I understand Estoppel and I think you are dead spot on about that. However, I am concerned over the fine lines of what they really are promising to cover vs this patent pledge. They can make all this jazz about how they cover everything (public statements) and only cover the API's to be used in a locked format and not when things are modified, for example. This would be the same problems that occurred with the Samba protocol information....where "sure, we'll give out the info...for 10 thousand dollars". Aka its technically legal, but its still abuse of the legal system.
Don't think that just because Estoppel is enforceable that there aren't ways to weasel around it with legalease. Keep your skeptic hat on, especially even a year or two from now.
Agreed. Even then, I think "minimal compliance" is a pretty significant phrase of its own. It's not "we made sure to be compliant", as most people do with standards, its "we're doing the absolute minimum to try to meet compliance". Enormous worlds of difference there. I mean in lieu of having a monopoly should not be absence of business sense. I mean if Microsoft made good products, innovated, lead the market, didn't abuse market power and still had a monopoly, nobody would be complaining. There are tons of businesses like that worldwide.
Here's what you're missing. There really is no choice almost anywhere period, and additionally where are these new telcos supposed to pop up when there's a franchise controlling the last line? Hell, wireless would work if enough people have it...its not exactly "Everyone" in that category yet. If it were mesh? hell yes./writes to local community who were too afraid to save money in that fashion yet again
I hear you there. People don't realize how bad nuclear families are....if you have kids but are domestic, you don't sign on things together either. People live in this 1950's "lets get married and have a SO + kids together"...get tied down, get screwed. I'm sure maybe a girl one day will motivated me to get married but I'd certainly prefer a domestic partnership that is not legally bound or something...at least you have LESS to worry about like that, although not "nothing to worry about".
I don't know how divorce goes in bankruptcy but I am amazed that the stay was a year. I've heard of 2,3,5 months but from what I hear a year is rare. Of course that's what SCO is aiming for, no doubt.
Go look at groklaw for SCO's case. SCO did it intentionally, however, it's not a delay tactic. It's common bankruptcy law. Cases are put on hold unless there is a reason pleaded to the bankruptcy judge that the BK (bankruptcy) judge accepts to allow it to go forward...this in itself can be allowed at times to determine amounts owed.
However, note that all BK is allowed with the expectations to both a: get out of BK as fast as possible if possible, and b: if not possible, liquidate/pay off your creditors to the fullest of the assets that the bankrupt company has(the total liquidation kind of bankruptcy...whether that's 11 or 7, I forgot). Bankruptcy moves forward very quickly. If you stall, they can force you to appoint people to help you get back on your feet (and manage your money) well enough to get out of BK. This is not something about to be delayed multiple years. Additionally, once you hit BK, you cannot spend any money without court approval at all. So their finances are going to be open regardless of whether lucas is actually factual about the "we agreed to see their financials and they aren't showing us".
What's more likely is either a: Gencon's pulling a fast one or b: Gencon never read over a ton of legal fine print that fucked them over bigtime...there are ways to fight this in court, it's not common or easy. However, I don't get how Lucas is suing for anything with make a wish foundation. They don't represent them, and don't own them, so thats basically all bullshit. If Gencon gets a smart lawyer regardless of what they did, they'll have that dropped before it even comes to trial, as well as any false evidence.
IANAL but I read a lot on law, and study it (and bankruptcy books - family members are credit analysts) quite a bit.
Its a "to be determined 500k" meaning they don't know that it's accurate. I don't know what Gencon did/didn't do, but bankruptcy stays any legal matters....therefore, until they get out of bankruptcy (or judge allows the case to move forward), Gencon gets a get out of jail free (temporarily).
I know I'm late here, but can someone check the ties of this company that is the patent troll? I'd be really curious to find out who is playing puppet behind them getting them to litigate in this case.
It's not truly a buyout. However, it is not uncommon in bankruptcy for a company to take out a new loan that is used to pay off all the old ones (aka consolidate loans). In this situation its kinda shady how they're doing it, because they're trying to save Darl from being responsible for everything...that is the bigger kicker here if this actually goes through, not just the money infusion.
