You write quite a bit. You're pretty skilled at arguing. As expected you side step the important issue.
Why are there no laws to protect the rights of authors and creators, the people actually mentioned in the Constitution? You can talk of US law all you want but the fact is that any authority that Congress has is based on the Constitution. Your argument for people in one sided contracts is "tough bananas", yet you're fully in support of using legislation to protect the rights of corporate entities who aren't even mentioned in the document which is the source of legitimate authority for Congress. If there's anyone who should be protected by the laws its the authors and creators. The law, if it were even remotely connected to the document which gives it any authority, would be ruling in favor of authors and creators who challenge employee contracts.
If the law isn't reflective of the Constitution then we might as well admit that our government is a scam. At least it'd be the truth.
If all agencies are using the same system, security audits will be faster and more reliable.
Faster, maybe. More reliable? Arguable and definitely not certain enough to justify the expense.
From an administrative perspective, standarization and centralization of processes usually lower overall costs.
We've been standardizing and centralizing for over 200 years and at an accelerated rate since the 20s. Why do taxes keep going up if costs are lower overall? The answer is in administrative bloat, graft, and corruption. These things are certain.
I never saw a course titled "Money Laundering 101" in my registrar's list but I'm confident I've got a good handle on how it works.
You would've been authenticated long before you got in the same room as the information you'd like to transfer. Redundancy is good but it is still not shown that this particular form of redundancy solves any real problem. In debate, a disadvantage has a link (to the current system), a brink (at the point of failing), and the impact (of the failure). No where is a comprehensive disadvantage of currently available systems demonstrated. Therefore the cost of implementing and administering a new system is not justified.
Existing system require multiple cards to work together
Layered security is good.
Unifying these means I have fewer cards to carry around and everything works in a single way.
Convenience is not in any way a priority of security.
That makes the system simpler and easier, which means fewer fuckups.
I've not seen any mention of failures in current systems which will be solved by throwing more money into what amounts to featureware.
my current military ID (Common Access Card, CAC) is basically the same. It has similar advantages and disadvantages. I know from experience that it makes security a lot easier. Maybe not better, but definitely not worse, and certainly easier.
Excellent. Keep using the current system until the cost of the upgrade is justified. The taxpayers can't be milked for bleeding edge upgrades just because a group of senators on a subcommittee have a particular Wall Street technology company in mind to bestow the lucrative implementation and administration contracts to.
Just because a lot of artists have underestimated the value of their works before signing away copyright doesn't mean the whole system is broke
Apparently the industry, then, has underestimated the value of investing in a secure distribution medium. Why is their ineptness in business decisions a problem for my tax money to fix?
That card will give you the ability to fingerprint communications and documents digitally the same way a web server signs SSL web pages
Information which is marked even as low as classified cannot be moved through usual channels anyway. This is irrelevant. I don't need my toaster to sing the Chipmunks.
such as which classified doors you are allowed to enter and which you are not
Existing systems are already capable of this.
All this card does is automate the process one step further.
Exactly what is it automating which isn't already automated?
The cost is not justified and, if this nation were really about freedom and democracy, our government would allow us to vote with our wallet rather than pandering to us once every 4-6 years. This new system, and all its associated costs of implementation and administration, has demonstrated no significant advantage over existing technologies.
it certainly doesn't mention the Constitutional aspects of copyright
The Constitutional aspect of copyright is very simple: "Clause 8: 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" The inventor and authors have exclusive right. That is not inclusive of any corporation. That right (whatever that right is defined to include) is exclusive to the author or inventor.
Do companies take advantage of people by getting them to sign away their copyright and then exploiting them? Yes.
Then I feel no compulsion to support any efforts for them to use my tax money to further exploit the public. All arguments about public good can now be dropped in favor of the pirates.
And in the end, if you are an author/creator and you feel the terms of your contract are unfavorable, then you either negotiate or walk away.
No sir. That's where the Government should be stepping in to protect our rights. Why is it that protecting the rights of some vaporous entity, which is not an author or creator, supersedes the duty to protect the rights of authors and creators?
But if you sign the contract, then you are bound not only by law but by personal honor to adhere to it.
