In order for the IRS to create a new secure/authentication system, they need a bill passed in Congress and signed by What's-His-Name telling them to do this. More importantly, they need an yearly appropriation for x years giving them the money to do this. This should take what, a couple-O-weeks on your time scale?
An alternative to producing said system in house, which I might add would require staffing and buying machines to produce said system, is to turn the effort over to private industry...presuming the bills mentioned above got passed and Congress didn't steal their money in year 2 for some shiny, useless object, say, a big, beautiful border wall. Let's look over the field, it cannot be a small company because they couldn't handle the work. The system will need proper security, proper backups, proper access restrictions, interfacing to state systems (last we checked, we had 50 states, Puerto Rico doesn't count after the last hurricane and the U.S. claiming it saw nothing), databases (hint: one giant database is too unwieldy), people to run the system, etc. And the extra staff will be wanting retirement plans, medical insurance, job security, etc. And given the Swiss cheese of our tax laws, that Swiss cheese will need to be imported into the system.
So which company or companies shall it be? Should we turn it over to Uncle Larry at Oracle, he'll steal Uncle Sam blind. How about IBM? Now that they are more of an Indian company, I cannot see that flying through the political minefield without getting its ass shot off. Microsoft? Yep, their middle name is security.
The people of American never go to vote on whether someone collecting and creating honey pots for criminals and "product" to sell regarding information. Government cannot be expected to be immediately on top of every stupid thing companies do. The right claims too much government interference (as long as it doesn't involve religion what whatever Trump is wanking off on these days), the left wants an authoritarian dictatorship which will punish every micro-aggression which they get to define.
"information security to be fixed by regulation". How would that work, exactly. You admitted you cannot tie it to prevailing technology because advances can make the technology obsolete. If you write something more blanket like, "Thou shalt not allow any information not entirely yours to leak" creates a Swiss cheese of a law which ambulance chasing lawyers will drive trucks through. And it would be so draconian that there is no hysteresis in the system of law governing information, that opens holes up just as much as weak rules do.
I too get a bit irritated about the "government" talk. When some one commits murder, do we say his/her family committed the murder? No, and the government is not some monolithic entity, it has many moving parts. The reason is because that's what Americans have demanded government do, and what companies have managed to sneak in to government functions. The Reagan push to "privatize" government made the problem worse.
Not entirely useless. If you have certain disabilities, they can be very useful. Old folks who have sudden problems can tell the voice thingy to call 911 or their doctor. For the rest of us, yeah, they probably are useless.
Maybe it works for Chinese publications. However, Chinese papers don't just get submitted to Chinese publications, they get submitted to journals and conferences outside China. It isn't easy reading a paper for review. Unless you are doing precisely similar research, you must learn enough about the research to know if it is good or not. I read a (Chinese) paper (written in English...well written English, I might add) on rings (mathematics). I'm not a ring theorist but I do know a bit of algebra. I decided I wouldn't just read the paper but track down every result. Marvelous paper except for the first theorem upon which all the rest were based. I couldn't prove it, and I tried hard. Many times papers do not include all the proofs because it would make the paper too long for publication or they are considered trivial in the field.
After writing and Latexing 15 pages of notes and proofs on the rest of the paper, I radioed back I wanted to see their proof of that theorem. What I got back was a reference and how it was a trivial conclusion from the reference. I found the reference and read it (yet another paper I had to read after tracking down and reading some of their previous refs). I couldn't see it. I radioed back I wanted to see an honest proof, not invocation to a Higher Authority. After 2 months, they retracted the paper. The total time from my first seeing the paper to that retraction was 8 months and several long days of my time....on one paper...
My point is that few reviewers are going to dig in their heels and properly review a paper, few have that kind of time. After that, I'll be damned if I'm not going to read another paper the same exact way. It will cost me in time, but I'll learn new things and maybe another piece of shit won't make it into a journal.