I do understand what you mean, but what else can you call charging people extra money? (not really intending to argue that, merely as a loose statement).
However, if I remember what has been said in many situations, I believe someone said that "what the public at large does, can define the law itself". AKA no matter what you do people are going to get their music from downloads that they don't pay for, whether thats supported by the artists themselves or not. Old rule of "1 copy hits the internet and now everyone can get it". This is not a new argument, I believe the same was the issue when decisions were made to broadcast radio at a lower quality than CD so that it wouldn't be "as good as a cd", which before that was the whole "we're not going to build radios with recording capability"....I remember reading about that argument when that came around too.
Now, there are already legal options, and they themselves are acceptable to some people (Itunes, amazon music, etc.) However, people should have control of their own money. I have vowed for a long time to never support an artist except directly. Regardless of my personal views. what do you do if the public at large refuses the blanket licensing idea? What do you do if a portion of the public at large refuses the idea (significant enough)? If I recall even now the only person getting the cash cow of the blanket idea which is done in canada IIRC is being part of the big music labels. Do non-corporate artists get a share of this money from blanket licensing?
Nobody said they can't make money off album sales, its just an album itself is not going to fit as an ongoing permanent business model. You're selling something that has a scarcity, and once the demand is gone, then what? Nobody is obligated to buy any cd. You're going to have to come up with something to increase your revenue. Continuing to do the same thing will just let things slide. I'm saying nobody has to make money off album sales, and a majority of artists make far more money off touring/concerts. I would imagine a part of that is attributed to the fact that the labels own and control how much royalty is given to the artists on large labels.
Says who? sure. How about the US version: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."" That's the US equivalent, but if you want I'm sure there's an EU one, otherwise there wouldn't be copyright. Even bad and bullshit laws have to have a reasoning behind them.
So we give you something, for a limited time, so that we promote progress of science and arts (aka we give you some money, so that next time you make more money by making more things). As said above. LIMITED TIME.
Also, chairs and music are not the same. Chairs are physical, and music is not necessarily. Where's an apples to apples comparison? Fact is, chairs can be copied, and a copyright does not stop people from making the same thing as you in their own way or improving it. You don't own a copyright on "the chair"Patent and copyright are different situations.
Additionally, no. People are not forced to pay for anything, whatsoever. You aren't forced to pay for gasoline. Thats the beauty of capitalism. Your money can be used in any way you choose. Paying for which necessities with which money is once again, not an apples to apples comparison. You aren't forced to support any gas company either, for example. Stealing is its own thing completely unrelated. Saying people have to pay for gas is like saying people have to pay for a CD because XYZ person says so. No, not in any economy on the planet, are people in such a situation. There are taxes, but there are not "Forced expenditures".
Oh, and with a house as you came up with, you don't own it. Just because you own the house doesn't mean you own the land. Just like how artists unknowingly give up their rights to an album and its more than likely scooped up by a large record company. Once again another not equal comparison here. Just because you sold your music 50 years ago doesn't mean you deserve new money off it if you fail to come up with a reason for people to give you the money. Being that 90% of all consumers or so, worldwide, generally are happy to give up their money, if you fail to find a way to justify new money then that is just fail.
If you're smart with money, once you have some, you can simply make more with investing. Make that few million and if you're smart you can simply make more at that point.
Musicians don't live 95 years after their music is created. Are you saying that just because you make the next big hit song now, that you, your children, and your children's children should be able to live off your success without having to do something smart with it on order to keep it? No, no support of nepotism caused as a result of this, Thanks.
You may as well say you deserve a copyright forever. If you do so, you'll come up with nothing new, and eventually your profits are going to die off and so will your business. The only thing you can own is what is in your hands. Anything not in your hands, you cannot feasibly own forever in any definition. By context, the minute an idea or thought leaves your head, it is no longer solely owned by yourself.
The kind that has a lot of talk and publicity, but no action. Notice there is nothing written, nothing formal, nothing introduced into the bankruptcy court as of yet. Therefore, don't hold your breath.
so basically its not free. Not a surprise there. Also means its not going to generate any more business than the current plan does, which is not exactly extravagant I'm sure. I guess it's going to be a while before they figure out that catering to customers is a good thing.
