I completely reject the concept that I have to show anything I invent to ANYONE. Ultimately I always have the right and ability to destroy any writings, calculations or code that I author before I show it to anyone.
Of course. But the question is, what rights should you have once the cat is out of the bag, so to speak.
When examining bids from contractors/subcontractors on construction projects, an important consideration is "how close are the bids?". When the bids are close, it means the bidders are reading the bid documents the same way. When they diverge greatly, it means there is a lot of confusion about the scope of work.
Similarly here, I think that seeing the performance of these two OS's tracking so closely might indicate a corresponding agreement about how to approach various OS problems.
But I really have no idea. Is this true? I don't know anything about the finer details of how these two systems operate. How similar are they, really?
Your rights as a consumer may be very different than your rights as a distributer. Think about the word "copyright" for just a minute, and what it means.
And yes, art and software/are/ different. Even the inimitable RMS is careful to make that distinction.
So you've got a puritanical bug up your ass, and you cut out the nudity. But wait! There's some essential dialog in that bedroom scene that ties the whole plot together! What do you do?
I'm sure we can all do without Jar-Jar, no matter what he says, but in general, I can't see this working. Just who are these talented editors, who will cut and snip the patient so well that no one will even know surgery took place?
I told my mother to watch the movie "Brazil" when it was on television some years back. You know what they did? They chepped the ending, to make it a happy one!
How many copyright holders are going to agree to publishing their art in this bastardized format? The opportunistic greedy ones, like Sony et al, will be delighted, I'm sure. And an ugly mess it will be.
From "Brazil":
Dr Jaffe: "Can you believe it?! Just me and my little knife! Snip - snip - slice - slice - Can you believe it?"
and elsewhere:
Mrs Terrain: "My complication had a complication, but Dr. Chapman says I'll soon be up and bouncing about like a young gazelle."
GNOME's original purpose was to support the principle of software freedom. From GNOME's own website: GNOME is part of the GNU project, and is free software.
Daniel Veillard's message is interesting. "...act on behalf of all GNOME contributors in the best interest of GNOME." Nowhere, however, does he attempt to clarify what this means. What is "in the best interest of GNOME?" That could mean a lot of things. For those infected by shareholder syndrome, it simply means making as much money as possible. I'm not saying that's the case here, but Daniel's silence doesn't reassure me otherwise.
Who's eating who's lunch here? RMS for doing what he can to steer the project back to its founding principles, or those who would hijack the code and run?
...I still think in the long run having him on the board will be bad for GNOME.
Another way of putting this would be to say "If GNOME moves to support proprietary software, that would be bad for GNU." Does anyone happen to recall that GNOME began as free alternative to proprietary desktops?
You make a good point: namely that Gnome was created as free alternative to non-free desktops. But you don't really explain how you come to your conclusion. If Gnome exists because people want a free desktop, it would seem more probable that Gnome would suffer, not GNU, if their focus changes. There are plenty of non-free desktops already. I don't think Gnome ranks very high among those who select their desktop applications for purely pragmatic reasons.
Here's my little pet theory about why Larry and his bedfellows are so interested in this venture.
Everybody has a social security number. Look at your social security card. It's a piece of cheap paper that you could print yourself. Driver's licenses are more difficult to duplicate. But not so difficult that you'd entrust them for highly secure transactions. What's the point? Let's call a spade a spade. Another work for what we're talking about is authentication. Are you who you say you are? Something you have, something you are, something you know - the triptych of secure authentication. Give everyone a card with their picture on it, containing a unique code, with a PIN. What a sly dog, Lawrence. Good way to beat William to the punch, you good samaritan humanitarian, you.
Exactly. I generally lean to the libertarian left, but where this issue is concerned, I really don't get the hubbub.
It's all about databases. If you have a bunch of ID's, you need to correlate them in order to query across different recordsets. That's a pain in the butt. Basically, as far as I can tell, the anti national ID crowd simply wants to make it difficult for the state trooper to look up your travel history when he's sitting back in his car writing you up for speeding through Missouri.
That may be a noble cause, but it's misguided. It's misguided, because correlating these different recordsets will happen anyway. It's a pain, but to the extent it hasn't already happened, it will. Your tax dollars will (and are) pay(ing) for it. A national ID system would untangle this mess.
In other words, not having a national ID system doesn't prevent anything from happening that isn't happening already. It just makes it more expensive.
