Right! And all state/locally funded. Once the feds get involved, things tend to go downhill.
Yeah! Like that stupid Interstate Highway System!
It's when the feds get involved in things like setting school curriculum
They don't, actually. The only thing they do is hand out grants to push for better education in some areas. And schools are not required to take them.
I would like to see more grants given to improve and encourage more STEM education, like we had back during the 50s and 60s. Maybe without the Red Scare tactics, though.
OK, but I could use N. Korea or the former Soviet Union as counter examples. Power corrupts. When you make the government all powerful, which is necessary for true Socialism, corruption happens.
Those where Communist, not Socialist. There's a huge difference. I could point to many of the Scandinavian countries as counter-counter examples of Democratic Socialism succeeding.
Some would say that's why we have the world's largest economy by far. We certainly have the most production per capita of any nation in history, and we are a lazy lot.
Only those who come from a country where you literally have to work all day for peanuts (China) would say that. Everyone else in the First World would say that we are the hardest workers in the world, especially by amount worked per year.
What's even worse is that, in such an event, since the states don't exist in a vacuum, those environmental damages would affect many other states as well. Further, the flood of companies heading to that state would encourage a "Race to the Bottom" with regards to gutting environmental and worker protection laws.
The problem of course is that when your state slides more and more toward socialism the economy of that state is on increasingly rocky ground. The state begins to build such enormous deficits that they cannot support the multitude of socialist programs it has established and must either raise taxes or turn to the federal government for funds to prevent bankruptcy. Or, more likely, both. California is a prime example of how this decline manifests.
You realize that California only gets something like 75 cents for every dollar in taxes it sends to Washington DC, right? And the "capitalist" Red States tend to get back far more than they put in?
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
And the thing "State's Rights" people always forget when they trumpet that piece is that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. Meaning, no law, federal, state, or local, can trump the Constitution and it's Amendments.
Gingrich was lying under oath? Or obstructing justice? Because THAT is what Clinton was impeached for.
And he was acquitted, meaning that it was found he didn't actually do any of that.
Gingrich was trying to put Clinton on trial for infidelity, while he currently was fooling around himself. That is the hypocrisy. He knew he couldn't get Clinton on anything to do with the actual reason for the investigation, the Whitewater scandal. So he goes for a completely unrelated thing.
Also, Clinton was cited for contempt of court in connection with the original case. He was fined $90,000 and had his license to practice law suspended.
Which is essentially a "We know you did nothing wrong, but we need something to save face after wasting all this time and effort, so we're going to give you a tiny punishment that you're not going to feel and isn't going to affect you in the slightest." punishment.
He was impeached for lying under oath about screwing around with Lewinski. And the lie he told was during an investigation for a completely separate topic, the Whitewater scandal. Given that it's not perjury to lie about something not connected in the slightest, he never should have been impeached in the first place.
I hope I never hear you complain in the future about corporations being too big and too powerful, since you are happy to see their smaller competition put out of business by government regulation.
That is absolutely the most retarded thing I have ever read. Tell me, why the fuck should a company's size have anything to do with whether they can actually comply with regulation? It doesn't. In most cases, a company saying they can't comply with regulation is just saying they don't want to get off their ass and actually do something.
The idea that "regulation cripples small business, and therefore we shouldn't have any regulation!" is so asinine as to be retarded.
Bull fucking shit. That is not the case at all, so stop pretending it is. This is about making the penalty for a data breach far more painful than taking the actual steps to secure it, which is what needs to be done in order to get the "free market" to actually do anything.
Except the way it can be used is generally why the data itself being leaked is a bad thing.
And no, there is nothing with "government authority" allowing bullshit like this. And definitely no "government authority" actually protecting people. Pull your head out of your ass.
I'm not saying the government is going to be awesome at it. But they are going to be far, far, far better at it than a company that allows repeated data breaches.
If they can't be bothered to secure my data, then fuck them.
Why should the size of a company have any bearing whatsoever on this discussion? Is it somehow more ok for a tiny company to have a breach of data than a large one?
Good fucking riddance. If they can't actually secure my private data, they shouldn't be in business in the first fucking place.
You people always bitch and moan about "regulations being a burden!", but for some reason, you think it's completely fucking ok for companies to just not give two shits about someone's data.
As someone who is involved in putting in place processes to cope with legislation like this I can only say it sounds like yet another ludicrous set of disincentives for small businesses./quote.
