Nevermind whether the scanner has been cracked. What happens if you lose your biometric password, or it gets mangled beyond recognition? I suspect they'll scan multiple parts of your body (ten fingers, 2 eyes, voice) and will accept a majority of successes as opposed to only 100% of successes. But there still will be some poor sap who lost the majority of his fingers in a wood chipper accident, and had both eyes affected due to glaucoma or retinal sunburn. Now he comes down with a cold. What's gonna happen? He won't be able to authenticate?
What worries me the most about biometric IDs is the idea that somehow, biometrics never change. I expect that there will be no process in place to change the biometrics, or that the process will be so impossible as to be the same as having no process. And if the process to change your biometric passwords is easy, why use them instead of just a regular picture ID?
This stuff might work in specific situations, where outliers are rare, and relationships between the scanners and scannees close enough to make fixes easy. But I can only see nightmares if this gets implemented on a national level.
Because I don't own my own coal power plant. I do, however, own lighbulbs. As a result, I can control how much Mercury goes into the air when a CFL breaks, but not how much Mercury goes in the air from a coal-powered power plant. Ergo, my best course of action is to use CFLs.
It's a bad thing because it destroys the entire concept of the internet: that devices which allow you to connect to them can be connected to without involving written permission.
See above for someone else's thought that the SSID is not a sign. Here's another problem with this approach. Let's say I want to connect a specific Access Point. If everyone has to name their open access point the same, then there is no way for me to tell which one is the access point I want to connect to. Maybe we can configure the router into some general state that uses the SSID for identification, but where it also broadcasts information that anyone connect to it who so wishes. Oh wait - that's exactly what's going on right now.
The open AP = permission is not a lie, it's the entire design and purpose of the device. There is no ambiguity.
Another question: if you assume that an open AP does not imply permission, what do you do when you want to connect to web servers? Gateways? Tor? P2P? You're basically destroying everything that makes the internet tick, which is that intelligence is on the edges.
Perhaps a better approach would be to force all routers to be delivered with a dead wireless connection, and where you have to connect to it via cable to set up its wireless configuration. I'm sure that wouldn't go over well with the router manufacturers.
Again, wrong analogy. A house is designed to prevent access. As is a door. A router is designed to connect.
BTW, did you ask CmdrTaco if you're allowed to access his webserver? You didn't? How come you're posting? From a technological perspective, a web server responding to anonymous requests with data is the same as a router responding to anonymous requests with a connection. They are designed to operate that way.
Wrong analogy. Let me ask you this: if this is the case, how can I tell people that they are actually allowed to use my unsecured wireless access point? For a house, a simple sign that says "Anyone, please enter" is enough. How does that work for the wireless router? The sign is out there, but you're arguing that the sign is not valid. I'm all for respect of other people's property and services, but your lack of distinction makes it impossible for certain services to be offered.
The device comes with instructions on how to secure it, and how to prevent it from just broadcasting SSIDs and hooking up anyone who asks with IPs and DNSs. The law would be just a duplicate of the technology.
To me, the bigger issue with this kind of legislation is not that it tries to achieve via law something that is already possible via technology (at worst opening up a can of unintended consequences). It is that if this law passes, there's no easy way for me to provide free wireless to anyone who asks. Let's say I want to have an open access point as a community service to my neighbors. How do I do this if anyone who connects to what I want to provide for free gets prosecuted as if I wouldn't want to provide it for free? Would there be a special SSID I'd have to broadcast? Would I have to get a license? All alternatives are open for abuse, not to mention being completely impractical.
If I would be any more cynical, I'd say that the inability for anyone to provide free wireless access to anyone else under this law is an INTENDED consequence, devised by telecoms who want to sell more wireless 3G plans. Surely, telecoms couldn't possibly be this evil. They are? Crap. We're boned.
There's something like a Physicist's Poverty Program: Medecins sans Frontieres (yes, I know, Physician != Physicist). Doctors and nurses well versed in the scientific method who perform critical work in areas where no one else dares to work. Similarly, there are a number of goodwill operations and charitable works being done by scientists.