The problem with Larry and Co. is their unabashed opportunistic greed. But I would still love to see some of my tax money being spent to implement systems that eliminate waste and inefficiency. This is a perfect example of the benefit of free software. Such a system, implemented with free software, could be audited to the satisfaction of the caring public, to ensure it was designed to serve the public interest.
The discussion really should be: "How do we prevent the abuse of public records?", as well as "How do we prevent the pilfering of public funds by opportunistic scumbags?". The Big Brother paranoia this subject incites reminds of nothing so much as the hysteria accompanying the initial broadcast of "War of the Worlds." Would a national ID system solve all problems? Of course not. It's nothing more than an attempt to simplify an overburdened beauracracy.
I am just amazed that these titans of high technology are barely able to speak the english language.
Re:Glad someone has the guts !
on
Gamecube Guts
·
· Score: 2, Funny
The outer shell was tough, impact-resistant plastic. Inside was... Rich Creamy Nougat.
Yes, but that leads to the question: What the heck is nougat?! It's the universal candy binder, I know, but WHAT IS IT??? I just ate some, but I don't even know what it is. I should maybe be alarmed, but instead I feel mostly satisfied, but hungry for more...
If we can't unravel this riddle, then we really don't know what's inside a gamecube, do we?
Yes, Alan Rules! Put Linux realpolitik aside. Alan is an amazing asset to not only the Linux community, but to humanity itself. Alan is a fulcrum, a catalyst. His work benefits millions. This is not hyperbole, but fact.
Alan can do what he wants. And we should be so happy that he does. Anyone who thinks otherwise should take a vacation.
I apologize for riding the coattails of a high-ranking post, but I just had to gush.
I had my blinders on, and I am going to backpedal. Ahem. Some people really truly do need support from a vendor. Individuals, mostly. My mom. She tries to milk me sometimes, but that gets tiresome. Who wants to be the neighborhood tech support guy answering newbie questions all the time. Yuck.
So, yes, some people need vendor support. My point is that I think many businesses hire consultants and pay vendors because (1) the airline magazine told them to, or maybe (2) it's more politically expedient than picking amongst competing internal interests. I still, however, don't think that it is good business practice to lean heavily on consultants or vendors.
If you can get support from a vendor, then OSS is great. Otherwise it is dangerous at best.
You forgot to mention another alternative. You hire an IT manager who's not a total putz, who doesn't need bow to the altar of the almighty Vendor in order to do his/her job.
You can pay the vendor, or you can pay in-house staff. Vendor's run $100/hour and up, and have a vested interest in selling you on proprietary solutions that only they have the expertise to support. Your own in house people cost money too, but if they have any loyalty to your organization whatsoever, they'll steer you clear of dead-end solutions and hype. You do have to work on maintaining their loyalty, of course.
Maybe if your organization is minuscule, you are technologically illiterate, and you don't have the resources for IT staff, you may require proprietary solutions. Although in this day and age, I'd have to question of the wisdom of going into business without having a clue how to put together your technical infrastructure.
Although these folks appear to be lining up against this particular initiative, it doesn't appear from this article that they stand against it philosophically. Their opposition derives from their loss of control. They don't want the government to interfere with their private initiatives to accomplish this same goal.
Holling's bill says that if these guys can't all agree on a standard, that the government will intervene and mandate one. Well, how likely do you think it is that these guys will all agree on a standard? Not likely at all, and they all know it. Instead, they would prefer to get the technical details worked out, and then ask for legislative protection.
But don't take my word for it. From the article:
"The MPAA agrees with the goals of the Hollings bill, that is, for the private parties to negotiate an agreement on Internet standards for content encryption, watermarking (and) digital rights management," MPAA President Jack Valenti said in a statement. "When an agreement is reached by the private parties, we will all then together support appropriate legislation regarding copyright protection in digital devices."
Therefore, disclosing a security vulnerability which can subvert UNIX-style permissions is equivalent to describing how to circumvent an access-control device as described under the DMCA.
Right. But you may be overcomplicating what Alan has done. Of course I don't know, but all he may have done, for example, is turn off read permission for 'other' on a file.
Does anyone know a good source of information which summarizes where congressional representitives, executive appointees, etc. stand on these (and other) issues?
I must confess, my long term memory is what it used to be. Which is awful. When it comes time to vote, I would like to have a ready reference handy to help refresh my memory about where the candidates stand.
Linux will not be deployed on corporate desktops until several things happen\.
Two commonly mentioned deficiencies are (1) overall functional immaturity (e\.g. - the spellchecking deficiencies the article mentions) and (2) incompatibil\ity with existing file formats. I.E. - the filter problem. These deficiences \are well known, and are being addressed, albeit not always as quickly as we wou\ld like.
