited bandwidth" specifically, the "unlimited" moniker is not the bald-faced lie so many/.'ers claim it to be. Potentially deceiving, yes, but not an outright lie.
No, not grow up and "take our beating like a man". It's "grow up and take responsibility for what we've done".
I agree friendship has to be earned - but that goes both ways. It's not "friendship" if you repeatedly beat and subvert your "friend" and then get high and mighty when your friend slaps you back. When that happens - we've got 2 options:
1. Hit back harder in the hopes you scare them into submission (which guarantees continued animosity)
2. Take the hard stance of humility and say "Alright, we've both had our digs - let's call a truce and work together"
Bush chose #1. I don't agree with his decision. But #2 is very difficult - how do you not violently react, while not giving the impression you are weak. It's walking away from a fight with your principles and nobility intact.
Obviously, terrorists won't just let us call a truce & walk away. But the "foreign policy" equivalent is to recognize how we contributed to that situation, and start making changes in our foreign policy. I'm not saying we can avoid conflict entirely (unfortunately), but a think reacting non-violently after 9/11 would have really helped strengthen our position as a global leader - we had everyone's sympathy at that point, and we could have forged some serious relationships to deal with terrorism on a global scale. Instead, we threw away their sympathy, dusted ourselves off, and kicked some arse. Now the world crowd is standing there looking disgustedly at us.
Just my $0.02 - it's a bad situation either way, and Monday-morning quarterbacking won't change it, but maybe we can better prepared if (God help us) there is ever a "next time".
That's a good point. Guilt can cause many an intelligent persons to do foolish things.
And, FWIW - I'm not advocating for or against outsourcing either way. I think some companies probably do it because its a smart move (ie for good, sound reasons), and I think other companies do it in a "me-too" fashion, hoping to catch some quick $$$ (ie bad reasons). I just get tired of people sitting around complaining instead of doing something about the source of their angst!
(And, I freely admit I do that too, though I'm trying to do less talking & more walking, in my own ways.)
That's one of the hypocrisies that I find most disturbing aboout Americans (myself included). We're not willing to put our money where our mouth is.
"Down with cheap foreign labor! Down with outsourcing! (insert $protectionism_slogan)"
"Oh, but wait, we like the cheaper products - cheaper vehicles, cheaper produce, cheaper projects." We can't have it both ways - protectionism has its costs. Businesses go outside the US for manufacturing / IT / customer support because American consumers aren't willing to pay those costs. Until we are (or until we adapt & change our economy to fit the next Big Thing(tm)), we get stuck with our own hypocrisy.
Correction - technical education, *by itself*, is not the solution. It is only part.
The other part of the solution, like you said, is knowing the right people. That doesn't mean you know them right now; that means you may need some social education, too - how to "schmooze". It's a skill that most techies / geeks / programmers are not very good at. But it's just as important, if not moreso, than the technical education. You need EQ as well as IQ. If you've got both, and you're using both, there are jobs out there to be had.
I don't mean to insult the parent - I don't know anything about his or her personal situation or qualifications. But I do know that there are still companies hiring, even today. People can and are being hired, even as others are being laid off and "outsourced".
And who made you those promises, hmmm? Why don't you find the responsible parties & make them hold up their end of the bargain! Or sue for breach of contract ala SCO;-)
Remember, in America all you are promised is the *pursuit* of happiness. You still have to find it yourself
Wow - that's an impressive post!
And, in my opinion - very well thought-out. Even in this down economy, places are hiring. When I joined with my employer last August, we were starting between 30-60 new people every month! We're still hiring today. But that doesn't mean we're hiring just anyone - the people who get hired have to really sell themselves and their qualifications. And be flexible enough to change & meet the demands of a changing industry.
I like the article's parallels to the agriculture & manufacturing industries and the economic shifts we went through with those. Changes are tough, but our history shows us we can come out better for it in the end.
Of course, it's easy for me to say that, because I'm currently gainfully employed. For my part, I am doing everything I can (like the parent poster suggested), to show my employer that I provide a positive net value to the company - that they are actually more valuable having me employed than hiring someone else or outsourcing the work completely.