Though your point is well taken: Science itself offers no hope or social network. Religion does.
Clueless, eh? Otherwise you'd know where i-d-ten-t comes from, what it means and what its normal context is. I can't help you if you're that keen to jump to conclusions in discussions where you don't know the topic, don't know the terms and can't even read a comment without substituting what's being said with what you think is being said. Good luck with your attitude. I hope for your sake you won't win a Darwin Award.
Screw it. I was actually delving into a lesson in remedial reading just for you, but realized that I would have to explain every last sentence to you. I'll just leave you with a little hint to guide you through the comment: can a CEO's success be replicated by strictly emulating his managerial style? Another hint: understand the topic being discussed. It isn't whether CEOs should be good people. It is whether implementing a particular CEO's approach to management elsewhere can be done successfully.
As for personal attacks, the word "id10t" was just made for people like you. You can word a post nicely, and get a nice reply back, or you can start off as a douchebag and get the same back. Stupid git.
Before you hold others to standards, you might want to check whether you meet those standards yourself. RTFC. If you find where I said that his success excuses his personal character flaws, point it out to me. I'll send you to back to remedial reading. You might find, on the other hand, that my point is that the success of Apple is in spite of his personal flaws, and that they are not to be emulated.
Thank you. I was wondering if I was the only one who thought that. I have a friend who worked at Apple, and quit because upper management was evil and insane. From the stories I heard about her particular project, I can only wonder how anything gets accomplished there. What Apple's success tells me is that Apple's management methods of screaming at employees and "hero-shithead rollercoasters" (to quote the article) yield results not because the management methods themselves are working, but because there is a bona-fide genius at the helm whose micromanagement is genuinely better than whatever else a group of people could come up with. I also think that this works only because Apple produces Steve Jobs products. Jobs at the helm of IBM would be a complete disaster.
In short, Wired is trying to make Steve Jobs' business management methods into something that can work for everybody, which is complete and utter idiocy. If they'd have any experience with business management, they'd know that. What we have here is a person who is good enough with product development, deal making and personal leadership that he can overcome his absolutely craptastic management skills. Jobs is not a manager, he is a dictator. Just because he is a good one doesn't mean that you become good by emulating him. You need the rest of his skills as well.
I also agree that what works for Google is unlikely to work across the board for others. You create management strategies around the people you have. If you can't do that, you need to hire people who fit your management style. But you cannot impose management strategies on people who don't respond to those strategies. That's just a disaster in the making.
Also unconscionable is the notion that the underlaying software algorithm would essencially boil down to a very simple statement that looks something like the following:
vote++;
Agreed. Though I admit that after Lessig gave up his fight for copyright reform and instead went after the more fundamental problem of corruption, I gave up hope for seeing this addressed in my life time.
Someone mod this guy up. I find it unconscionable that it is possible to patent or copyright something that is absolutely critical to the fundamental processes of democracy. Sequoia might as well demand that they be made Emperors of America.
The interesting - and often overlooked - corollary to this is, if you did nothing bad, why is anyone coming to check on you in the first place? And no, I don't care for anyone to verify this. If I'm supposed to take someone at their word on whether the surveillance is legitimate, I expect them to take me at my word that their surveillance is unnecessary.
As someone posted below, the reason that people are so gung-ho on surveillance is that there is this notion of good people vs bad people that is started in childhood, and which never really goes away. Not to mention that everyone thinks that only bad people (however they are defined) have bad things happen to them as a result of something as neutral as surveillance.
Besides, if the Clinton bitch gets into power, she may not come after you, but she'll be willing to allow mass surveillance to enforce whichever nutty plans she has to take more of your money off you
As opposed to who? McCain and his terrorism paranoia? Obama, who is just another democrat with the same goals as Clinton? If you think Clinton is the only one who is interested in Mass Surveillance, you're deluded. Not only is she a wholly middle-of-the-road politician when it comes to this, but the majority of the public doesn't care.