Whatever. Spying performs a perfectly fine function, preventing surprises and believing your biases. Think of it as data collection for a theory about the "other side". Would you rather Russia have no information about U.S. military programs? Those well-adjusted, non-paranoiac KBG retreads?
Statistics are your mathematical friend. Last we heard, critters other than humans were not digging up long buried hydrocarbons in statistically significant ways and dumping them into the atmosphere to catch those beautiful sun rays.
"People eventually saw that what they're told by media and politicians does not reflect what they experience."
Ever talk to WTC conspiracy "theorist". They will claim all sorts of things cannot be right in the official accounts. Easy example, they claim the fire wasn't hot enough to melt steel. Yes, but the heat need not equal the melting point for the steel fail, it only need get hot enough. Once pointed out, they simply move to something else they do not understand.
The basic conspiracy "theorist" works on the assumption, that if s/he doesn't understand the official explanation, then their alternative explanation must be the correct one.
Conspiracy "theorists" work their magic on a pop. that has no sense of numbers and statistics. So you can show the stats on people dying from guns by their own family, yet they'll persist in thinking they are somehow safer with a gun. The stats mean nothing to them.
C'mon, in the U.S. we let the public shoot anyone in the public. Hell, there's even a bill in Congress to allow silencers on guns. And you are worried about the government?
"every company has access to the same data as Equifax now" How do you figure? Do we know who exploited Equifax's alleged security? If it is the Chinese government, it would akin to an act of war to sell that information if the U.S. ever cottoned on to it.
Let's assume you aren't joking. How many people would have to be killed before some local with a gun takes out the gunman and you would then consider this a success of more guns? What, maybe 1 or 2. With modern weapons, you can easily kill 10 people before some idiot with his own weapon guns you down and manages to miss all the other people s/he wasn't aiming at.
The problem for the gun advocates is they campaigning for a minimum level of gun violence, yet they never tell us what that minimum level is, or how to keep normal people from buying guns, losing their minds, and then killing off a bunch of the rest of us. And if you have ever spent time with the mentally ill, you'd realize a good many of them can come off normal for everyday life. There's a percentage that will go all the way down the rat hole. Some will even take their medication on the way down.
I thought a congress critter getting his ass shot off would change the atmosphere on Capital Hill towards gun control. Nope, it only made the gun nuts stronger.
No, you need to check in with el Presidente Tweetie. He lauded IBM not so long ago for promising to create 25,000 new jobs in the U.S. It wasn't that he was too stupid to realize they were playing him, he got his sound bite and was a happy camper. His interest was no deeper.
You mistake IBM for an ongoing business concern. That's not the managers' job. The managers of IBM are only there to slowly eat the pig until its gone, then they'll move on to another pig.
No, it is the Conservatives who won't pay the cost of doing business. Pay some taxes, pay some workers...all grudgingly. Pay for fouling the environment? Nope, that's not them, they believe it is the environment's fault it got fouled. People taking it in the neck because of a fouled environment? They must be ungrateful bastards who don't want to work for a living, they should be honored to live in a fouled environment, sacrificing their kids' health if need be.
Yes, it means you are suspect because DHS will assume you are lying and sneakily posting messages to Twitter claiming el Presidente Tweetie's next tweet will accuse Kimmy of being a "poopyhead".
Hmmm...maybe we should have civics tests for everyone in order to be a citizen, to be repeated every 5 years in case they've forgotten, and they end upon retirement.
I can hear the gnashing of teeth by Conservatives and Libertards and Liberals right now. Conservatives: How dare you accuse me of being unamerican. Libertards: I am free to be stupid and not know how the Constitution works. Liberals: this is an attempt to suppress voting of minorities and poor people.
Slashdot Mirror
In order for the IRS to create a new secure/authentication system, they need a bill passed in Congress and signed by What's-His-Name telling them to do this. More importantly, they need an yearly appropriation for x years giving them the money to do this. This should take what, a couple-O-weeks on your time scale?