However, there's another serious deterrant to corporate deployment of Linux \desktops that I never see mentioned: the complete lack of a sensible way of sha\ring centrally stored files. NFS (v2 or v3) is far too insecure to warrent ser\ious consideration for corporate desktops. Automounting SMB shares might work,\ if not for the necessity of storing authentication credentials in plain text c\onfiguration files. Again, unacceptable, both from a security and a management\ point of view.
Perhaps automounting could be improved. The other alternative is NFSv4, the\ specification of which mandates strong security. There are two free NFSv4 imp\lementations under development: a kernel level version at citi umich, and a user-level client/server b\eing developed by no less than the samba team. Both\ implementations are still quite immature, however.
Until Linux desktop users are able to easily and securely share files on a c\entral file server, it's difficult to envision widespread deployment in corpora\te environments.
You will. Do you vote? This being a democracy and all, if you're terrified of our govenment, you have only yourself to blame. Should we abolish the police, the military, the FBI, and the CIA, because fictional charactures of all of these organizations portray them badly? Before you get on your Orwellian high-horse, why don't you spend just a little bit of time studying politics and American history. No, our government isn't perfect. Yes, we had McCarthyism. And then what? We dismantled that point of view, and the political apparatus that accompanied it.
I can't believe that despite the obvious technical sophistication of the Slashdot audience, what a bunch of neo-luddites this group becomes when it comes to something as banal as an ID card. As many have pointed out already - we already have them! And yes, there are databases in place that correlate this with that and the other thing. All that's being discussed here is taking that to a higher level. So that what people know in Florida can be applied in Maine. Etc. It's going to happen. It's brain dead stupid to think it isn't. So get with the program, and figure out how to make it good system. Technology is not bad. People are bad.
On another subject, anyone think this "National ID" thing may be an underhanded ploy to develop an alternative to Hailstorm? You get some card/id/password thing that securely and globally identifies you as you. Think about it.
Your fears are justified of course. However, if you've got the raw data, and our government does, constructing such a system is so simple, I can't help but conclude it's inevitable. It's going to happen.
Therefore any discussion along the lines of "should we or shouldn't we" is rather futile. Instead, we should be putting our heads together to discuss how such a system could be constructed responsibly.
On that note, I'd have to say one of my first predilections would be to give Larry and Scott the boot ASAP. Not because I dislike them personally (I do), but because such a system should not be compromised by a conflict between personal interests and national interests. There are plenty of people already in government perfectly able to construct such a system using available off-the-shelf open/free software. People who are beholded to the public interest. Our interests (this is a democracy, remember). Not their own interests.
Approached correctly, this endeavor could be viewed as an/opportunity/ to advance public knowledge, while also enhancing our security. E.G. - develop a secure distributed reliable hugely scaleable authentication mechanism. And so on.
Let's not stick our heads in the sand. This is a development that we ignore or rebuke at our peril. This really/could/ turn out badly. Let's not let that happen.
I don't really see the problem with such a system, per se. I do have a problem with the proponents of such a system being such unabashed opportunistic pigs. Remeber Oracle's haste to post their earnings after the WTC tragedy? For shame.
Look, you've got driver's licenses, social security numbers, fingerprints, license photos, criminal records, FBI records, etc. It doesn't take a genius to figure out how to assemble and relate these components in a database.
This could be very useful. This could be abused. Sounds pretty much like any technical endeavor. Do we stick our heads in the sand, and hope the bogeyman will go away, or do we deal?
The problem isn't the technology, it's the abuse of technology. This is precisely why such systems shouldn't be trusted to proprietary vendors such as Oracle or Sun. Our government should not become beholden to anyone's private interests.
A national identity database would be an extraordinarily useful tool for law enforcement. Does it further empower our government? Of course it does. Of course such a system will need to be monitored and carefully crafted to prevent abuse. But that does not mean we have to go so far as to dismiss the idea entirely. Our government controls nuclear warheads also. Are you afraid that they will be dropped on your head? Call me crazy, but I'm not losing any sleep over it.
Just don't let Larry upgrade his Learjet with my tax dollars.
Slashdot Mirror
I completely reject the concept that I have to show anything I invent to ANYONE. Ultimately I always have the right and ability to destroy any writings, calculations or code that I author before I show it to anyone.
Of course. But the question is, what rights should you have once the cat is out of the bag, so to speak.