I'd like to point out that it is the American News Media that has focused to an absurd extent on these two topics. This in turn is driven by what the News Media Corporations believe will be watched or read by Americans. As much as people bitch about MSM and right-wing bias and left-wing bias, face it folks - the News Conglomerates are feeding the public what the public wants. This is the beauty of the capitalist system. Yes, there is some blatant editorializing going on, but I can guarantee you that if that editorializing wouldn't get these massive ratings, it would have died out long ago.
In short, I place the blame for idiotic reporting squarely at the feet of the American public. Stop watching stupid crap, and stupid crap will stop being produced. Yes, I know - the American public is not a homogeneous entity. But it is frightening how many people consider Geraldo Rivera to be an actual journalist.
Good grief. At least educate yourself on what is covered by criminal trials and civil lawsuits. A good place to start is here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/cc.html That'll take care of your incorrect distinction between breaking criminal trials and civil lawsuits.
Second, if conversations are protected by National Security considerations, they will not be audited in a public forum. End of story. No need for a strawman.
Finally, companies going out of business is a GOOD thing - especially if they exposed themselves to criminal or civil lawsuits. What, ATT is too big to be prosecuted? What kind of retarded argument is this?
In the end, it boils down to this: would you rather pay in civil liberties, or would you rather pay in security theater? It seems to be quite obvious on which side you're coming down... to that, I'd just like to reuse a statement that's so well abused by wannabe patriots: get the fuck out of my country. Stop wussifying America.
You do realize that merely repeating something false doesn't make it true, right? The first tentacle system was private. Look up the transition from steam to electric power.
First I thought I'd reply to your wildly ignorant statement that "monopolies only exist because of government interference in the market place, without exception." in an rational manner. Then I read your statement "Any other government monopolies or interferences in the free market you need me to solve?" and realized that you are simply delusional.
Here's a simple question for you to answer: would you rather buy a house that comes with power pre-attached, or would you rather buy a house, buy a connector, wait for others to buy similar connectors, wait for someone to determine that there's enough of a market there to service you and your neighborhood, then build the power infrastructure necessary to deliver that power to you? Actually, let me answer this question for you, as you've obviously never dealt with this question: No, you wouldn't. And no one else would. Instead, everyone else would much rather plug into the central electrical system that started when power plants had to be centrally located, and where economies of scale and ownership of lines created natural monopolies almost immediately.
Seriously. Move out of your bedroom in your parents' house, and start sniffing the real world. The only thing good I can get from your misinformed rant is that you're likely to vote for Ron Paul on consistent basis, and therefore will be unable to influence anything.
It's not even that 99% of TV is crap, and that the few interesting shows are more easily downloaded via bittorrent. They are competing not only with all entertainment that currently is being developed, but with all entertainment that has EVER been created.
If I go to watch an edition of Shakespeare in the Park, I don't watch the latest American Idol. If I listen to the Brandenburger Concertos, I don't listen to Lindsey Lohan. If I watch Metropolis, I don't watch 10,000 BC. If I play Chess, I don't play Teamfortress II.
The content providers are in a massive quandary: their revenue stream is dependent on people watching newly created content, because that's what commands the biggest premium and causes people to actually buy stuff. When people start to turn to stuff that is either already sitting in their library or that's a reproduction of an existing work (i.e., where the heavy creative lifting has already been done), they are not willing to pay "new" prices for that content. In other words, content providers and distributors are competing against themselves even when they put out quality stuff. Even if they kill piracy completely, their best days are behind them. The only thing that can bring them the massive profit margins is if they manage to pass a law that requires pay-per-view on ALL creative material, regardless of age or ownership. It's no surprise they're working on such laws on a continuous basis.
Yup. I remember that part - and the almost is the key word. Unless RIM is forced into bankruptcy by some stupid patent, has to turn off all blackberries and all services, and its parts are dismembered by creditor vultures, politicians won't do a thing. Paying $385 million wasn't enough. RIM has to die before anything gets even looked at.
When some politician's company or favorite product gets killed because of patent trolls. The best bet everyone has is that Blackberry is brought down by a patent troll with an obviously idiotic patent. It got close the last time, but wasn't quite enough. Sadly, only personal pain will convince politician's that something's worth taking up.
