It's not the same thing at all. I was not suggesting that Blair ask the people if they want an ID card. I am suggesting he say, "You are having an ID card, what would you like to see from such a system?"
For example, the recent fiasco over postal voting, and the inevitibility of online voting at some point in the future, could have prompted them to consider some form of digital certificate on the cards. I personally would be much more willing to accept them, if it meant I could replace some of the other cards I have to carry around. Why not have a small area for users to store information of their own choosing (on the card, not on the database). Such information could include; library number, video store number, student number, loyalty card numbers, and even e-cash.
I am not suggesting that the list above is finite or even appropriate, but surely giving the public things they see as useful would make the card more acceptable.
As to Blair risking things on the result of a vote, he has done it before, and I'm sure he will do it again, but you are right, and that is why I voted against Blair in the last election.
I don't think you can call this anglosaxon paranoia. Many polls have shown that the majority of people are actually in favour of the ID card system. However, there are also many who oppose it. Some of the concerns I have are:
If current methods of proving who we are are not good enough, then how can we use them to create a new secure system. If I can currently commit "identity fraud" and pretend to be someone else, what is to stop me registering for an ID card in their name?
The database will contain a record of every address you have lived in in the past even if it is not in the UK. Records of the deceased will also be maintained.
Any government department can request any information on the database.
Currently, when proving your identity you don't have to bring "a gas bill" as someone suggested, you have to bring multiple proofs of address from reputable organisations. The key here is MULTIPLE. The identity card and its associated database represents a single point of attack and hence a single point of failure.
The current bill before parliament has no mention of when citizens will be required to produce the cards or what they will be used for. The only thing it does say is the very general; prevent terrorism and identity theft.
The whole scheme seems ill thought out and rushed. If they were to actually ask the people what they wanted from a national ID system then they might gain better acceptance.
I don't see how legitimate concerns about a system that affects our future can be written off as Anglosaxon Paranoia.
£12.95 will get you a (Pcchips KT266A SKT A DDR266 ATA133 AGP Sound LAN USB 2.0 ATX Retail Box) ebuyer
This is not a recomendation of this particular motherboard, I simply took the item that was the top of the list. When you see something like this for this price it makes you wonder how they make their money. I know the quality is not great, it will probably die before too long, but thats not the point.
For that price how can someone make a motherboard that works even once?
This is ideal for certain applications. Environmental monitoring and remote metering are two technologies where dial-up modems are still used at speeds similar to this. These are prime candidates for upgrading to wireless. Despite their lack of publicity there are still thousands of low data rate products in use today. You could have 10s - 100s of these devices reporting to one local substation with a broadband connection to a main monitoring station somewhere else in the world.
Not everything has bandwidth requirements comparable to todays average internet connection.
It seems like the selling point of this product is its power consumption. Remote monitoring stations will have very limited power sources. Low power / Long range and high reliability are often more of a concern than high data rate.
I appreciate your comments, but I still don't think that this is entirely true
Two examples:
1) The British Press: Print story after story about the private lives of some poor person who happened to make a name for themselves. My belief is, and it doesn't sound to unreasonable, is that the stuff is printed because it sells. There is a demand for it. Remove the demand and the stories would disappear.
2) Smoking: Smoking is bad (I think most agree). But as long as there is a demand for tobacco, someone will keep making it. Someone will see a need and try and capitalise on it. Iff the need/desire for tobacco was to go away then no one would produce it. There would be zero benefit in doing so.
Now I agree that removing the desire for either of these two products is not necessarily right or easy. It is the same with kiddie porn. Eliminating the desire to abuse kids (yes removing the desire includes removing the desire of those daddies you talk of) would remove the cause of the abuse.
I was trying to make the point that blocking kiddie porn will not have the desired effect. I think you agree with me on this. But if no one wanted kiddie porn, even daddies, then there would be none.
First and foremost, I do not advocate kiddie porn in any way shape or form. But a law requiring ISPs to block such information is not the solution. It is all to typical of society today that we find a quick solution to a problem and ignore the underlying issue.
Blocking kiddie porn, will only result in people doing their best to bypass the blocking software. It becomes an ongoing battle.