I know I'd rather carry around an AC adapter than a container of methanol.
Nevermind trying to get something like that through the airport these days...
I agree.
When examining bids from contractors/subcontractors on construction projects, an important consideration is "how close are the bids?". When the bids are close, it means the bidders are reading the bid documents the same way. When they diverge greatly, it means there is a lot of confusion about the scope of work.
Similarly here, I think that seeing the performance of these two OS's tracking so closely might indicate a corresponding agreement about how to approach various OS problems.
But I really have no idea. Is this true? I don't know anything about the finer details of how these two systems operate. How similar are they, really?
Your rights as a consumer may be very different than your rights as a distributer. Think about the word "copyright" for just a minute, and what it means.
/are/ different. Even the inimitable RMS is careful to make that distinction.
And yes, art and software
So you've got a puritanical bug up your ass, and you cut out the nudity. But wait! There's some essential dialog in that bedroom scene that ties the whole plot together! What do you do?
I'm sure we can all do without Jar-Jar, no matter what he says, but in general, I can't see this working. Just who are these talented editors, who will cut and snip the patient so well that no one will even know surgery took place?
I told my mother to watch the movie "Brazil" when it was on television some years back. You know what they did? They chepped the ending, to make it a happy one!
How many copyright holders are going to agree to publishing their art in this bastardized format? The opportunistic greedy ones, like Sony et al, will be delighted, I'm sure. And an ugly mess it will be.
From "Brazil":
Dr Jaffe: "Can you believe it?! Just me and my little knife! Snip - snip - slice - slice - Can you believe it?"
and elsewhere:
Mrs Terrain: "My complication had a complication, but Dr. Chapman says I'll soon be up and bouncing about like a young gazelle."
Yeah, right.
GNOME's original purpose was to support the principle of software freedom. From GNOME's own website: GNOME is part of the GNU project, and is free software .
Daniel Veillard's message is interesting. "...act on behalf of all GNOME contributors in the best interest of GNOME." Nowhere, however, does he attempt to clarify what this means. What is "in the best interest of GNOME?" That could mean a lot of things. For those infected by shareholder syndrome, it simply means making as much money as possible. I'm not saying that's the case here, but Daniel's silence doesn't reassure me otherwise.
Who's eating who's lunch here? RMS for doing what he can to steer the project back to its founding principles, or those who would hijack the code and run?
...I still think in the long run having him on the board will be bad for GNOME.
Another way of putting this would be to say "If GNOME moves to support proprietary software, that would be bad for GNU." Does anyone happen to recall that GNOME began as free alternative to proprietary desktops?
#art=(#art#)
You make a good point: namely that Gnome was created as free alternative to non-free desktops. But you don't really explain how you come to your conclusion. If Gnome exists because people want a free desktop, it would seem more probable that Gnome would suffer, not GNU, if their focus changes. There are plenty of non-free desktops already. I don't think Gnome ranks very high among those who select their desktop applications for purely pragmatic reasons.
Here's my little pet theory about why Larry and his bedfellows are so interested in this venture.
Everybody has a social security number. Look at your social security card. It's a piece of cheap paper that you could print yourself. Driver's licenses are more difficult to duplicate. But not so difficult that you'd entrust them for highly secure transactions. What's the point? Let's call a spade a spade. Another work for what we're talking about is authentication. Are you who you say you are? Something you have, something you are, something you know - the triptych of secure authentication. Give everyone a card with their picture on it, containing a unique code, with a PIN. What a sly dog, Lawrence. Good way to beat William to the punch, you good samaritan humanitarian, you.
Exactly. I generally lean to the libertarian left, but where this issue is concerned, I really don't get the hubbub.
It's all about databases. If you have a bunch of ID's, you need to correlate them in order to query across different recordsets. That's a pain in the butt. Basically, as far as I can tell, the anti national ID crowd simply wants to make it difficult for the state trooper to look up your travel history when he's sitting back in his car writing you up for speeding through Missouri.
That may be a noble cause, but it's misguided. It's misguided, because correlating these different recordsets will happen anyway. It's a pain, but to the extent it hasn't already happened, it will. Your tax dollars will (and are) pay(ing) for it. A national ID system would untangle this mess.
In other words, not having a national ID system doesn't prevent anything from happening that isn't happening already. It just makes it more expensive.
The problem with Larry and Co. is their unabashed opportunistic greed. But I would still love to see some of my tax money being spent to implement systems that eliminate waste and inefficiency. This is a perfect example of the benefit of free software. Such a system, implemented with free software, could be audited to the satisfaction of the caring public, to ensure it was designed to serve the public interest.