And whose fault is it if they don't want to tour? Not ours? Not our job to supply someone else's income, you know. Whose fault is it they failed to make a product that gives people a reason to want to pay for it? This is why people fail businesses lately, and I have no sympathy for that.
There are plenty of people who make their own CD and bootleg copies of it to make a living for example. Technobrega in Brazil is a great example of that. You're disputing how Much people should be paid for it, not if they should or not.
People are paid for their work in a variety of fashions. You could sell it anywhere. The key word there is in some form you have to sell your music. Just because you made it in the past doesn't entitle you to be paid for it in the future unless you figure out how to sell it.
The intent of copyright is to create a reason for innovation. When you have no financial incentive to create more things, where are you to say that there is innovation? When a DJ wants to mix your song but can't because you won't give him rights (or even royalties, or not enough royalties), are you "protecting your rights" or stifling innovation?
I don't think blanket licensing will work. For one, the original problem comes into place in doing so: you're saying that every single person who is put into blanket licensing is an illegal file sharer. That is not ever necessarily the case. Additionally, they don't deserve money for that either.
It is for this reason if they ever tried to do that blanket licensing in the US, people would sue pretty quickly. Just being put into a "Blanket license" doesn't imply legal indemnification. In fact, its literally like saying "you're doing an illegal act and this is compensation" on some levels. I'm sure they'd have a clause like "You agree to arbitration" or "you waive all rights to sue" just by a consumer being put into that blanket too.
People need to watch for these kinds of shady legal issues going on, I'm glad a light is being shined on this work from the ISP side....the ISP is 100% right in asking for not being forced to be responsible. I don't know how the UK treats a situation where someone tries to prevent legal recourse, though, and IANAL.
As someone said above, if you have a VOIP phone and they cancelled the internet DMCA style due to RIAA saying what you're doing is illegal, guess who would be sued? ISP. Is there any way for the RIAA to offer indemnification from this? Surely they can maybe offer the ISP's compensation, but there is no way to accept indemnification without allowing thesmeves to be held responsible.
Hey, I get what you mean. My concerns are the same as that article about RSA though (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSA#Practical_considerations) . These were the ones that I had in mind. Aren't those methods not exactly foolproof? If information can be gathered, then what? I see 8 different ways listed in the article you provided with which can provide methods to get around the security token. None of which appear impossible to set up with small levels of preparation (compromised machines, man in the middle, it looks like a pretty good sized amount of options available)... the whole "security is not perfect" idea.
To clarify, I'm not saying X random person is going to be randomly compromised. I imagine the level of human error is a bigger compromise than an encryption method in general. However, who can truly say that they think absolutely any method of data protection is ever not going to be figured out? Honestly now.
Catastophe is not defined in any clear capacity. "(b) "Catastrophic Emergency" means any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions;"
So tell me, is there anything you cannot fit under this? Lets take it apart phrase by phrase 1: any incident (wow, thats defined.) 2: regardless of location (outside the US, inside the US, doesn't matter huh?) 3: extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption (also, not specified. Mass casualties can be 2 people, damage can be 1 house, or disruption can be a town-wide power blackout. There is no clarification, and by the time this is advocated the president has 30 days to play war as he feels). 4: severely affecting the US population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions (note: these things are not affected by options necessarily domestic. Do you understand why "homeland security" overseeing this might be a problem?)
So basically, for any reason, any where, we can declare this. Remember in the legal system things are word for word. I hate this but from a legal perspective there is absolutely nothing that cannot be claimed whether those sentences are linked or separate. Show me anything, anything at all that can't be labeled under those....oh wait, I've got a nice scapegoat for it. Guess what it might be? Terrorism maybe? . Name one way that you couldn't claim that because the sky is blue our economy is affected by anything, because truth is that everything worldwide affects our economy and the rest of the worlds. That is why it's a global economy, no matter how we look at it we do not only have "domestic economy".
Now, hmmm....want to continue? Before you get into any "what can be done", lets get into "what can trigger this directive", as clarified above. Definitions are far more important in a legal situation.
