Generally public key encryption should be sufficient. Just send the data as an encrypted attachment using a private key (which you can tell him over the phone), and send the e-mail (with the attachment) using some kind of public key encryption like pgp.
OPTIONALLY:
If you're extremely paranoid, you'll need a trusted 3rd party. So here's what ya' do:
Send the data as an e-mail attachment using any kind of truly secure encryption. You can use any number of programs for this: trucrypt for windows, or gnupg for *nix for example. Encrypt the data with a good private key (don't use public key encryption), then get your trusted 3rd party on a conference call along with the consultant. You want a 3rd party who can verify the voice of whoever you're delivering the data to so that you can be sure that it's not some random dude claiming to be from company X and claiming to be person Y. Then you literally tell the person the password over the phone. That way you're both communicating in real-time using 2 different forms of transmission. If the potential interceptor of the data has both your phone lines and your network lines tapped, then you have bigger problems than this little transmission of data. If you wanna be truly paranoid, then you could insist that the receiver use his/her cell phone instead of a potentially IP-based company phone.
Your 3rd option is to physically deliver the data with body guards, a handcuffed briefcase, and CIA assassins present.
yeah, for the majority of people this is true. Age 25 + marriage = teh devil. Otherwise, you're lucky to have that awesome genetic make-up. But don't forget that your body is still absorbing cholesterol and all kinds of other things along the way. Even if you're lucky enough to stay skinny, you could still have a heart attack or something. My grandpa was skinny as a stick and died of a massive heart attack. My co-worker was skinny as hell and had a stroke (not sure if it was cholesterol or the CGI scripting that did it though:-P).
Well, the fact that your daughter was playing a game with sexual innuendo and even nude (or near-nude) images is completely the fault of the ESRB for applying the rating "Teen" (13+?) to the game rather than the "Mature" (17+) rating. This is *not* the fault of the game designers or yourself. While it could be argued that every parent should be responsible for what their children are watching/playing, it is not truly feasible for most employed parents to test everything prior to allowing their children to use/view it. The same goes for R-rated movies.
On the other hand, most (if not all) 16 year-olds are either involved in sexual activity or have friends who are. The idea that sleeping with a professor can raise your grades is not new among 16 year-olds. While it may be the case that your particular daughter was unaware of this kind of thing at the time in discussion, it is very likely that she would have been introduced to the idea by her friends or any of a number of TV shows either during the week prior or during the week following. It is impossible to shelter a child from all forms of potentially harmful knowledge. But it is our job as parents to help guide our children through those times when they are confronted by such knowledge.
I didn't see any claims that the opposing extremes of these myths were entirely accurate. In other words, he was simply debunking extremist claims of the negative impact of violent video games on children. He was NOT claiming that video games have no impact on children. Unfortunately, regulators have a habit of "picking up the torch" on issues like these. Then, they blindly run with it as though the existence of this torch is evidence enough of its superior integrity. This is, unfortunately, a common theme in society in general. The fact is, there needs to be some middle ground, which doesn't *completely* restrict the video game market or its users. As the author of the article states, "parents need to share some of the responsibility for making decisions about what is appropriate for their children." Herein lies the true root of the problem. While you can restrict the legal age for purchase of these games, law cannot entirely make up for a lack of proper parenting. However, there is one advantage to creating laws that restrict the sale of mature content to minors: namely, parents will be more likely to realize the necessity of preventing their children from playing such games if there is a hard legal opposition to it. For this reason, I encourage such laws. However, as with any law that restricts the sale of a particular product, there will be a necessary market shift. As with the tobacco industry, the video game industry will have to change its advertising techniques to correlate with correct legal practices. The author of this article obviously agrees: "Clearly, more should be done to restrict advertising and marketing that targets young consumers with mature content [...]" That being said, we should remember that the goal of such restrictive law is to force parents into the decision-making process, rather than to completely dispense of the consumer's right to choose its media for entertainment.