Slashdot Mirror
Wooooooosh.
Nevermind whether the scanner has been cracked. What happens if you lose your biometric password, or it gets mangled beyond recognition? I suspect they'll scan multiple parts of your body (ten fingers, 2 eyes, voice) and will accept a majority of successes as opposed to only 100% of successes. But there still will be some poor sap who lost the majority of his fingers in a wood chipper accident, and had both eyes affected due to glaucoma or retinal sunburn. Now he comes down with a cold. What's gonna happen? He won't be able to authenticate?
What worries me the most about biometric IDs is the idea that somehow, biometrics never change. I expect that there will be no process in place to change the biometrics, or that the process will be so impossible as to be the same as having no process. And if the process to change your biometric passwords is easy, why use them instead of just a regular picture ID?
This stuff might work in specific situations, where outliers are rare, and relationships between the scanners and scannees close enough to make fixes easy. But I can only see nightmares if this gets implemented on a national level.
Because I don't own my own coal power plant. I do, however, own lighbulbs. As a result, I can control how much Mercury goes into the air when a CFL breaks, but not how much Mercury goes in the air from a coal-powered power plant. Ergo, my best course of action is to use CFLs.
It's a bad thing because it destroys the entire concept of the internet: that devices which allow you to connect to them can be connected to without involving written permission.
See above for someone else's thought that the SSID is not a sign. Here's another problem with this approach. Let's say I want to connect a specific Access Point. If everyone has to name their open access point the same, then there is no way for me to tell which one is the access point I want to connect to. Maybe we can configure the router into some general state that uses the SSID for identification, but where it also broadcasts information that anyone connect to it who so wishes. Oh wait - that's exactly what's going on right now.
The open AP = permission is not a lie, it's the entire design and purpose of the device. There is no ambiguity.
Another question: if you assume that an open AP does not imply permission, what do you do when you want to connect to web servers? Gateways? Tor? P2P? You're basically destroying everything that makes the internet tick, which is that intelligence is on the edges.
Perhaps a better approach would be to force all routers to be delivered with a dead wireless connection, and where you have to connect to it via cable to set up its wireless configuration. I'm sure that wouldn't go over well with the router manufacturers.
Again, wrong analogy. A house is designed to prevent access. As is a door. A router is designed to connect.
BTW, did you ask CmdrTaco if you're allowed to access his webserver? You didn't? How come you're posting? From a technological perspective, a web server responding to anonymous requests with data is the same as a router responding to anonymous requests with a connection. They are designed to operate that way.
Wrong analogy. Let me ask you this: if this is the case, how can I tell people that they are actually allowed to use my unsecured wireless access point? For a house, a simple sign that says "Anyone, please enter" is enough. How does that work for the wireless router? The sign is out there, but you're arguing that the sign is not valid. I'm all for respect of other people's property and services, but your lack of distinction makes it impossible for certain services to be offered.
The device comes with instructions on how to secure it, and how to prevent it from just broadcasting SSIDs and hooking up anyone who asks with IPs and DNSs. The law would be just a duplicate of the technology.
To me, the bigger issue with this kind of legislation is not that it tries to achieve via law something that is already possible via technology (at worst opening up a can of unintended consequences). It is that if this law passes, there's no easy way for me to provide free wireless to anyone who asks. Let's say I want to have an open access point as a community service to my neighbors. How do I do this if anyone who connects to what I want to provide for free gets prosecuted as if I wouldn't want to provide it for free? Would there be a special SSID I'd have to broadcast? Would I have to get a license? All alternatives are open for abuse, not to mention being completely impractical.
If I would be any more cynical, I'd say that the inability for anyone to provide free wireless access to anyone else under this law is an INTENDED consequence, devised by telecoms who want to sell more wireless 3G plans. Surely, telecoms couldn't possibly be this evil. They are? Crap. We're boned.
There's something like a Physicist's Poverty Program: Medecins sans Frontieres (yes, I know, Physician != Physicist). Doctors and nurses well versed in the scientific method who perform critical work in areas where no one else dares to work. Similarly, there are a number of goodwill operations and charitable works being done by scientists.