If I sign a blatantly one-sided contract (and you'll not find a single fair contract in all of the professional industry) then I'm bound by no such honor. A fair contract contains provisions for both parties. In the ten years and three jobs since graduating college, I have yet to see an employee agreement which contains even a single mention of a right which I, as a potential inventor and creator, retain. The law is meaningless at this point as we've already decided that the companies are not, in fact, the slightest bit interested in the public good or the welfare of society.
At any rate, once you agree that the company owns the rights to your produce, you're bound to it
Again, where are the legions of politicians parading the Constitution to protect my rights as an inventor and creator?
Invest in your own lawyer, for God's sake!
I shouldn't have to invest in a lawyer to protect rights that I'm given by the Constitution. Every line you write simply confirms that the whole system is under suspicion. Why can the *AA use US Attorneys at taxpayer expense if you're so rabid about "invest in your own lawyer"? Private lawyers may be sending C&D letters but in criminal courts it's on the taxpayer's dollar to fund the prosecution. We could meet halfway if this never went farther than civil court.
You still have to go to security, they verify that you have a legitimate reason to be there (such as a new job) and issue the appropriate local credentials
And the new system provides which benefits over the existing to justify the cost of implementation?
So you don't have to worry about the guy at the front desk sleeping on the job
You're spreading doubt for the sake of doubt. If the guy at the front desk is sleeping on the job, the people don't get in--no matter what their credentials are.
Even though the politicians never acknowledge my existence except when they want my vote, I'm going to pretend that this nation actually stands up for freedom and democracy and allows me to vote with my paycheck. I'm going to take the same stance with money that my parents would've taken for a computer upgrade I wanted when I was 12: Justify to me that this new system will do something more than the old _AND_ that it's worth the cost.
You'll get no argument from me about the merits of having a single unified security or identification system. My question is: if we have so many examples of the technology existing already, why are we hyping Yet Another System which will give no additional benefits at a drastically increased cost?
A new system will require new methods of making the IDs, new readers, new patents, new trademarks, new attorneys, new corporate entities. For the money that it's going to cost me I don't see any significant improvement over existing technology.
It's the same issue as upgrading a computer: if the computer does what you want why upgrade for the sake of bleeding edge alone? Bleeding edge on your dollar is fine, bleeding edge on mine is. No matter how bleeding edge you are there will always be another exploit.
Let's just admit typical political corporate graft and wholesale government welfare and be done with it.
In short, I fail to see the downside if the system is implemented by someone with the slightest of clues.
Oh Lord. MOD THIS FUNNY.
You have seen the people who've been hired as security screeners at airports, haven't you? You are familiar with the perfection of implementation that DC is famous world-wide for, aren't you? You are familiar with the first rule of thumb which every 18-year old learns if they have to do any sort of real labor,"Good enough for government work."
And, again, what is a 1024-bit cryptographic signature going to give me at work that the security guard at the front desk wouldn't have caught to begin with in terms of identification? In the hiring process new employees are paraded around for everyone to see. Some unknown can't just walk in with an ID card and pretend he's worked there for years. Even visitors from off-site, who legitimately work for our company, are introduced to the front desk and escorted around.
How is this different from the current CAC card (government version of standard smart card) currently issued to soldiers, civilians and contractors?
New patents on manufacturing and reader technologies which give the politicians avenues to favor particular sets of investors, particular CEOs, particular attorneys, particular judges...
I never saw a course called "Money Laundering 101" in college but I'm pretty sure I've picked up the finer points just by watching DC.
This is a standardized, centralized identification system, not a centralized access system
We already have passports if we're interested in idnetification. Is there any particular reason why we (taxpayers) are interested in giving a government handout to Yet Another Proprietary Card Reader?
Or is this just another one of those bills that we're supposed to pay without asking? Hell, my parents wouldn't let me buy so much as a stick of gum without proof that the old pack of gum was empty and no longer useful. Last I checked, passports were the single most trusted form of ID at DMVs, BMVs, for security clearance, at airports, and worldwide.
They make chow hall lines quicker because we don't have to sign
What a wonderful justification. As an addendum, college cafeterias had this problem licked years ago without the need for a chip or a magnetic strip--just a bar code.
I'm not going to put on a tin-foil hat and try to point out potential abuses. I'm just going to say that unified tracking sounds both suspicious and exploitable. I'm sure you guys know how to get your girlfriends through the chow line. As a private citizen I'm allowed to be suspicious of an entity that acknowledges that I exist only when they want my vote once every few years. Too bad I'm not allowed to vote with my paycheck during the interim.