Slashdot Mirror
Generally public key encryption should be sufficient. Just send the data as an encrypted attachment using a private key (which you can tell him over the phone), and send the e-mail (with the attachment) using some kind of public key encryption like pgp.
OPTIONALLY: If you're extremely paranoid, you'll need a trusted 3rd party. So here's what ya' do: Send the data as an e-mail attachment using any kind of truly secure encryption. You can use any number of programs for this: trucrypt for windows, or gnupg for *nix for example. Encrypt the data with a good private key (don't use public key encryption), then get your trusted 3rd party on a conference call along with the consultant. You want a 3rd party who can verify the voice of whoever you're delivering the data to so that you can be sure that it's not some random dude claiming to be from company X and claiming to be person Y. Then you literally tell the person the password over the phone. That way you're both communicating in real-time using 2 different forms of transmission. If the potential interceptor of the data has both your phone lines and your network lines tapped, then you have bigger problems than this little transmission of data. If you wanna be truly paranoid, then you could insist that the receiver use his/her cell phone instead of a potentially IP-based company phone.
Your 3rd option is to physically deliver the data with body guards, a handcuffed briefcase, and CIA assassins present.
yeah, for the majority of people this is true. Age 25 + marriage = teh devil. Otherwise, you're lucky to have that awesome genetic make-up. But don't forget that your body is still absorbing cholesterol and all kinds of other things along the way. Even if you're lucky enough to stay skinny, you could still have a heart attack or something. My grandpa was skinny as a stick and died of a massive heart attack. My co-worker was skinny as hell and had a stroke (not sure if it was cholesterol or the CGI scripting that did it though :-P).
It's nice to know that good old Mr. Lucas is just as much "in it for the money" as everyone else in that industry...
Well, the fact that your daughter was playing a game with sexual innuendo and even nude (or near-nude) images is completely the fault of the ESRB for applying the rating "Teen" (13+?) to the game rather than the "Mature" (17+) rating. This is *not* the fault of the game designers or yourself. While it could be argued that every parent should be responsible for what their children are watching/playing, it is not truly feasible for most employed parents to test everything prior to allowing their children to use/view it. The same goes for R-rated movies.
On the other hand, most (if not all) 16 year-olds are either involved in sexual activity or have friends who are. The idea that sleeping with a professor can raise your grades is not new among 16 year-olds. While it may be the case that your particular daughter was unaware of this kind of thing at the time in discussion, it is very likely that she would have been introduced to the idea by her friends or any of a number of TV shows either during the week prior or during the week following. It is impossible to shelter a child from all forms of potentially harmful knowledge. But it is our job as parents to help guide our children through those times when they are confronted by such knowledge.
I didn't see any claims that the opposing extremes of these myths were entirely accurate. In other words, he was simply debunking extremist claims of the negative impact of violent video games on children. He was NOT claiming that video games have no impact on children. Unfortunately, regulators have a habit of "picking up the torch" on issues like these. Then, they blindly run with it as though the existence of this torch is evidence enough of its superior integrity. This is, unfortunately, a common theme in society in general. The fact is, there needs to be some middle ground, which doesn't *completely* restrict the video game market or its users. As the author of the article states, "parents need to share some of the responsibility for making decisions about what is appropriate for their children." Herein lies the true root of the problem. While you can restrict the legal age for purchase of these games, law cannot entirely make up for a lack of proper parenting. However, there is one advantage to creating laws that restrict the sale of mature content to minors: namely, parents will be more likely to realize the necessity of preventing their children from playing such games if there is a hard legal opposition to it. For this reason, I encourage such laws. However, as with any law that restricts the sale of a particular product, there will be a necessary market shift. As with the tobacco industry, the video game industry will have to change its advertising techniques to correlate with correct legal practices. The author of this article obviously agrees: "Clearly, more should be done to restrict advertising and marketing that targets young consumers with mature content [...]" That being said, we should remember that the goal of such restrictive law is to force parents into the decision-making process, rather than to completely dispense of the consumer's right to choose its media for entertainment.