Anyways, everyone stop whining, start downloading ebooks from pirate bay, learn how to use prototpype, PHP and get a job and have an attitude.
Out of curiosity, how do not feel like a scumbag for using one person's "imaginary property" without paying for it, then turning around and using the knowledge you got from it to sell more "imaginary property" to other people at great profit? They're giving you the knowledge you need to make your living and put food in your mouth, the least you could do is buy their books.
... all these people can make a very nice living without ripping people off...
We're not talking about protecting people from themselves - we're talking about protecting people from organisations with poor security.
No... guess who *CHOOSES* to do business with organisations that have poor security? If you want a government babysitter, move to China. Everybody else here is happy with their freedom to do business with whomever they choose.
As I have repeatedly said before, very few of these companies have a *history* of data loss - there are just a lot of companies having a single incident. Just looking at a company's history does very little to tell you how secure your data is going to be.
Can you name even a single company that has gone out of business because of data loss? Of the dozens, if not hundreds, of "Massive data loss..." articles that have been on Slashdot, can you point to a single instance where one of those companies has gone out of business? Certainly the vast majority of them have not. That sends a very clear signal to everybody, except you apparently, that protecting private data is not a worthwhile investment becase most people don't care. There's no incentive for companies to keep private data private because consumers have repeatedly shown they don't care if it gets lost. Companies lose data and stay in business == customers don't care about data loss. Why should I raise prices and spend money on data security if my customers don't care about it? It's really that simple.
Is your argument really that insubstantial that you have to resort to hurling insults?
Well, when I explain it half a dozen times, and you still don't seem to understand, I really have to wonder.
But that's just never going to happen - the majority of people are never going to consider the security of their data. Those of us who do care about security should not have to rely on everyone else to punish these organisations. The government's job is to protect people, or do you subscribe to the idea that we should abolish government sponsored law enforcement and just have vigilante justice instead?
Is the government not supposed to represent the people anymore? If it's as you say, and people don't care about the privacy of their data, the government shouldn't care either.
Also, "protecting people" from themselves is the job of a socialist government. In free countries the government's job is to protect the people's rights. Then, the people get to use those rights in any way they want. Including stupid ways that aren't in their best interest, like doing business with companies with a history private data loss.
Who said anything about puny? I don't subscribe to the idea of shutting down a company for a single transgression, but I do think that fines should be big enough to make it worth the company's while to fix their security. This probably means you have to scale the fine according to the organisation involved, since a fine that would bankrupt a small company would be laughed off by a large international corporation.
Instead of paying the high up front cost for better security, companies will save the money and pay the fine. How does your plan get around that?
You now seem to have changed to being pro-punishment, and thus now support my side of the debate - so which is it?
The argument I've been making all along is that consumers should punish the offending companies by driving them out of business. I'm specifically arguing against the government getting involved in these cases because it shouldn't be necessary, limits freedom, wastes tax dollars, and encourages people to be irresponsible with their own data.
If consumers do what's in their best interest and avoided companies with poor data security, the companies would notice and take pains to make sure their data is secure, because they would know data loss meant going out of business.
Ah, and now you've gone back to your original argument that punishing organisations won't help - please make up your mind.
Nope, same argument I've been making all along.
Fining organisations large amounts if they have poor security encourages them to adopt better security practices because it becomes cheaper to do so than pay the fine. If more organisations adopt better security practices because of the threat of large fines, customers won't _have_ to have a crystal ball to tell them which organisations to avoid.
Are you really this dense? It's exactly the same idea if consumers drive the companies out of business for losing data, but without "big brother" looking out for everybody. Businesses that want to stay in business would protect private data. It's a hell of a lot better motivation than a puny fine.
Most of the organisations who are losing data _don't_ have a history of losing data - there are just an awful lot of separate companies that have got crap security procedures which are being publicised for the first time.
Do you know why? It's because companies that lose data are never punished. Of the hundreds of data loss stories you've seen, how many of the companies involved have ever gone out of business because of it? How many have ever lost a significant portion of their customers? Why would a company spend money on data security if consumers clearly don't care either way? If your competitor loses data and stays in business, that means you can lose data and stay in business. They lose data, but they still have just as much money coming in as before. There's no motivation at all to protect private data, and that's why it keeps happening.
If a company loses 80% of their customers after anouncing data loss, other companies would pay attention.
I certainly don't have a crystal ball that tells me which company will be the next to screw up.
How will the government fining companies for data loss change that?
So the government is part of the problem. But you'd like to have government help fix it. That plan sounds like a winner.