So to everyone terrified of national ID cards, wake up: that reality arrived long ago.
Fair enough. Then I am within my rights to ask why someone else is voting to use my taxpayer money to start yet another ID system? The DC boys are always free to admit that it's nothing more than pork-barrel rollouts for their prospecting Wall Street friends.
Are you trying to say that we have a right to have illegal access to all government property?
National security and everything else aside I usually like to think of property as belonging to the people who paid for it. Obfuscating the owner by distributing the cost just makes it look more like a scam.
Am I the only person who's suspicious of a group of people who take my money by force and refuse to involve me in decisions that they make with that money past the obligatory gesture of voting once every few years? If everyone else is comfortable with that I'll be more than happy to take your money today and spend four years coming up with a voting scam that looks good to 90% of the participants.
this is simply a way to streamline the process of verifying federal employees, just as corporations have for years...this is not a problem.
And won't be a problem until when...? We remember that counterfeiting isn't nearly as difficult as particle physics. Until we remember that the people who manufacture the ID cards are just as easily bribed as the people who check them?
Does anyone really think that you should have a single sign on name and password for every online service, site, e-mail account? Would you want that single sign on to be linked with all of your bank accounts? Why is it bad to have everything linked together? What makes identity theft easier?
Forget trolling about tin-foil hats or paranoid people who have nothing to hide. Let's get back to the nuts and bolts of why, from the very beginnings of nature, squirrels put nuts in many different places.
Slashdot Mirror
You write quite a bit. You're pretty skilled at arguing. As expected you side step the important issue.
Why are there no laws to protect the rights of authors and creators, the people actually mentioned in the Constitution? You can talk of US law all you want but the fact is that any authority that Congress has is based on the Constitution. Your argument for people in one sided contracts is "tough bananas", yet you're fully in support of using legislation to protect the rights of corporate entities who aren't even mentioned in the document which is the source of legitimate authority for Congress. If there's anyone who should be protected by the laws its the authors and creators. The law, if it were even remotely connected to the document which gives it any authority, would be ruling in favor of authors and creators who challenge employee contracts.
If the law isn't reflective of the Constitution then we might as well admit that our government is a scam. At least it'd be the truth.
s/classified/confidential/g
Nitpicking troll.
If all agencies are using the same system, security audits will be faster and more reliable.
Faster, maybe. More reliable? Arguable and definitely not certain enough to justify the expense.
From an administrative perspective, standarization and centralization of processes usually lower overall costs.
We've been standardizing and centralizing for over 200 years and at an accelerated rate since the 20s. Why do taxes keep going up if costs are lower overall? The answer is in administrative bloat, graft, and corruption. These things are certain.
I never saw a course titled "Money Laundering 101" in my registrar's list but I'm confident I've got a good handle on how it works.
It is about authentication
You would've been authenticated long before you got in the same room as the information you'd like to transfer. Redundancy is good but it is still not shown that this particular form of redundancy solves any real problem. In debate, a disadvantage has a link (to the current system), a brink (at the point of failing), and the impact (of the failure). No where is a comprehensive disadvantage of currently available systems demonstrated. Therefore the cost of implementing and administering a new system is not justified.
Existing system require multiple cards to work together
Layered security is good.
Unifying these means I have fewer cards to carry around and everything works in a single way.
Convenience is not in any way a priority of security.
That makes the system simpler and easier, which means fewer fuckups.
I've not seen any mention of failures in current systems which will be solved by throwing more money into what amounts to featureware.
my current military ID (Common Access Card, CAC) is basically the same. It has similar advantages and disadvantages. I know from experience that it makes security a lot easier. Maybe not better, but definitely not worse, and certainly easier.
Excellent. Keep using the current system until the cost of the upgrade is justified. The taxpayers can't be milked for bleeding edge upgrades just because a group of senators on a subcommittee have a particular Wall Street technology company in mind to bestow the lucrative implementation and administration contracts to.
I didn't feel the need to restate the obvious since the parent seemed to be of reasonable mind.