Though your point is well taken: Science itself offers no hope or social network. Religion does.
Clueless, eh? Otherwise you'd know where i-d-ten-t comes from, what it means and what its normal context is. I can't help you if you're that keen to jump to conclusions in discussions where you don't know the topic, don't know the terms and can't even read a comment without substituting what's being said with what you think is being said. Good luck with your attitude. I hope for your sake you won't win a Darwin Award.
Screw it. I was actually delving into a lesson in remedial reading just for you, but realized that I would have to explain every last sentence to you. I'll just leave you with a little hint to guide you through the comment: can a CEO's success be replicated by strictly emulating his managerial style? Another hint: understand the topic being discussed. It isn't whether CEOs should be good people. It is whether implementing a particular CEO's approach to management elsewhere can be done successfully.
As for personal attacks, the word "id10t" was just made for people like you. You can word a post nicely, and get a nice reply back, or you can start off as a douchebag and get the same back. Stupid git.
Before you hold others to standards, you might want to check whether you meet those standards yourself. RTFC. If you find where I said that his success excuses his personal character flaws, point it out to me. I'll send you to back to remedial reading. You might find, on the other hand, that my point is that the success of Apple is in spite of his personal flaws, and that they are not to be emulated.
Thank you. I was wondering if I was the only one who thought that. I have a friend who worked at Apple, and quit because upper management was evil and insane. From the stories I heard about her particular project, I can only wonder how anything gets accomplished there. What Apple's success tells me is that Apple's management methods of screaming at employees and "hero-shithead rollercoasters" (to quote the article) yield results not because the management methods themselves are working, but because there is a bona-fide genius at the helm whose micromanagement is genuinely better than whatever else a group of people could come up with. I also think that this works only because Apple produces Steve Jobs products. Jobs at the helm of IBM would be a complete disaster.
In short, Wired is trying to make Steve Jobs' business management methods into something that can work for everybody, which is complete and utter idiocy. If they'd have any experience with business management, they'd know that. What we have here is a person who is good enough with product development, deal making and personal leadership that he can overcome his absolutely craptastic management skills. Jobs is not a manager, he is a dictator. Just because he is a good one doesn't mean that you become good by emulating him. You need the rest of his skills as well.
I also agree that what works for Google is unlikely to work across the board for others. You create management strategies around the people you have. If you can't do that, you need to hire people who fit your management style. But you cannot impose management strategies on people who don't respond to those strategies. That's just a disaster in the making.
Agreed. Though I admit that after Lessig gave up his fight for copyright reform and instead went after the more fundamental problem of corruption, I gave up hope for seeing this addressed in my life time.
Someone mod this guy up. I find it unconscionable that it is possible to patent or copyright something that is absolutely critical to the fundamental processes of democracy. Sequoia might as well demand that they be made Emperors of America.
The interesting - and often overlooked - corollary to this is, if you did nothing bad, why is anyone coming to check on you in the first place? And no, I don't care for anyone to verify this. If I'm supposed to take someone at their word on whether the surveillance is legitimate, I expect them to take me at my word that their surveillance is unnecessary.
As someone posted below, the reason that people are so gung-ho on surveillance is that there is this notion of good people vs bad people that is started in childhood, and which never really goes away. Not to mention that everyone thinks that only bad people (however they are defined) have bad things happen to them as a result of something as neutral as surveillance.
As opposed to who? McCain and his terrorism paranoia? Obama, who is just another democrat with the same goals as Clinton? If you think Clinton is the only one who is interested in Mass Surveillance, you're deluded. Not only is she a wholly middle-of-the-road politician when it comes to this, but the majority of the public doesn't care.
... film at 11.
I'd like to point out that it is the American News Media that has focused to an absurd extent on these two topics. This in turn is driven by what the News Media Corporations believe will be watched or read by Americans. As much as people bitch about MSM and right-wing bias and left-wing bias, face it folks - the News Conglomerates are feeding the public what the public wants. This is the beauty of the capitalist system. Yes, there is some blatant editorializing going on, but I can guarantee you that if that editorializing wouldn't get these massive ratings, it would have died out long ago.