I'd also love to know how you meaningfully fine a government agency. Would they stop working, pay the fine out of their current budget and raise taxes later? Or can they wait until after they've raised taxes to start paying the fine?
The health insurance was provided by my school, and chosen by them largely based on cost. What can one do?
You can do like millions of other people and pay for your own insurance. Or not have insurance at all.
While we like to imagine that we live in a world where all market transactions are voluntary, that really hasn't been the case for a long time.
Transactions in a free market are *always* voluntary. If it's not voluntary, it's not a free market. What do you think the "free" stands for?
My bank has twice now sent me notices in the mail about security breaches at some vendor with whom I have transacted. Unfortunately the bank does not tell me who the vendor is so I may avoid them in the future.
Well what do both of the companies have in common? They're both contractors for the bank that you're still using, despite their using contractors with shit privacy practices.
I'm aware that it's a pain in the ass, but if individuals won't put in the effort to safegaurd their own information, why should other people do it for them? You are the one with the most to lose if your private data is made public. No amount of fine is going to make up for the hassle of having your ID stolen.
But you would give your car keys to the garage who's servicing the car. If they fail to secure the keys properly and someone steals your car then why shouldn't the garage be held responsible?
Would you have even taken your car there in the first place if you knew they had a history of having cars stolen out of the garage?
I don't know if you realize this, but in a democracy, the government is us. It is our servant, created for the specific purposes of dealing with antisocial behaviour and looking after us. It is perfectly valid to delegate the task of dealing with companies and forcing them to behave to the government.
You want the government to punish companies? But we are the government? So we are going to punish the companies? But we can't punish them by boycotting, driving them out of business and letting a responsible company take over? We have to fine them?
It must be one altruistic company, then; for surely a for-profit corporation is already charging the amount that will maximize their profit, so only an altruistic company dedicated to the well-being of its customers over the profits of its shareholders would be able to pass fines to said customers. They could get $5,000 more per customer while still retaining their userbase, and yet they aren't doing so; truly they have a heart of purest gold, if not a wallet full of it.
They're charging the amount that maximizes their profit *right now*, without a $5000 fine. If they risk a $5000 fine, they may decide to spend $4999 per customer securing the data. Or they may calculate they have a 50/50 chance of losing a customer's data, and charge $2500 extra per customer. In any event, the fine would just be an added cost of doing business. It would get factored into the final price just like every other cost of business.
Maybe you should spend less time trying to sound witty and more time thinking about what you're saying.
The government keeps screwing up and losing your data, and your solution is MORE government? Besides that, where do you think the government is going to get money to pay those fines?
As a consequence of modern day life we are *forced* to do business with at least some of these companies and so they have no incentive to do better.
Oh shut the fuck up. Nobody is forcing you to buy stuff. Like this survey company goes around, holding people at gunpoint, telling them to give out their private info and take a survey? Give me a fucking break.
Can you provide even a single example where you simply *had* to buy some product or service from a company with poor data security.
There is no reason for companies to take this too seriously since they can just say "my bad" and its business as usual again.
You just don't get it, do you? It's your responsibility, as the "owner" of that information, to make sure it stays private. If a person willingly hands over their private data to a company with a history of data loss, how important can the data really be? You wouldn't give your car keys to a known car thief, so why will you give your private data (and money) to a company with a history of data loss?
It's our responsibility as consumers to punish companies that lose our's and other people's data by no longer doing business with them. We don't need the government looking over everybody's shoulder making sure we're all being treated okay. Believe it or not, it's up to us to look out for ourselves sometimes!
Imagine if the company had to pay a fine of $5,000 or more, per customer involved in the data loss. My guess is they would be a bit more careful.
My guess is they'd charge $5000 more per customer, for "extra security." And then lose the data anyway.
When are these companies going to start getting fined for data leaks? I'd bet this sort of thing would be a lot less common if there was a huge price to pay, other than a useless apology note.
Having the government impose a fine is not the answer. The *only* way companies will ever learn to properly secure consumer data is if consumers drive them out of business when they fuck it up. If consumers can't be bothered with 5 minutes of research to avoid companies with poor privacy practices, there's absolutely no incentive for companies to spend the money to respect privacy. A fine just increases the cost of doing business - meaning you'll pay even more to have them lose your data.
Seriously, LegalTorrents makes money off of what? Making a logo?
Where did you get the idea that you get to tell people how much money they can make? If you don't think the service LegalTorrents provides is worth 15% of your donation, shut the fuck up and donate somewhere else. It's that simple.