Just War theory, huh? Oh yeah, I remember - that was Jesus's Sermon on the Mound, wasn't it? Something about how the righteous will rise up & kick the collective asses of those "sons of bitches"?
Oh, wait, no, that wasn't it? Well, at least Jesus didn't let that filthy whore get awa... er, wait, he *did* keep her from being stoned to death, didn't he? At least those Romans soldiers got what they deserved! Paul took off a terrorist's ear with his mighty sword! Oh, but, er, Jesus put it back on, didn't He?
I'll stop damning Christians when the damned stop pretending to be them.
If the US would keep its nose out of other countries' business, we wouldn't have all of the problems with terrorism that we now have.
George Washington said it best: "Avoid foreign entanglements."
Why don't Americans understand this??? This country (US) has such an aversion to taking responsibility for its actions it is sickening!
<mode=whine>It can't be my fault, I'm a victim! He/she/it/they/the dog MADE me do it!</mode>
Hmmm, let's see, we mettle in the affairs of the Middle East for a couple of decades, support coups and terrorists in the "war" on Communism, and then look around and wonder why we just got slapped by the pawns we've been manipulating? 9/11 was a terrible event - I don't argue that, and I pray for the people who lost their lives. But the US has displayed nothing but cowardice-in-bully's-clothing, feigning ignorance & innocence, in its handling of the aftermath. We (Americans) all just need to grow up!
I try to keep an open mind, I really do. But stuff like this just makes me sick. The US has just been flagrantly disregarding international law and conventions and flaunting it's muscle. I was scared about Bush's foreign policy (or lack thereof) when he was elected in 2000; I'm terribly disappointed to see that I had every right to be. November can't come soon enough!
Slashdot Mirror
Hopefully, commoditized internet will encourage the adoption of better security policies & protocols. Not right away, of course, but I think eventually it'll happen.
But then again, I'm ever the optimist!
And really, the worst that could happen is the current internet gets over-legislated and some new form of networking gains a large underground following while the unwashed masses suffer their daily torment of spam, worms, pop-ups, and DRM.
Think of it as a value-added service - Choice hotels wouldn't even have to mark-up the price of the rooms to cover the marginal cost of WiFi. If I, as a road-warrior, have a choice between a hotel with WiFi and a hotel without, I'm going to choose WiFi. Some people will choose it even for a price premium, but then you start getting into economic slopes & such that I haven't messed with in ages.
Similar for the airport - granted, the market there isn't as fluid, but if the airport starts gaining more interest because it offers free WiFi, it can gain more shops and fast food outlets (= rental revenue), and possible in the long run (and by a long shot) attract marginally more airline business.
Like most people, I think WiFi will become a commodity. It is a relatively inexpensive service to provide that provides a competitive advantage in the short term; as more companies adopt it, it lessens the competitive advantage because everyone has it, and hence, becomes a commodity. Consumers everywhere win!
You missed one key component. All of that requires:
/., but sometimes I think that's the only way to get ideas through thick corporate skulls.
1. Time
2. People who have a clue.
Most companies, organizations, and governments do not have #1. Many of them lack #2, as well. I *fully* agree with what everything you said, particularly the "And a process like I've outlined should be standard for any organization dealing with sensitive data." But the unfortunate fact is, we're a LONG ways from there. When companies think they can save money by outsourcing development, there's not a snowball's chance in hell they're going to waste precious resources protecting private data.
At least, not until it costs less to protect than it does to deal with the consequences. I despise our litigious society as much as the rest of
Assume that you're just as good at revising some lawyer's contract as you'd expect that lawyer to be at revising your code. Act accordingly.
Wow... that's a wonderful analogy! Having the geek ego that I do, I often assume I can understand just about anything - the power of logical analysis is applicable everywhere, right? However, eventually I've realized that every profession / specialty has its own sets of assumptions and terminology that must be learned, and in the legal profession that set is HUGE. So yeah, get a lawyer - someone who knows that profession.
Ok, but what about the environmental effects of damning up a river? Sure, there's no pollution at the time of generation, but what about all of the land that has been substantially changed because what was once a mighty river is now a trickle?