Just because a lot of artists have underestimated the value of their works before signing away copyright doesn't mean the whole system is broke
Apparently the industry, then, has underestimated the value of investing in a secure distribution medium. Why is their ineptness in business decisions a problem for my tax money to fix?
That card will give you the ability to fingerprint communications and documents digitally the same way a web server signs SSL web pages
Information which is marked even as low as classified cannot be moved through usual channels anyway. This is irrelevant. I don't need my toaster to sing the Chipmunks.
such as which classified doors you are allowed to enter and which you are not
Existing systems are already capable of this.
All this card does is automate the process one step further.
Exactly what is it automating which isn't already automated?
The cost is not justified and, if this nation were really about freedom and democracy, our government would allow us to vote with our wallet rather than pandering to us once every 4-6 years. This new system, and all its associated costs of implementation and administration, has demonstrated no significant advantage over existing technologies.
it certainly doesn't mention the Constitutional aspects of copyright
The Constitutional aspect of copyright is very simple: "Clause 8: 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" The inventor and authors have exclusive right. That is not inclusive of any corporation. That right (whatever that right is defined to include) is exclusive to the author or inventor.
Do companies take advantage of people by getting them to sign away their copyright and then exploiting them? Yes.
Then I feel no compulsion to support any efforts for them to use my tax money to further exploit the public. All arguments about public good can now be dropped in favor of the pirates.
And in the end, if you are an author/creator and you feel the terms of your contract are unfavorable, then you either negotiate or walk away.
No sir. That's where the Government should be stepping in to protect our rights. Why is it that protecting the rights of some vaporous entity, which is not an author or creator, supersedes the duty to protect the rights of authors and creators?
But if you sign the contract, then you are bound not only by law but by personal honor to adhere to it.
If I sign a blatantly one-sided contract (and you'll not find a single fair contract in all of the professional industry) then I'm bound by no such honor. A fair contract contains provisions for both parties. In the ten years and three jobs since graduating college, I have yet to see an employee agreement which contains even a single mention of a right which I, as a potential inventor and creator, retain. The law is meaningless at this point as we've already decided that the companies are not, in fact, the slightest bit interested in the public good or the welfare of society.
At any rate, once you agree that the company owns the rights to your produce, you're bound to it
Again, where are the legions of politicians parading the Constitution to protect my rights as an inventor and creator?
Invest in your own lawyer, for God's sake!
I shouldn't have to invest in a lawyer to protect rights that I'm given by the Constitution. Every line you write simply confirms that the whole system is under suspicion. Why can the *AA use US Attorneys at taxpayer expense if you're so rabid about "invest in your own lawyer"? Private lawyers may be sending C&D letters but in criminal courts it's on the taxpayer's dollar to fund the prosecution. We could meet halfway if this never went farther than civil court.
Everything you've said sounds reasonable... so...
Tell us again which flaws in the current system are so grave that they justify the cost to the taxpayers to replace with this new system?
Well, we owe it in the sense that it is prescribed by the Constitution
Saw that coming from a mile off. Read more here.
without their authorization
Without whose authorization? Read more here.
You still have to go to security, they verify that you have a legitimate reason to be there (such as a new job) and issue the appropriate local credentials
And the new system provides which benefits over the existing to justify the cost of implementation?
So you don't have to worry about the guy at the front desk sleeping on the job
You're spreading doubt for the sake of doubt. If the guy at the front desk is sleeping on the job, the people don't get in--no matter what their credentials are.
Even though the politicians never acknowledge my existence except when they want my vote, I'm going to pretend that this nation actually stands up for freedom and democracy and allows me to vote with my paycheck. I'm going to take the same stance with money that my parents would've taken for a computer upgrade I wanted when I was 12: Justify to me that this new system will do something more than the old _AND_ that it's worth the cost.
You'll get no argument from me about the merits of having a single unified security or identification system. My question is: if we have so many examples of the technology existing already, why are we hyping Yet Another System which will give no additional benefits at a drastically increased cost?
A new system will require new methods of making the IDs, new readers, new patents, new trademarks, new attorneys, new corporate entities. For the money that it's going to cost me I don't see any significant improvement over existing technology.
It's the same issue as upgrading a computer: if the computer does what you want why upgrade for the sake of bleeding edge alone? Bleeding edge on your dollar is fine, bleeding edge on mine is. No matter how bleeding edge you are there will always be another exploit.