An alternative to producing said system in house, which I might add would require staffing and buying machines to produce said system, is to turn the effort over to private industry...presuming the bills mentioned above got passed and Congress didn't steal their money in year 2 for some shiny, useless object, say, a big, beautiful border wall. Let's look over the field, it cannot be a small company because they couldn't handle the work. The system will need proper security, proper backups, proper access restrictions, interfacing to state systems (last we checked, we had 50 states, Puerto Rico doesn't count after the last hurricane and the U.S. claiming it saw nothing), databases (hint: one giant database is too unwieldy), people to run the system, etc. And the extra staff will be wanting retirement plans, medical insurance, job security, etc. And given the Swiss cheese of our tax laws, that Swiss cheese will need to be imported into the system.
So which company or companies shall it be? Should we turn it over to Uncle Larry at Oracle, he'll steal Uncle Sam blind. How about IBM? Now that they are more of an Indian company, I cannot see that flying through the political minefield without getting its ass shot off. Microsoft? Yep, their middle name is security.
The people of American never go to vote on whether someone collecting and creating honey pots for criminals and "product" to sell regarding information. Government cannot be expected to be immediately on top of every stupid thing companies do. The right claims too much government interference (as long as it doesn't involve religion what whatever Trump is wanking off on these days), the left wants an authoritarian dictatorship which will punish every micro-aggression which they get to define.
"information security to be fixed by regulation". How would that work, exactly. You admitted you cannot tie it to prevailing technology because advances can make the technology obsolete. If you write something more blanket like, "Thou shalt not allow any information not entirely yours to leak" creates a Swiss cheese of a law which ambulance chasing lawyers will drive trucks through. And it would be so draconian that there is no hysteresis in the system of law governing information, that opens holes up just as much as weak rules do.
I too get a bit irritated about the "government" talk. When some one commits murder, do we say his/her family committed the murder? No, and the government is not some monolithic entity, it has many moving parts. The reason is because that's what Americans have demanded government do, and what companies have managed to sneak in to government functions. The Reagan push to "privatize" government made the problem worse.
Yes, throw the buggers in jail. Now please explain precisely under which law we will do this?
Errrr...because the company had no policies for checking security issues outside of a lone sysadmin?
You mean a 15 year old, racist, senile uncle...accuracy matters.
Not entirely useless. If you have certain disabilities, they can be very useful. Old folks who have sudden problems can tell the voice thingy to call 911 or their doctor. For the rest of us, yeah, they probably are useless.
Maybe it works for Chinese publications. However, Chinese papers don't just get submitted to Chinese publications, they get submitted to journals and conferences outside China. It isn't easy reading a paper for review. Unless you are doing precisely similar research, you must learn enough about the research to know if it is good or not. I read a (Chinese) paper (written in English...well written English, I might add) on rings (mathematics). I'm not a ring theorist but I do know a bit of algebra. I decided I wouldn't just read the paper but track down every result. Marvelous paper except for the first theorem upon which all the rest were based. I couldn't prove it, and I tried hard. Many times papers do not include all the proofs because it would make the paper too long for publication or they are considered trivial in the field.
After writing and Latexing 15 pages of notes and proofs on the rest of the paper, I radioed back I wanted to see their proof of that theorem. What I got back was a reference and how it was a trivial conclusion from the reference. I found the reference and read it (yet another paper I had to read after tracking down and reading some of their previous refs). I couldn't see it. I radioed back I wanted to see an honest proof, not invocation to a Higher Authority. After 2 months, they retracted the paper. The total time from my first seeing the paper to that retraction was 8 months and several long days of my time....on one paper...
My point is that few reviewers are going to dig in their heels and properly review a paper, few have that kind of time. After that, I'll be damned if I'm not going to read another paper the same exact way. It will cost me in time, but I'll learn new things and maybe another piece of shit won't make it into a journal.