Don't get me wrong - I'm all for hydro power. But "TNSTAAFL" - everything's got it price, and all of those costs need to be taken into consideration.
I think a better idea would be to use the same camera strategy as ATMs - have the cameras above the computers, facing the user. The user gets an iota of privacy (though not much more - they ARE in a public place, after all), and the cyber cafes get their security.
:)
I read the article, and I agree with Sills - the measure seems far too Big Brotherly. After all, one possible use of internet cafes is for those who cannot afford a computer or an internet connection (I don't know what the statistics are, but this seems plausible) - is privacy a right only for the "rich-enough" to have? You have a spectrum - the more money you have, the more privacy you can afford. Not enough money, not as much privacy. But there's a difference between "not a lot" and "none at all" - and, IMHO, this measure unnecessarily chooses the latter.
I'd rather see the cafes deal with these issues themselves - if they want to install security cameras & armed guards, let 'em. If they want to advertise "secure, private browsing", let them do that instead. Laissez-faire!
I always suspected Disney had some "secret connections"....
:)
The real question, is who's gonna win the fight to be Lucifer's right-hand demon? Personally, I think Darl could take both Eisner & Gates
You mean, Disney hired goatse.cx guy????
:-)
Won't somebody please think of THE CHILDREN????
That's not a fair analogy.
/.'ers claim it to be. Potentially deceiving, yes, but not an outright lie.
A better analogy is an "all you can eat buffet". The local diner advertises this, and you go there armed with your sleeping bag and a toothbrush. After all - they are advertising "all you can eat", right? Doesn't that mean you should be able to pay your $5.99 and eat for the rest of your life, as much as you can? That's what they are advertising, isn't it?
But, everyone knows its not REALLY all you can eat - it's all you can eat at a single sitting. So here, you are actually limited by time, not quantity (with the understanding that you can't increase current quantity to make up for future needs by sticking french bread in your laptop bag).
Besides being opposite, the only difference in broadband advertising is that not everyone understands the concept of access-time and bandwidth. Here, you can "eat" all month long, at any time - but you can only eat so much per month.
Note that I don't agree with the "our limits are secrets" schtick - I think that's foul. But unless an ad says "unlimited bandwidth" specifically, the "unlimited" moniker is not the bald-faced lie so many
No, not grow up and "take our beating like a man". It's "grow up and take responsibility for what we've done".
I agree friendship has to be earned - but that goes both ways. It's not "friendship" if you repeatedly beat and subvert your "friend" and then get high and mighty when your friend slaps you back. When that happens - we've got 2 options:
1. Hit back harder in the hopes you scare them into submission (which guarantees continued animosity)
2. Take the hard stance of humility and say "Alright, we've both had our digs - let's call a truce and work together"
Bush chose #1. I don't agree with his decision. But #2 is very difficult - how do you not violently react, while not giving the impression you are weak. It's walking away from a fight with your principles and nobility intact.
Obviously, terrorists won't just let us call a truce & walk away. But the "foreign policy" equivalent is to recognize how we contributed to that situation, and start making changes in our foreign policy. I'm not saying we can avoid conflict entirely (unfortunately), but a think reacting non-violently after 9/11 would have really helped strengthen our position as a global leader - we had everyone's sympathy at that point, and we could have forged some serious relationships to deal with terrorism on a global scale. Instead, we threw away their sympathy, dusted ourselves off, and kicked some arse. Now the world crowd is standing there looking disgustedly at us.
Just my $0.02 - it's a bad situation either way, and Monday-morning quarterbacking won't change it, but maybe we can better prepared if (God help us) there is ever a "next time".
That's a good point. Guilt can cause many an intelligent persons to do foolish things.
And, FWIW - I'm not advocating for or against outsourcing either way. I think some companies probably do it because its a smart move (ie for good, sound reasons), and I think other companies do it in a "me-too" fashion, hoping to catch some quick $$$ (ie bad reasons). I just get tired of people sitting around complaining instead of doing something about the source of their angst!
(And, I freely admit I do that too, though I'm trying to do less talking & more walking, in my own ways.)
Wow - wish I had mod points!
Brilliant post. I hope people in power start seeing visions like yours instead of visions of short-term $$$.