Because government has to address the needs of every citizen. It's all about the greater good, and the government should (and in fact, has) to work towards that goal. In the end, you're funding science. It's important, and too cheap to ignore.
The government working for the greater good is the definition of socialism. In a democratic society the government is there to protect against injustice and let the people worry about doing what's best for themselves, even if they don't always know what that is. The government doesn't exist to babysit us.
Personally, compared to other things the government wastes money on, I don't really mind them doing space research. Better space research than another invasion. But I still don't entirely agree with it.
And the "there's people who don't care" argument is a controversial one. Some people don't beleive they should support poor or unemployed people with their taxes, for example, reasoning that their tax money isn't working directly for them.
No, the primary argument against the government supporting poor and unemployed people is that it disincentivizes working and promotes the welfare state. What motivation is there to finish high school, go to college, or even get a job, if you know that "big brother" will take care of you? Believe it or not, there are people who don't feel ashamed that they need to leech off other people. If you meet enough of those people, you quickly change your mind about government hand outs.
I don't see why the government has to pay for it. Why not start a non-profit that takes donations and uses the money to do the research? That way you and other people who think it's important can donate as money as you want, and the people who don't care can keep their money.
Data center operators do not know what an efficient system is, just as you probably do not know how your house's energy use compares to similar houses in your climate (unless you utilized the government's "useless" Energy Star database that has led to no regulation).
But to money on energy I don't need to know how similar houses compare to mine. Neither do data center operators. It's useless trivia, at best.
You express scorn for publicly funded research (what this entire thread is about) and call it worthless, "socialist," especially if it does not lead to regulation (odd emphasis for you to make, but so be it).
No, you're putting words in my mouth. I'm against spending tax money on research that businesses should be doing for themselves. The only people benefiting from this study will be data center operators. The energy saved by implementing their plans isn't enough to noticeably decrease energy prices for anybody else, and there will be even less of an environmental impact.
As for only wanting the government to perform studies only when they're going to regulate something, it's not an odd stance at all. There are times when government meddling is the best option. I don't think those situations occur very often, and I definitely don't think this is one of those cases, but when it is necessary, I'd like them to at least have some understanding of what they're going to be meddling with.
Bush was elected because a relatively small group of idiots felt that gay people getting married was the most important issue during the election. Not the economy, not the war in Iraq/Afghanistan, not social security, not government spending, but what two consenting adults they'll never meet are allowed to do half a country away. And it was still a close call.
I agree America is going to hell in a hand basket, but trying to place the blame on Bush and the Republicans is a cop out.
I'm sorry, but you still haven't shown any proof that this study needed to be done by the government. You can try to change the subject all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that any competitive data center would be aiming for higher efficiency because it directly lowers their costs and allows them to offer lower prices than their competitors.
Besides that, if the government isn't going to pass legislation based on the study results, why even bother? It's blatantly obvious that higher efficiency equates to lower costs, so if the data centers don't care now, why will they care after the study is finished?
Other than an ideology as scorned by historical reality as Marxism, do you have any real-world examples of where your completely laissez-faire economy has ever worked? Even once?
Here's a clue: If you live in a first world country there's a 100% chance your economy is based directly on the laissez-faire model. Chances are also high that the areas the most screwed up (i.e. telecom monopolies, etc) are the areas with the most government regulation and meddling. Until you can point out a single thriving economy based on socialism, communism, or whatever it is you're advocating, please STFU about how laissez-faire doesn't work.
And the taxes data centers pay MORE than covers the cost (and those taxes will NOT be coming in if they all move to India, a real risk as bandwidth becomes far cheaper than labor).
Well then, maybe the government should raise their taxes even higher. Just think of all the studies they could fund! I'm sure that won't drive any data centers to India.
Well, they are, but only after marketing, maintenance contracting, staffing, connectivity contracts, capacity contracts, generator testing, airflow balance for the new racks, battery service, diesel contract, annual maintenance scheduling, roof inspection, etc. is covered.
So basically, what you're saying is, data center efficiency isn't very important, but it's important enough to waste tax dollars on?
Not to mention all the little guys; are you're saying that every business out there throwing a little 1000 sf data center in the basement of their new building can make a good business case to invest in all this research?
I'm saying that doing research for businesses isn't the government's fucking job. Why is it that people on Slashdot are quick to point out how corporations are evil bastards out to make a buck, but when that would actually drive them to do the right thing (i.e. be energy efficient) they want the government to meddle anyway? Seriously, what the hell?