The discussion really should be: "How do we prevent the abuse of public records?", as well as "How do we prevent the pilfering of public funds by opportunistic scumbags?". The Big Brother paranoia this subject incites reminds of nothing so much as the hysteria accompanying the initial broadcast of "War of the Worlds." Would a national ID system solve all problems? Of course not. It's nothing more than an attempt to simplify an overburdened beauracracy.
I am just amazed that these titans of high technology are barely able to speak the english language.
The outer shell was tough, impact-resistant plastic. Inside was ... Rich Creamy Nougat.
Yes, but that leads to the question: What the heck is nougat?! It's the universal candy binder, I know, but WHAT IS IT??? I just ate some, but I don't even know what it is. I should maybe be alarmed, but instead I feel mostly satisfied, but hungry for more...
If we can't unravel this riddle, then we really don't know what's inside a gamecube, do we?
Yes, Alan Rules! Put Linux realpolitik aside. Alan is an amazing asset to not only the Linux community, but to humanity itself. Alan is a fulcrum, a catalyst. His work benefits millions. This is not hyperbole, but fact.
Alan can do what he wants. And we should be so happy that he does. Anyone who thinks otherwise should take a vacation.
I apologize for riding the coattails of a high-ranking post, but I just had to gush.
I had my blinders on, and I am going to backpedal. Ahem. Some people really truly do need support from a vendor. Individuals, mostly. My mom. She tries to milk me sometimes, but that gets tiresome. Who wants to be the neighborhood tech support guy answering newbie questions all the time. Yuck.
So, yes, some people need vendor support. My point is that I think many businesses hire consultants and pay vendors because (1) the airline magazine told them to, or maybe (2) it's more politically expedient than picking amongst competing internal interests. I still, however, don't think that it is good business practice to lean heavily on consultants or vendors.
If you can get support from a vendor, then OSS is great. Otherwise it is dangerous at best.
You forgot to mention another alternative. You hire an IT manager who's not a total putz, who doesn't need bow to the altar of the almighty Vendor in order to do his/her job.
You can pay the vendor, or you can pay in-house staff. Vendor's run $100/hour and up, and have a vested interest in selling you on proprietary solutions that only they have the expertise to support. Your own in house people cost money too, but if they have any loyalty to your organization whatsoever, they'll steer you clear of dead-end solutions and hype. You do have to work on maintaining their loyalty, of course.
Maybe if your organization is minuscule, you are technologically illiterate, and you don't have the resources for IT staff, you may require proprietary solutions. Although in this day and age, I'd have to question of the wisdom of going into business without having a clue how to put together your technical infrastructure.
Although these folks appear to be lining up against this particular initiative, it doesn't appear from this article that they stand against it philosophically. Their opposition derives from their loss of control. They don't want the government to interfere with their private initiatives to accomplish this same goal.
Holling's bill says that if these guys can't all agree on a standard, that the government will intervene and mandate one. Well, how likely do you think it is that these guys will all agree on a standard? Not likely at all, and they all know it. Instead, they would prefer to get the technical details worked out, and then ask for legislative protection.
But don't take my word for it. From the article:
"The MPAA agrees with the goals of the Hollings bill, that is, for the private parties to negotiate an agreement on Internet standards for content encryption, watermarking (and) digital rights management," MPAA President Jack Valenti said in a statement. "When an agreement is reached by the private parties, we will all then together support appropriate legislation regarding copyright protection in digital devices."
Therefore, disclosing a security vulnerability which can subvert UNIX-style permissions is equivalent to describing how to circumvent an access-control device as described under the DMCA.
Right. But you may be overcomplicating what Alan has done. Of course I don't know, but all he may have done, for example, is turn off read permission for 'other' on a file.
That would be pretty funny.
And hanging out in the network neighborhood with your willie on outlook should be called indecent exposure.
Does anyone know a good source of information which summarizes where congressional representitives, executive appointees, etc. stand on these (and other) issues?
I must confess, my long term memory is what it used to be. Which is awful. When it comes time to vote, I would like to have a ready reference handy to help refresh my memory about where the candidates stand.
Boy, was that a sloppy cut and paste job. Sorry. Anyway, here are the relevant unbastardised URL's for the NFSv4 sites I mentioned:
http://n4.samba.org/
http://www.citi.umich.edu/projects/nfsv4/
If you win the lottery, send these guys some money.