Insightful - indeed!
That's one of the hypocrisies that I find most disturbing aboout Americans (myself included). We're not willing to put our money where our mouth is.
"Down with cheap foreign labor! Down with outsourcing! (insert $protectionism_slogan)"
"Oh, but wait, we like the cheaper products - cheaper vehicles, cheaper produce, cheaper projects." We can't have it both ways - protectionism has its costs. Businesses go outside the US for manufacturing / IT / customer support because American consumers aren't willing to pay those costs. Until we are (or until we adapt & change our economy to fit the next Big Thing(tm)), we get stuck with our own hypocrisy.
Correction - technical education, *by itself*, is not the solution. It is only part.
The other part of the solution, like you said, is knowing the right people. That doesn't mean you know them right now; that means you may need some social education, too - how to "schmooze". It's a skill that most techies / geeks / programmers are not very good at. But it's just as important, if not moreso, than the technical education. You need EQ as well as IQ. If you've got both, and you're using both, there are jobs out there to be had.
I don't mean to insult the parent - I don't know anything about his or her personal situation or qualifications. But I do know that there are still companies hiring, even today. People can and are being hired, even as others are being laid off and "outsourced".
And who made you those promises, hmmm? Why don't you find the responsible parties & make them hold up their end of the bargain! Or sue for breach of contract ala SCO ;-)
Remember, in America all you are promised is the *pursuit* of happiness. You still have to find it yourself
Long, jumbled paragraph... And that's what I get for not using preview.
;-)
Oh well - I'm a newb, what can I say?
Wow - that's an impressive post! And, in my opinion - very well thought-out. Even in this down economy, places are hiring. When I joined with my employer last August, we were starting between 30-60 new people every month! We're still hiring today. But that doesn't mean we're hiring just anyone - the people who get hired have to really sell themselves and their qualifications. And be flexible enough to change & meet the demands of a changing industry. I like the article's parallels to the agriculture & manufacturing industries and the economic shifts we went through with those. Changes are tough, but our history shows us we can come out better for it in the end. Of course, it's easy for me to say that, because I'm currently gainfully employed. For my part, I am doing everything I can (like the parent poster suggested), to show my employer that I provide a positive net value to the company - that they are actually more valuable having me employed than hiring someone else or outsourcing the work completely.
Just War theory, huh? Oh yeah, I remember - that was Jesus's Sermon on the Mound, wasn't it? Something about how the righteous will rise up & kick the collective asses of those "sons of bitches"?
Oh, wait, no, that wasn't it? Well, at least Jesus didn't let that filthy whore get awa... er, wait, he *did* keep her from being stoned to death, didn't he? At least those Romans soldiers got what they deserved! Paul took off a terrorist's ear with his mighty sword! Oh, but, er, Jesus put it back on, didn't He?
I'll stop damning Christians when the damned stop pretending to be them.
If the US would keep its nose out of other countries' business, we wouldn't have all of the problems with terrorism that we now have. George Washington said it best: "Avoid foreign entanglements." Why don't Americans understand this??? This country (US) has such an aversion to taking responsibility for its actions it is sickening! <mode=whine>It can't be my fault, I'm a victim! He/she/it/they/the dog MADE me do it!</mode> Hmmm, let's see, we mettle in the affairs of the Middle East for a couple of decades, support coups and terrorists in the "war" on Communism, and then look around and wonder why we just got slapped by the pawns we've been manipulating? 9/11 was a terrible event - I don't argue that, and I pray for the people who lost their lives. But the US has displayed nothing but cowardice-in-bully's-clothing, feigning ignorance & innocence, in its handling of the aftermath. We (Americans) all just need to grow up!
I try to keep an open mind, I really do. But stuff like this just makes me sick. The US has just been flagrantly disregarding international law and conventions and flaunting it's muscle. I was scared about Bush's foreign policy (or lack thereof) when he was elected in 2000; I'm terribly disappointed to see that I had every right to be. November can't come soon enough!
Mod parent up!! I'm sooo sick & tired of self-proclaimed "Christians" who haven't the slightest CLUE what Christ actually taught.