Or do you not remember about the appeal going on and the big issue with "making available". Sound familiar? Sound like legal dancing? I'm not saying RIAA = Bush, I'm saying the same legal strategy of careful wording applies. Law can only follow the rules it is created upon. Law does not define itself, which is why we have different branches of government to balance eachother out. If you are following the rules which they are forced to follow, they can't just say "I oppose on moral grounds, therefore you cannot do XYZ". That is why justice is supposed to be (ideally) impartial and fair. They could declare it unconstitutional, but then we get into the 30 days minimum issue and that DHS is allowed to ensure following of this presidential directive, and I'm sure you know that the department for homeland security has done a wonderful job lately.
No, I don't want nor do I wear a tinfoil hat. But sheesh, you know, this stuff's kinda important.
You sir, have posted the biggest reply I've ever seen due to a double post. I am not even going to try to reply to that much:P with that said I understand your viewpoint and we simply disagree, although I do appreciate well thought out replies.
I guess what I'm asking is this. I'm not trying to play a "you're right/wrong" as I'd be guessing you know more than the basic knowledge I have of MAC ID's and not trying to compete anyway. But what I means is if this is similar in ideas to a MAC ID and how a MAC ID can itself be faked, wouldn't faking the hardware for this new "open ID verification" create new vulnerabilities?
I say this because of things like hardware virtualization that will be required to be emulate this hardware...wouldn't that open the chance to be imitated and thus cracked?
Mac ID can easily be spoofed, thus challenges = fail. Even the wikipedia says that . I know there's software and also hardware Mac-ID imitators....I'll try to dig out the link for the hardware ones later.
Slashdot Mirror
I understand Estoppel and I think you are dead spot on about that. However, I am concerned over the fine lines of what they really are promising to cover vs this patent pledge. They can make all this jazz about how they cover everything (public statements) and only cover the API's to be used in a locked format and not when things are modified, for example. This would be the same problems that occurred with the Samba protocol information....where "sure, we'll give out the info...for 10 thousand dollars". Aka its technically legal, but its still abuse of the legal system.
Don't think that just because Estoppel is enforceable that there aren't ways to weasel around it with legalease. Keep your skeptic hat on, especially even a year or two from now.
Agreed. Even then, I think "minimal compliance" is a pretty significant phrase of its own. It's not "we made sure to be compliant", as most people do with standards, its "we're doing the absolute minimum to try to meet compliance". Enormous worlds of difference there.
I mean in lieu of having a monopoly should not be absence of business sense. I mean if Microsoft made good products, innovated, lead the market, didn't abuse market power and still had a monopoly, nobody would be complaining. There are tons of businesses like that worldwide.
Department of homeland security's response: "Unleash the ninjas!"
Is a video about how to falsify being an expert witness considered even legal? Or does it open a new can of worms on that front.
Here's what you're missing. There really is no choice almost anywhere period, and additionally where are these new telcos supposed to pop up when there's a franchise controlling the last line? Hell, wireless would work if enough people have it...its not exactly "Everyone" in that category yet. If it were mesh? hell yes. /writes to local community who were too afraid to save money in that fashion yet again
I hear you there. People don't realize how bad nuclear families are....if you have kids but are domestic, you don't sign on things together either. People live in this 1950's "lets get married and have a SO + kids together"...get tied down, get screwed. I'm sure maybe a girl one day will motivated me to get married but I'd certainly prefer a domestic partnership that is not legally bound or something...at least you have LESS to worry about like that, although not "nothing to worry about".
I don't know how divorce goes in bankruptcy but I am amazed that the stay was a year. I've heard of 2,3,5 months but from what I hear a year is rare. Of course that's what SCO is aiming for, no doubt.
Go look at groklaw for SCO's case. SCO did it intentionally, however, it's not a delay tactic. It's common bankruptcy law. Cases are put on hold unless there is a reason pleaded to the bankruptcy judge that the BK (bankruptcy) judge accepts to allow it to go forward...this in itself can be allowed at times to determine amounts owed.