Slashdot Mirror
Out of curiosity, how do not feel like a scumbag for using one person's "imaginary property" without paying for it, then turning around and using the knowledge you got from it to sell more "imaginary property" to other people at great profit? They're giving you the knowledge you need to make your living and put food in your mouth, the least you could do is buy their books.
Sigh.
No... guess who *CHOOSES* to do business with organisations that have poor security? If you want a government babysitter, move to China. Everybody else here is happy with their freedom to do business with whomever they choose.
Can you name even a single company that has gone out of business because of data loss? Of the dozens, if not hundreds, of "Massive data loss..." articles that have been on Slashdot, can you point to a single instance where one of those companies has gone out of business? Certainly the vast majority of them have not. That sends a very clear signal to everybody, except you apparently, that protecting private data is not a worthwhile investment becase most people don't care. There's no incentive for companies to keep private data private because consumers have repeatedly shown they don't care if it gets lost. Companies lose data and stay in business == customers don't care about data loss. Why should I raise prices and spend money on data security if my customers don't care about it? It's really that simple.
Well, when I explain it half a dozen times, and you still don't seem to understand, I really have to wonder.
Is the government not supposed to represent the people anymore? If it's as you say, and people don't care about the privacy of their data, the government shouldn't care either.
Also, "protecting people" from themselves is the job of a socialist government. In free countries the government's job is to protect the people's rights. Then, the people get to use those rights in any way they want. Including stupid ways that aren't in their best interest, like doing business with companies with a history private data loss.
Instead of paying the high up front cost for better security, companies will save the money and pay the fine. How does your plan get around that?
The argument I've been making all along is that consumers should punish the offending companies by driving them out of business. I'm specifically arguing against the government getting involved in these cases because it shouldn't be necessary, limits freedom, wastes tax dollars, and encourages people to be irresponsible with their own data.
If consumers do what's in their best interest and avoided companies with poor data security, the companies would notice and take pains to make sure their data is secure, because they would know data loss meant going out of business.
Nope, same argument I've been making all along.
Are you really this dense? It's exactly the same idea if consumers drive the companies out of business for losing data, but without "big brother" looking out for everybody. Businesses that want to stay in business would protect private data. It's a hell of a lot better motivation than a puny fine.
Do you know why? It's because companies that lose data are never punished. Of the hundreds of data loss stories you've seen, how many of the companies involved have ever gone out of business because of it? How many have ever lost a significant portion of their customers? Why would a company spend money on data security if consumers clearly don't care either way? If your competitor loses data and stays in business, that means you can lose data and stay in business. They lose data, but they still have just as much money coming in as before. There's no motivation at all to protect private data, and that's why it keeps happening.
If a company loses 80% of their customers after anouncing data loss, other companies would pay attention.
How will the government fining companies for data loss change that?
No. How is it even relevant?
So the government is part of the problem. But you'd like to have government help fix it. That plan sounds like a winner.
I'd also love to know how you meaningfully fine a government agency. Would they stop working, pay the fine out of their current budget and raise taxes later? Or can they wait until after they've raised taxes to start paying the fine?
You can do like millions of other people and pay for your own insurance. Or not have insurance at all.
Transactions in a free market are *always* voluntary. If it's not voluntary, it's not a free market. What do you think the "free" stands for?
Well what do both of the companies have in common? They're both contractors for the bank that you're still using, despite their using contractors with shit privacy practices.
I'm aware that it's a pain in the ass, but if individuals won't put in the effort to safegaurd their own information, why should other people do it for them? You are the one with the most to lose if your private data is made public. No amount of fine is going to make up for the hassle of having your ID stolen.
Would you have even taken your car there in the first place if you knew they had a history of having cars stolen out of the garage?
You want the government to punish companies? But we are the government? So we are going to punish the companies? But we can't punish them by boycotting, driving them out of business and letting a responsible company take over? We have to fine them?
They're charging the amount that maximizes their profit *right now*, without a $5000 fine. If they risk a $5000 fine, they may decide to spend $4999 per customer securing the data. Or they may calculate they have a 50/50 chance of losing a customer's data, and charge $2500 extra per customer. In any event, the fine would just be an added cost of doing business. It would get factored into the final price just like every other cost of business.
Maybe you should spend less time trying to sound witty and more time thinking about what you're saying.
Maybe by not doing business with companies that do business with them?
The government keeps screwing up and losing your data, and your solution is MORE government? Besides that, where do you think the government is going to get money to pay those fines?
Oh shut the fuck up. Nobody is forcing you to buy stuff. Like this survey company goes around, holding people at gunpoint, telling them to give out their private info and take a survey? Give me a fucking break.