Linux will not be deployed on corporate desktops until several things happen\.
Two commonly mentioned deficiencies are (1) overall functional immaturity (e\.g. - the spellchecking deficiencies the article mentions) and (2) incompatibil\ity with existing file formats. I.E. - the filter problem. These deficiences \are well known, and are being addressed, albeit not always as quickly as we wou\ld like.
However, there's another serious deterrant to corporate deployment of Linux \desktops that I never see mentioned: the complete lack of a sensible way of sha\ring centrally stored files. NFS (v2 or v3) is far too insecure to warrent ser\ious consideration for corporate desktops. Automounting SMB shares might work,\ if not for the necessity of storing authentication credentials in plain text c\onfiguration files. Again, unacceptable, both from a security and a management\ point of view.
Perhaps automounting could be improved. The other alternative is NFSv4, the\ specification of which mandates strong security. There are two free NFSv4 imp\lementations under development: a kernel level version at citi umich, and a user-level client/server b\eing developed by no less than the samba team. Both\ implementations are still quite immature, however.
Until Linux desktop users are able to easily and securely share files on a c\entral file server, it's difficult to envision widespread deployment in corpora\te environments.
WHO will do the monitoring?
You will. Do you vote? This being a democracy and all, if you're terrified of our govenment, you have only yourself to blame. Should we abolish the police, the military, the FBI, and the CIA, because fictional charactures of all of these organizations portray them badly? Before you get on your Orwellian high-horse, why don't you spend just a little bit of time studying politics and American history. No, our government isn't perfect. Yes, we had McCarthyism. And then what? We dismantled that point of view, and the political apparatus that accompanied it.
I can't believe that despite the obvious technical sophistication of the Slashdot audience, what a bunch of neo-luddites this group becomes when it comes to something as banal as an ID card. As many have pointed out already - we already have them! And yes, there are databases in place that correlate this with that and the other thing. All that's being discussed here is taking that to a higher level. So that what people know in Florida can be applied in Maine. Etc. It's going to happen. It's brain dead stupid to think it isn't. So get with the program, and figure out how to make it good system. Technology is not bad. People are bad.
On another subject, anyone think this "National ID" thing may be an underhanded ploy to develop an alternative to Hailstorm? You get some card/id/password thing that securely and globally identifies you as you. Think about it.
Your fears are justified of course. However, if you've got the raw data, and our government does, constructing such a system is so simple, I can't help but conclude it's inevitable. It's going to happen.
/opportunity/ to advance public knowledge, while also enhancing our security. E.G. - develop a secure distributed reliable hugely scaleable authentication mechanism. And so on.
/could/ turn out badly. Let's not let that happen.
Therefore any discussion along the lines of "should we or shouldn't we" is rather futile. Instead, we should be putting our heads together to discuss how such a system could be constructed responsibly.
On that note, I'd have to say one of my first predilections would be to give Larry and Scott the boot ASAP. Not because I dislike them personally (I do), but because such a system should not be compromised by a conflict between personal interests and national interests. There are plenty of people already in government perfectly able to construct such a system using available off-the-shelf open/free software. People who are beholded to the public interest. Our interests (this is a democracy, remember). Not their own interests.
Approached correctly, this endeavor could be viewed as an
Let's not stick our heads in the sand. This is a development that we ignore or rebuke at our peril. This really
I don't really see the problem with such a system, per se. I do have a problem with the proponents of such a system being such unabashed opportunistic pigs. Remeber Oracle's haste to post their earnings after the WTC tragedy? For shame.
Look, you've got driver's licenses, social security numbers, fingerprints, license photos, criminal records, FBI records, etc. It doesn't take a genius to figure out how to assemble and relate these components in a database.
This could be very useful. This could be abused. Sounds pretty much like any technical endeavor. Do we stick our heads in the sand, and hope the bogeyman will go away, or do we deal?
The problem isn't the technology, it's the abuse of technology. This is precisely why such systems shouldn't be trusted to proprietary vendors such as Oracle or Sun. Our government should not become beholden to anyone's private interests.
A national identity database would be an extraordinarily useful tool for law enforcement. Does it further empower our government? Of course it does. Of course such a system will need to be monitored and carefully crafted to prevent abuse. But that does not mean we have to go so far as to dismiss the idea entirely. Our government controls nuclear warheads also. Are you afraid that they will be dropped on your head? Call me crazy, but I'm not losing any sleep over it.
Just don't let Larry upgrade his Learjet with my tax dollars.