Stopping people looking at kiddie porn will not stop their desires to get hold of it. Who knows how far people like this are prepared to go to get what they want.
We need to give these people help and education, not just drive them to other sources for their material.
If the software can identify the porn/sites to block the stuff, then surely people who look at it could be offered help. Tackle the problem at the source. Remove the kiddie porn and the problem doesn't go away, remove the desire for kiddie porn and you have solved the problem.
Yes I know this is advocating monitoring of what we look at but ultimately the ISPs know that already. But I believe it is a step towards a better solution than simply blocking.
On the subject of whitelist only solutions, I have been using tmda, http://tmda.net/ for about 6 months now. I have received no spam at all and the only messages that get stuck in the "pending" queue are newsletters which I haven't added to my whitelist.
I have been very impressed. In short it works by bouncing mail that is not delivered from an address in the whitelist. The bounce message gives the sender the chance to validate their email, confirming that they are infact a real person. When they do that, the mail is delivered and they are added to the whitelist so they are not bothered again.
Being a student, HDTV is a small part of that somewhat distant dream of a futuristic geek friendly home.
Yes there are those of us who regard the number of TV channels we can receive as a mark of our success. But there is one fairly obvious question: What are they going to show on all these channels?
1) Thousands of new, good quality, entertaining TV programs. - I should stop dreaming here.
2) Go the way of digital telivision and show repeats or shopping channels 24/7. - Nice idea, but there are two problems with this. Firstly the old classics will look just as good on standard analogue terestrial TV. Why would anyone pay the extra to get them on channel 1476 in HDTV. Secondly, there are only so many times you can watch a repeat of a Jerry Springer show. (Do they still show that on ITV2?)
3) More movies and more sport. These are two big success areas. But again, why HDTV? Won't the quality be the same (for 90% of things shown) on standard DVB.
I live in the UK where I make do with 5 TV channels. Even then, we are shown numerous repeats. Good programs are hard to find. Until they can give me a reason (GOOD TV) to pay for something with more channels, i'll stick with the 5 I've got.
I am looking at making such a system. Two methods that have been considerd are using a standard mobile phone and using a radio such as CB. Progress so far is slow, but looks promising.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not the same thing at all. I was not suggesting that Blair ask the people if they want an ID card. I am suggesting he say, "You are having an ID card, what would you like to see from such a system?"
For example, the recent fiasco over postal voting, and the inevitibility of online voting at some point in the future, could have prompted them to consider some form of digital certificate on the cards. I personally would be much more willing to accept them, if it meant I could replace some of the other cards I have to carry around. Why not have a small area for users to store information of their own choosing (on the card, not on the database). Such information could include; library number, video store number, student number, loyalty card numbers, and even e-cash.
I am not suggesting that the list above is finite or even appropriate, but surely giving the public things they see as useful would make the card more acceptable.
As to Blair risking things on the result of a vote, he has done it before, and I'm sure he will do it again, but you are right, and that is why I voted against Blair in the last election.
- If current methods of proving who we are are not good enough, then how can we use them to create a new secure system. If I can currently commit "identity fraud" and pretend to be someone else, what is to stop me registering for an ID card in their name?
- The database will contain a record of every address you have lived in in the past even if it is not in the UK. Records of the deceased will also be maintained.
- Any government department can request any information on the database.
- Currently, when proving your identity you don't have to bring "a gas bill" as someone suggested, you have to bring multiple proofs of address from reputable organisations. The key here is MULTIPLE. The identity card and its associated database represents a single point of attack and hence a single point of failure.
- The current bill before parliament has no mention of when citizens will be required to produce the cards or what they will be used for. The only thing it does say is the very general; prevent terrorism and identity theft.
- The whole scheme seems ill thought out and rushed. If they were to actually ask the people what they wanted from a national ID system then they might gain better acceptance.
I don't see how legitimate concerns about a system that affects our future can be written off as Anglosaxon Paranoia.£12.95 will get you a (Pcchips KT266A SKT A DDR266 ATA133 AGP Sound LAN USB 2.0 ATX Retail Box) ebuyer
This is not a recomendation of this particular motherboard, I simply took the item that was the top of the list. When you see something like this for this price it makes you wonder how they make their money. I know the quality is not great, it will probably die before too long, but thats not the point.