Can you provide even a single example where you simply *had* to buy some product or service from a company with poor data security.
You just don't get it, do you? It's your responsibility, as the "owner" of that information, to make sure it stays private. If a person willingly hands over their private data to a company with a history of data loss, how important can the data really be? You wouldn't give your car keys to a known car thief, so why will you give your private data (and money) to a company with a history of data loss?
It's our responsibility as consumers to punish companies that lose our's and other people's data by no longer doing business with them. We don't need the government looking over everybody's shoulder making sure we're all being treated okay. Believe it or not, it's up to us to look out for ourselves sometimes!
My guess is they'd charge $5000 more per customer, for "extra security." And then lose the data anyway.
Having the government impose a fine is not the answer. The *only* way companies will ever learn to properly secure consumer data is if consumers drive them out of business when they fuck it up. If consumers can't be bothered with 5 minutes of research to avoid companies with poor privacy practices, there's absolutely no incentive for companies to spend the money to respect privacy. A fine just increases the cost of doing business - meaning you'll pay even more to have them lose your data.
Where did you get the idea that you get to tell people how much money they can make? If you don't think the service LegalTorrents provides is worth 15% of your donation, shut the fuck up and donate somewhere else. It's that simple.
You do know your web browser has a history and bookmarking system, right?
The government working for the greater good is the definition of socialism. In a democratic society the government is there to protect against injustice and let the people worry about doing what's best for themselves, even if they don't always know what that is. The government doesn't exist to babysit us.
Personally, compared to other things the government wastes money on, I don't really mind them doing space research. Better space research than another invasion. But I still don't entirely agree with it.
No, the primary argument against the government supporting poor and unemployed people is that it disincentivizes working and promotes the welfare state. What motivation is there to finish high school, go to college, or even get a job, if you know that "big brother" will take care of you? Believe it or not, there are people who don't feel ashamed that they need to leech off other people. If you meet enough of those people, you quickly change your mind about government hand outs.
But that's not the issue. They're taking pictures of private people in private places.
I don't see why the government has to pay for it. Why not start a non-profit that takes donations and uses the money to do the research? That way you and other people who think it's important can donate as money as you want, and the people who don't care can keep their money.
But to money on energy I don't need to know how similar houses compare to mine. Neither do data center operators. It's useless trivia, at best.
No, you're putting words in my mouth. I'm against spending tax money on research that businesses should be doing for themselves. The only people benefiting from this study will be data center operators. The energy saved by implementing their plans isn't enough to noticeably decrease energy prices for anybody else, and there will be even less of an environmental impact.
As for only wanting the government to perform studies only when they're going to regulate something, it's not an odd stance at all. There are times when government meddling is the best option. I don't think those situations occur very often, and I definitely don't think this is one of those cases, but when it is necessary, I'd like them to at least have some understanding of what they're going to be meddling with.
Bush was elected because a relatively small group of idiots felt that gay people getting married was the most important issue during the election. Not the economy, not the war in Iraq/Afghanistan, not social security, not government spending, but what two consenting adults they'll never meet are allowed to do half a country away. And it was still a close call.
I agree America is going to hell in a hand basket, but trying to place the blame on Bush and the Republicans is a cop out.
I'm sorry, but you still haven't shown any proof that this study needed to be done by the government. You can try to change the subject all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that any competitive data center would be aiming for higher efficiency because it directly lowers their costs and allows them to offer lower prices than their competitors.
Besides that, if the government isn't going to pass legislation based on the study results, why even bother? It's blatantly obvious that higher efficiency equates to lower costs, so if the data centers don't care now, why will they care after the study is finished?
Here's a clue: If you live in a first world country there's a 100% chance your economy is based directly on the laissez-faire model. Chances are also high that the areas the most screwed up (i.e. telecom monopolies, etc) are the areas with the most government regulation and meddling. Until you can point out a single thriving economy based on socialism, communism, or whatever it is you're advocating, please STFU about how laissez-faire doesn't work.
Good! Those kinds of sales need to be stopped. How can you possibly think it's a good idea to lie to your customers?
Well then, maybe the government should raise their taxes even higher. Just think of all the studies they could fund! I'm sure that won't drive any data centers to India.
So basically, what you're saying is, data center efficiency isn't very important, but it's important enough to waste tax dollars on?
I'm saying that doing research for businesses isn't the government's fucking job. Why is it that people on Slashdot are quick to point out how corporations are evil bastards out to make a buck, but when that would actually drive them to do the right thing (i.e. be energy efficient) they want the government to meddle anyway? Seriously, what the hell?