In short, I place the blame for idiotic reporting squarely at the feet of the American public. Stop watching stupid crap, and stupid crap will stop being produced. Yes, I know - the American public is not a homogeneous entity. But it is frightening how many people consider Geraldo Rivera to be an actual journalist.
Good grief. At least educate yourself on what is covered by criminal trials and civil lawsuits. A good place to start is here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/cc.html That'll take care of your incorrect distinction between breaking criminal trials and civil lawsuits.
Second, if conversations are protected by National Security considerations, they will not be audited in a public forum. End of story. No need for a strawman.
Finally, companies going out of business is a GOOD thing - especially if they exposed themselves to criminal or civil lawsuits. What, ATT is too big to be prosecuted? What kind of retarded argument is this?
In the end, it boils down to this: would you rather pay in civil liberties, or would you rather pay in security theater? It seems to be quite obvious on which side you're coming down... to that, I'd just like to reuse a statement that's so well abused by wannabe patriots: get the fuck out of my country. Stop wussifying America.
If someone is suing the shit out of the telecoms, and the telecoms lose, doesn't that mean that the telecoms shouldn't have done what they did?
Rule of law ALWAYS applies to everyone. People need to learn that even the president cannot make them perform illegal acts.
You do realize that merely repeating something false doesn't make it true, right? The first tentacle system was private. Look up the transition from steam to electric power.
First I thought I'd reply to your wildly ignorant statement that "monopolies only exist because of government interference in the market place, without exception." in an rational manner. Then I read your statement "Any other government monopolies or interferences in the free market you need me to solve?" and realized that you are simply delusional.
Here's a simple question for you to answer: would you rather buy a house that comes with power pre-attached, or would you rather buy a house, buy a connector, wait for others to buy similar connectors, wait for someone to determine that there's enough of a market there to service you and your neighborhood, then build the power infrastructure necessary to deliver that power to you? Actually, let me answer this question for you, as you've obviously never dealt with this question: No, you wouldn't. And no one else would. Instead, everyone else would much rather plug into the central electrical system that started when power plants had to be centrally located, and where economies of scale and ownership of lines created natural monopolies almost immediately.
Seriously. Move out of your bedroom in your parents' house, and start sniffing the real world. The only thing good I can get from your misinformed rant is that you're likely to vote for Ron Paul on consistent basis, and therefore will be unable to influence anything.
It's not even that 99% of TV is crap, and that the few interesting shows are more easily downloaded via bittorrent. They are competing not only with all entertainment that currently is being developed, but with all entertainment that has EVER been created.
If I go to watch an edition of Shakespeare in the Park, I don't watch the latest American Idol. If I listen to the Brandenburger Concertos, I don't listen to Lindsey Lohan. If I watch Metropolis, I don't watch 10,000 BC. If I play Chess, I don't play Teamfortress II.
The content providers are in a massive quandary: their revenue stream is dependent on people watching newly created content, because that's what commands the biggest premium and causes people to actually buy stuff. When people start to turn to stuff that is either already sitting in their library or that's a reproduction of an existing work (i.e., where the heavy creative lifting has already been done), they are not willing to pay "new" prices for that content. In other words, content providers and distributors are competing against themselves even when they put out quality stuff. Even if they kill piracy completely, their best days are behind them. The only thing that can bring them the massive profit margins is if they manage to pass a law that requires pay-per-view on ALL creative material, regardless of age or ownership. It's no surprise they're working on such laws on a continuous basis.
Yup. I remember that part - and the almost is the key word. Unless RIM is forced into bankruptcy by some stupid patent, has to turn off all blackberries and all services, and its parts are dismembered by creditor vultures, politicians won't do a thing. Paying $385 million wasn't enough. RIM has to die before anything gets even looked at.
When some politician's company or favorite product gets killed because of patent trolls. The best bet everyone has is that Blackberry is brought down by a patent troll with an obviously idiotic patent. It got close the last time, but wasn't quite enough. Sadly, only personal pain will convince politician's that something's worth taking up.