However, note that all BK is allowed with the expectations to both a: get out of BK as fast as possible if possible, and b: if not possible, liquidate/pay off your creditors to the fullest of the assets that the bankrupt company has(the total liquidation kind of bankruptcy...whether that's 11 or 7, I forgot). Bankruptcy moves forward very quickly. If you stall, they can force you to appoint people to help you get back on your feet (and manage your money) well enough to get out of BK. This is not something about to be delayed multiple years. Additionally, once you hit BK, you cannot spend any money without court approval at all. So their finances are going to be open regardless of whether lucas is actually factual about the "we agreed to see their financials and they aren't showing us".
What's more likely is either a: Gencon's pulling a fast one or b: Gencon never read over a ton of legal fine print that fucked them over bigtime...there are ways to fight this in court, it's not common or easy. However, I don't get how Lucas is suing for anything with make a wish foundation. They don't represent them, and don't own them, so thats basically all bullshit. If Gencon gets a smart lawyer regardless of what they did, they'll have that dropped before it even comes to trial, as well as any false evidence.
IANAL but I read a lot on law, and study it (and bankruptcy books - family members are credit analysts) quite a bit.
FYI,
Its a "to be determined 500k" meaning they don't know that it's accurate. I don't know what Gencon did/didn't do, but bankruptcy stays any legal matters....therefore, until they get out of bankruptcy (or judge allows the case to move forward), Gencon gets a get out of jail free (temporarily).
I know I'm late here, but can someone check the ties of this company that is the patent troll? I'd be really curious to find out who is playing puppet behind them getting them to litigate in this case.
It's not truly a buyout. However, it is not uncommon in bankruptcy for a company to take out a new loan that is used to pay off all the old ones (aka consolidate loans). In this situation its kinda shady how they're doing it, because they're trying to save Darl from being responsible for everything...that is the bigger kicker here if this actually goes through, not just the money infusion.
Remind me again who puts the pictures up that ended up on google's site, and whose responsibility they are again?
Additionally, remind me whose responsibility it is to make sure children don't see adult entertainment?
Ha, new phrase:
Won't someone please think of the parents?
If it doesn't then why would they even establish a limit for their copyright? They'd be going against their own law.
I do understand what you mean, but what else can you call charging people extra money? (not really intending to argue that, merely as a loose statement).
However, if I remember what has been said in many situations, I believe someone said that "what the public at large does, can define the law itself". AKA no matter what you do people are going to get their music from downloads that they don't pay for, whether thats supported by the artists themselves or not. Old rule of "1 copy hits the internet and now everyone can get it". This is not a new argument, I believe the same was the issue when decisions were made to broadcast radio at a lower quality than CD so that it wouldn't be "as good as a cd", which before that was the whole "we're not going to build radios with recording capability"....I remember reading about that argument when that came around too.
Now, there are already legal options, and they themselves are acceptable to some people (Itunes, amazon music, etc.) However, people should have control of their own money. I have vowed for a long time to never support an artist except directly. Regardless of my personal views. what do you do if the public at large refuses the blanket licensing idea? What do you do if a portion of the public at large refuses the idea (significant enough)? If I recall even now the only person getting the cash cow of the blanket idea which is done in canada IIRC is being part of the big music labels. Do non-corporate artists get a share of this money from blanket licensing?
Nobody said they can't make money off album sales, its just an album itself is not going to fit as an ongoing permanent business model. You're selling something that has a scarcity, and once the demand is gone, then what? Nobody is obligated to buy any cd. You're going to have to come up with something to increase your revenue. Continuing to do the same thing will just let things slide. I'm saying nobody has to make money off album sales, and a majority of artists make far more money off touring/concerts. I would imagine a part of that is attributed to the fact that the labels own and control how much royalty is given to the artists on large labels.
Says who? sure. How about the US version: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."" That's the US equivalent, but if you want I'm sure there's an EU one, otherwise there wouldn't be copyright. Even bad and bullshit laws have to have a reasoning behind them.
So we give you something, for a limited time, so that we promote progress of science and arts (aka we give you some money, so that next time you make more money by making more things). As said above. LIMITED TIME.