The score (from http://www.politifact.com/trut...) as of 2015...counts deaths of Americans in America:
24: number of Americans killed by terrorism in the last decade
208,024: number of Americans killed by guns in the last decade
Whatever. Spying performs a perfectly fine function, preventing surprises and believing your biases. Think of it as data collection for a theory about the "other side". Would you rather Russia have no information about U.S. military programs? Those well-adjusted, non-paranoiac KBG retreads?
Statistics are your mathematical friend. Last we heard, critters other than humans were not digging up long buried hydrocarbons in statistically significant ways and dumping them into the atmosphere to catch those beautiful sun rays.
There are potentially pink unicorns as well.
"People eventually saw that what they're told by media and politicians does not reflect what they experience."
Ever talk to WTC conspiracy "theorist". They will claim all sorts of things cannot be right in the official accounts. Easy example, they claim the fire wasn't hot enough to melt steel. Yes, but the heat need not equal the melting point for the steel fail, it only need get hot enough. Once pointed out, they simply move to something else they do not understand.
The basic conspiracy "theorist" works on the assumption, that if s/he doesn't understand the official explanation, then their alternative explanation must be the correct one.
Conspiracy "theorists" work their magic on a pop. that has no sense of numbers and statistics. So you can show the stats on people dying from guns by their own family, yet they'll persist in thinking they are somehow safer with a gun. The stats mean nothing to them.
C'mon, in the U.S. we let the public shoot anyone in the public. Hell, there's even a bill in Congress to allow silencers on guns. And you are worried about the government?
"every company has access to the same data as Equifax now" How do you figure? Do we know who exploited Equifax's alleged security? If it is the Chinese government, it would akin to an act of war to sell that information if the U.S. ever cottoned on to it.
...bites the dust. Say hello to Uncle Larry and goodbye to your soul, Slack.
I thought Trump was a slug. This is getting very confusing.
Let's assume you aren't joking. How many people would have to be killed before some local with a gun takes out the gunman and you would then consider this a success of more guns? What, maybe 1 or 2. With modern weapons, you can easily kill 10 people before some idiot with his own weapon guns you down and manages to miss all the other people s/he wasn't aiming at.
The problem for the gun advocates is they campaigning for a minimum level of gun violence, yet they never tell us what that minimum level is, or how to keep normal people from buying guns, losing their minds, and then killing off a bunch of the rest of us. And if you have ever spent time with the mentally ill, you'd realize a good many of them can come off normal for everyday life. There's a percentage that will go all the way down the rat hole. Some will even take their medication on the way down.
I thought a congress critter getting his ass shot off would change the atmosphere on Capital Hill towards gun control. Nope, it only made the gun nuts stronger.
Damn, so no aliens, huh? The Greek guy with the electric hair will be disappointed.
No, you need to check in with el Presidente Tweetie. He lauded IBM not so long ago for promising to create 25,000 new jobs in the U.S. It wasn't that he was too stupid to realize they were playing him, he got his sound bite and was a happy camper. His interest was no deeper.
You mistake IBM for an ongoing business concern. That's not the managers' job. The managers of IBM are only there to slowly eat the pig until its gone, then they'll move on to another pig.
No, it is the Conservatives who won't pay the cost of doing business. Pay some taxes, pay some workers...all grudgingly. Pay for fouling the environment? Nope, that's not them, they believe it is the environment's fault it got fouled. People taking it in the neck because of a fouled environment? They must be ungrateful bastards who don't want to work for a living, they should be honored to live in a fouled environment, sacrificing their kids' health if need be.
Yes, it means you are suspect because DHS will assume you are lying and sneakily posting messages to Twitter claiming el Presidente Tweetie's next tweet will accuse Kimmy of being a "poopyhead".
Hmmm...maybe we should have civics tests for everyone in order to be a citizen, to be repeated every 5 years in case they've forgotten, and they end upon retirement.
I can hear the gnashing of teeth by Conservatives and Libertards and Liberals right now. Conservatives: How dare you accuse me of being unamerican. Libertards: I am free to be stupid and not know how the Constitution works. Liberals: this is an attempt to suppress voting of minorities and poor people.