For that price how can someone make a motherboard that works even once?
This is ideal for certain applications. Environmental monitoring and remote metering are two technologies where dial-up modems are still used at speeds similar to this. These are prime candidates for upgrading to wireless. Despite their lack of publicity there are still thousands of low data rate products in use today. You could have 10s - 100s of these devices reporting to one local substation with a broadband connection to a main monitoring station somewhere else in the world.
Not everything has bandwidth requirements comparable to todays average internet connection.
It seems like the selling point of this product is its power consumption. Remote monitoring stations will have very limited power sources. Low power / Long range and high reliability are often more of a concern than high data rate.
I appreciate your comments, but I still don't think that this is entirely true
Two examples:
1) The British Press: Print story after story about the private lives of some poor person who happened to make a name for themselves. My belief is, and it doesn't sound to unreasonable, is that the stuff is printed because it sells. There is a demand for it. Remove the demand and the stories would disappear.
2) Smoking: Smoking is bad (I think most agree). But as long as there is a demand for tobacco, someone will keep making it. Someone will see a need and try and capitalise on it. Iff the need/desire for tobacco was to go away then no one would produce it. There would be zero benefit in doing so.
Now I agree that removing the desire for either of these two products is not necessarily right or easy. It is the same with kiddie porn. Eliminating the desire to abuse kids (yes removing the desire includes removing the desire of those daddies you talk of) would remove the cause of the abuse.
I was trying to make the point that blocking kiddie porn will not have the desired effect. I think you agree with me on this. But if no one wanted kiddie porn, even daddies, then there would be none.
First and foremost, I do not advocate kiddie porn in any way shape or form. But a law requiring ISPs to block such information is not the solution. It is all to typical of society today that we find a quick solution to a problem and ignore the underlying issue.
Blocking kiddie porn, will only result in people doing their best to bypass the blocking software. It becomes an ongoing battle.
Stopping people looking at kiddie porn will not stop their desires to get hold of it. Who knows how far people like this are prepared to go to get what they want.
We need to give these people help and education, not just drive them to other sources for their material.
If the software can identify the porn/sites to block the stuff, then surely people who look at it could be offered help. Tackle the problem at the source. Remove the kiddie porn and the problem doesn't go away, remove the desire for kiddie porn and you have solved the problem.
Yes I know this is advocating monitoring of what we look at but ultimately the ISPs know that already. But I believe it is a step towards a better solution than simply blocking.
On the subject of whitelist only solutions, I have been using tmda, http://tmda.net/ for about 6 months now. I have received no spam at all and the only messages that get stuck in the "pending" queue are newsletters which I haven't added to my whitelist.
I have been very impressed. In short it works by bouncing mail that is not delivered from an address in the whitelist. The bounce message gives the sender the chance to validate their email, confirming that they are infact a real person. When they do that, the mail is delivered and they are added to the whitelist so they are not bothered again.
Simple but effective
Being a student, HDTV is a small part of that somewhat distant dream of a futuristic geek friendly home.
Yes there are those of us who regard the number of TV channels we can receive as a mark of our success. But there is one fairly obvious question: What are they going to show on all these channels?
1) Thousands of new, good quality, entertaining TV programs. - I should stop dreaming here.
2) Go the way of digital telivision and show repeats or shopping channels 24/7. - Nice idea, but there are two problems with this. Firstly the old classics will look just as good on standard analogue terestrial TV. Why would anyone pay the extra to get them on channel 1476 in HDTV. Secondly, there are only so many times you can watch a repeat of a Jerry Springer show. (Do they still show that on ITV2?)
3) More movies and more sport. These are two big success areas. But again, why HDTV? Won't the quality be the same (for 90% of things shown) on standard DVB.
I live in the UK where I make do with 5 TV channels. Even then, we are shown numerous repeats. Good programs are hard to find. Until they can give me a reason (GOOD TV) to pay for something with more channels, i'll stick with the 5 I've got.
I am looking at making such a system. Two methods that have been considerd are using a standard mobile phone and using a radio such as CB. Progress so far is slow, but looks promising.