Also, chairs and music are not the same. Chairs are physical, and music is not necessarily. Where's an apples to apples comparison? Fact is, chairs can be copied, and a copyright does not stop people from making the same thing as you in their own way or improving it. You don't own a copyright on "the chair"Patent and copyright are different situations.
Additionally, no. People are not forced to pay for anything, whatsoever. You aren't forced to pay for gasoline. Thats the beauty of capitalism. Your money can be used in any way you choose. Paying for which necessities with which money is once again, not an apples to apples comparison. You aren't forced to support any gas company either, for example. Stealing is its own thing completely unrelated. Saying people have to pay for gas is like saying people have to pay for a CD because XYZ person says so. No, not in any economy on the planet, are people in such a situation. There are taxes, but there are not "Forced expenditures".
Oh, and with a house as you came up with, you don't own it. Just because you own the house doesn't mean you own the land. Just like how artists unknowingly give up their rights to an album and its more than likely scooped up by a large record company. Once again another not equal comparison here. Just because you sold your music 50 years ago doesn't mean you deserve new money off it if you fail to come up with a reason for people to give you the money. Being that 90% of all consumers or so, worldwide, generally are happy to give up their money, if you fail to find a way to justify new money then that is just fail.
If you're smart with money, once you have some, you can simply make more with investing. Make that few million and if you're smart you can simply make more at that point.
Musicians don't live 95 years after their music is created. Are you saying that just because you make the next big hit song now, that you, your children, and your children's children should be able to live off your success without having to do something smart with it on order to keep it? No, no support of nepotism caused as a result of this, Thanks.
You may as well say you deserve a copyright forever. If you do so, you'll come up with nothing new, and eventually your profits are going to die off and so will your business. The only thing you can own is what is in your hands. Anything not in your hands, you cannot feasibly own forever in any definition. By context, the minute an idea or thought leaves your head, it is no longer solely owned by yourself.
The kind that has a lot of talk and publicity, but no action. Notice there is nothing written, nothing formal, nothing introduced into the bankruptcy court as of yet. Therefore, don't hold your breath.
so basically its not free. Not a surprise there. Also means its not going to generate any more business than the current plan does, which is not exactly extravagant I'm sure. I guess it's going to be a while before they figure out that catering to customers is a good thing.
And whose fault is it if they don't want to tour? Not ours? Not our job to supply someone else's income, you know. Whose fault is it they failed to make a product that gives people a reason to want to pay for it? This is why people fail businesses lately, and I have no sympathy for that.
There are plenty of people who make their own CD and bootleg copies of it to make a living for example. Technobrega in Brazil is a great example of that. You're disputing how Much people should be paid for it, not if they should or not.
People are paid for their work in a variety of fashions. You could sell it anywhere. The key word there is in some form you have to sell your music. Just because you made it in the past doesn't entitle you to be paid for it in the future unless you figure out how to sell it.
The intent of copyright is to create a reason for innovation. When you have no financial incentive to create more things, where are you to say that there is innovation?
When a DJ wants to mix your song but can't because you won't give him rights (or even royalties, or not enough royalties), are you "protecting your rights" or stifling innovation?
I don't think blanket licensing will work. For one, the original problem comes into place in doing so: you're saying that every single person who is put into blanket licensing is an illegal file sharer. That is not ever necessarily the case. Additionally, they don't deserve money for that either.
It is for this reason if they ever tried to do that blanket licensing in the US, people would sue pretty quickly. Just being put into a "Blanket license" doesn't imply legal indemnification. In fact, its literally like saying "you're doing an illegal act and this is compensation" on some levels. I'm sure they'd have a clause like "You agree to arbitration" or "you waive all rights to sue" just by a consumer being put into that blanket too.
People need to watch for these kinds of shady legal issues going on, I'm glad a light is being shined on this work from the ISP side....the ISP is 100% right in asking for not being forced to be responsible. I don't know how the UK treats a situation where someone tries to prevent legal recourse, though, and IANAL.
As someone said above, if you have a VOIP phone and they cancelled the internet DMCA style due to RIAA saying what you're doing is illegal, guess who would be sued? ISP. Is there any way for the RIAA to offer indemnification from this? Surely they can maybe offer the ISP's compensation, but there is no way to accept indemnification without allowing thesmeves to be held responsible.