Let's just admit typical political corporate graft and wholesale government welfare and be done with it.
They don't owe us art, we don't owe them protection.
What's so difficult about understanding a fair two-way street?
In short, I fail to see the downside if the system is implemented by someone with the slightest of clues.
Oh Lord. MOD THIS FUNNY.
You have seen the people who've been hired as security screeners at airports, haven't you? You are familiar with the perfection of implementation that DC is famous world-wide for, aren't you? You are familiar with the first rule of thumb which every 18-year old learns if they have to do any sort of real labor,"Good enough for government work."
And, again, what is a 1024-bit cryptographic signature going to give me at work that the security guard at the front desk wouldn't have caught to begin with in terms of identification? In the hiring process new employees are paraded around for everyone to see. Some unknown can't just walk in with an ID card and pretend he's worked there for years. Even visitors from off-site, who legitimately work for our company, are introduced to the front desk and escorted around.
How is this different from the current CAC card (government version of standard smart card) currently issued to soldiers, civilians and contractors?
New patents on manufacturing and reader technologies which give the politicians avenues to favor particular sets of investors, particular CEOs, particular attorneys, particular judges...
I never saw a course called "Money Laundering 101" in college but I'm pretty sure I've picked up the finer points just by watching DC.
This is a standardized, centralized identification system, not a centralized access system
We already have passports if we're interested in idnetification. Is there any particular reason why we (taxpayers) are interested in giving a government handout to Yet Another Proprietary Card Reader?
Or is this just another one of those bills that we're supposed to pay without asking? Hell, my parents wouldn't let me buy so much as a stick of gum without proof that the old pack of gum was empty and no longer useful. Last I checked, passports were the single most trusted form of ID at DMVs, BMVs, for security clearance, at airports, and worldwide.
With only one type of identification one can be assured that all guards and even employees are thoroughly familiar with it.
Familiarity breeds contempt.
It's called a passport
Why not require all federal employees to have passports, then? Why are we wasting tax money on Yet Another System?
Feel free to admit to graft between Wall Street and DC any time.
They make chow hall lines quicker because we don't have to sign
What a wonderful justification. As an addendum, college cafeterias had this problem licked years ago without the need for a chip or a magnetic strip--just a bar code.
I'm not going to put on a tin-foil hat and try to point out potential abuses. I'm just going to say that unified tracking sounds both suspicious and exploitable. I'm sure you guys know how to get your girlfriends through the chow line. As a private citizen I'm allowed to be suspicious of an entity that acknowledges that I exist only when they want my vote once every few years. Too bad I'm not allowed to vote with my paycheck during the interim.
So to everyone terrified of national ID cards, wake up: that reality arrived long ago.
Fair enough. Then I am within my rights to ask why someone else is voting to use my taxpayer money to start yet another ID system? The DC boys are always free to admit that it's nothing more than pork-barrel rollouts for their prospecting Wall Street friends.
At least that'd be honest.
Are you trying to say that we have a right to have illegal access to all government property?
National security and everything else aside I usually like to think of property as belonging to the people who paid for it. Obfuscating the owner by distributing the cost just makes it look more like a scam.
Am I the only person who's suspicious of a group of people who take my money by force and refuse to involve me in decisions that they make with that money past the obligatory gesture of voting once every few years? If everyone else is comfortable with that I'll be more than happy to take your money today and spend four years coming up with a voting scam that looks good to 90% of the participants.
this is simply a way to streamline the process of verifying federal employees, just as corporations have for years...this is not a problem.
And won't be a problem until when...? We remember that counterfeiting isn't nearly as difficult as particle physics. Until we remember that the people who manufacture the ID cards are just as easily bribed as the people who check them?
Does anyone really think that you should have a single sign on name and password for every online service, site, e-mail account? Would you want that single sign on to be linked with all of your bank accounts? Why is it bad to have everything linked together? What makes identity theft easier?
Forget trolling about tin-foil hats or paranoid people who have nothing to hide. Let's get back to the nuts and bolts of why, from the very beginnings of nature, squirrels put nuts in many different places.
Happy New Year!
Best of luck with all of your ventures.
don't cost you if you cancel the offer before the automatic renewal
HAHAHA! Oh, pardon me. I've always seen "automatic renewal" as the hallmark of a scam.