No, independent and established music artists both make their scratch from concerts, not album sales.
Go ask how much Chicago indie bands make at the double door and metro, I assure you they are not scrounging bottom bin for money.
Fixed it for you.
Hey, I get what you mean. My concerns are the same as that article about RSA though (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSA#Practical_considerations) . These were the ones that I had in mind. Aren't those methods not exactly foolproof? If information can be gathered, then what? I see 8 different ways listed in the article you provided with which can provide methods to get around the security token. None of which appear impossible to set up with small levels of preparation (compromised machines, man in the middle, it looks like a pretty good sized amount of options available)... the whole "security is not perfect" idea.
To clarify, I'm not saying X random person is going to be randomly compromised. I imagine the level of human error is a bigger compromise than an encryption method in general. However, who can truly say that they think absolutely any method of data protection is ever not going to be figured out? Honestly now.
Problem 1:
Catastophe is not defined in any clear capacity. "(b) "Catastrophic Emergency" means any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions;"
So tell me, is there anything you cannot fit under this? Lets take it apart phrase by phrase
1: any incident (wow, thats defined.)
2: regardless of location (outside the US, inside the US, doesn't matter huh?)
3: extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption (also, not specified. Mass casualties can be 2 people, damage can be 1 house, or disruption can be a town-wide power blackout. There is no clarification, and by the time this is advocated the president has 30 days to play war as he feels).
4: severely affecting the US population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions (note: these things are not affected by options necessarily domestic. Do you understand why "homeland security" overseeing this might be a problem?)
So basically, for any reason, any where, we can declare this. Remember in the legal system things are word for word. I hate this but from a legal perspective there is absolutely nothing that cannot be claimed whether those sentences are linked or separate. Show me anything, anything at all that can't be labeled under those....oh wait, I've got a nice scapegoat for it. Guess what it might be? Terrorism maybe? . Name one way that you couldn't claim that because the sky is blue our economy is affected by anything, because truth is that everything worldwide affects our economy and the rest of the worlds. That is why it's a global economy, no matter how we look at it we do not only have "domestic economy".
Now, hmmm....want to continue? Before you get into any "what can be done", lets get into "what can trigger this directive", as clarified above. Definitions are far more important in a legal situation.
Or do you not remember about the appeal going on and the big issue with "making available". Sound familiar? Sound like legal dancing? I'm not saying RIAA = Bush, I'm saying the same legal strategy of careful wording applies. Law can only follow the rules it is created upon. Law does not define itself, which is why we have different branches of government to balance eachother out. If you are following the rules which they are forced to follow, they can't just say "I oppose on moral grounds, therefore you cannot do XYZ". That is why justice is supposed to be (ideally) impartial and fair. They could declare it unconstitutional, but then we get into the 30 days minimum issue and that DHS is allowed to ensure following of this presidential directive, and I'm sure you know that the department for homeland security has done a wonderful job lately.
No, I don't want nor do I wear a tinfoil hat. But sheesh, you know, this stuff's kinda important.
You sir, have posted the biggest reply I've ever seen due to a double post. I am not even going to try to reply to that much :P with that said I understand your viewpoint and we simply disagree, although I do appreciate well thought out replies.
I guess what I'm asking is this. I'm not trying to play a "you're right/wrong" as I'd be guessing you know more than the basic knowledge I have of MAC ID's and not trying to compete anyway. But what I means is if this is similar in ideas to a MAC ID and how a MAC ID can itself be faked, wouldn't faking the hardware for this new "open ID verification" create new vulnerabilities?
I say this because of things like hardware virtualization that will be required to be emulate this hardware...wouldn't that open the chance to be imitated and thus cracked?
Mac ID can easily be spoofed, thus challenges = fail. Even the wikipedia says that . I know there's software and also hardware Mac-ID imitators....I'll try to dig out the link for the hardware ones later.
http://wirelessdefence.org/Contents/MAC%20Address%20Changer.htm that's one example, or:
http://amac.paqtool.com/mac-address-spoofing.htm