As someone who does business on the internet, I say good fucking riddance to assholes like you. The rules proposed seem quite reasonable, and if you can't be bothered to secure my data, then I don't want you in business in the first fucking place.
WRONG. While an advertiser can't do that, that action is not very common at all. However, an advertiser, or a company with which you trusted your data can fail to properly secure it, and have it leaked. When that happens, you can have a situation that is just as bad, if not worse, than the one you described.
I'm sorry, but the "government doesn't have anything, and anything they have is theft!" argument is complete and utter bullshit. There is nothing at all justifying this argument. It has absolutely no place in this, or any other discussion.
And again, as I said, there are many places where government is the only actor with access to enough resources to provide those services. In these areas, the private providers likely have decided they don't feel it's profitable to do so. In such an event, the only actor left to provide the services is government.
A statement like that can only be made by someone with a religious like faith in the market. Such a person has lost their objectivity regarding the market, and can no longer be taken seriously about it.
Slashdot Mirror
Right! And all state/locally funded. Once the feds get involved, things tend to go downhill.
Yeah! Like that stupid Interstate Highway System!
It's when the feds get involved in things like setting school curriculum
They don't, actually. The only thing they do is hand out grants to push for better education in some areas. And schools are not required to take them.
I would like to see more grants given to improve and encourage more STEM education, like we had back during the 50s and 60s. Maybe without the Red Scare tactics, though.
OK, but I could use N. Korea or the former Soviet Union as counter examples. Power corrupts. When you make the government all powerful, which is necessary for true Socialism, corruption happens.
Those where Communist, not Socialist. There's a huge difference. I could point to many of the Scandinavian countries as counter-counter examples of Democratic Socialism succeeding.
Some would say that's why we have the world's largest economy by far. We certainly have the most production per capita of any nation in history, and we are a lazy lot.
Only those who come from a country where you literally have to work all day for peanuts (China) would say that. Everyone else in the First World would say that we are the hardest workers in the world, especially by amount worked per year.
What's even worse is that, in such an event, since the states don't exist in a vacuum, those environmental damages would affect many other states as well. Further, the flood of companies heading to that state would encourage a "Race to the Bottom" with regards to gutting environmental and worker protection laws.
The problem of course is that when your state slides more and more toward socialism the economy of that state is on increasingly rocky ground. The state begins to build such enormous deficits that they cannot support the multitude of socialist programs it has established and must either raise taxes or turn to the federal government for funds to prevent bankruptcy. Or, more likely, both. California is a prime example of how this decline manifests.
You realize that California only gets something like 75 cents for every dollar in taxes it sends to Washington DC, right? And the "capitalist" Red States tend to get back far more than they put in?
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
And the thing "State's Rights" people always forget when they trumpet that piece is that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. Meaning, no law, federal, state, or local, can trump the Constitution and it's Amendments.
Gingrich was lying under oath? Or obstructing justice? Because THAT is what Clinton was impeached for.
And he was acquitted, meaning that it was found he didn't actually do any of that.
Gingrich was trying to put Clinton on trial for infidelity, while he currently was fooling around himself. That is the hypocrisy. He knew he couldn't get Clinton on anything to do with the actual reason for the investigation, the Whitewater scandal. So he goes for a completely unrelated thing.
Also, Clinton was cited for contempt of court in connection with the original case. He was fined $90,000 and had his license to practice law suspended.
Which is essentially a "We know you did nothing wrong, but we need something to save face after wasting all this time and effort, so we're going to give you a tiny punishment that you're not going to feel and isn't going to affect you in the slightest." punishment.
He was impeached for lying under oath about screwing around with Lewinski. And the lie he told was during an investigation for a completely separate topic, the Whitewater scandal. Given that it's not perjury to lie about something not connected in the slightest, he never should have been impeached in the first place.
Except that just about every American has access to the technology and knowledge gathered through the Space Program.
I hope I never hear you complain in the future about corporations being too big and too powerful, since you are happy to see their smaller competition put out of business by government regulation.
That is absolutely the most retarded thing I have ever read. Tell me, why the fuck should a company's size have anything to do with whether they can actually comply with regulation? It doesn't. In most cases, a company saying they can't comply with regulation is just saying they don't want to get off their ass and actually do something.
The idea that "regulation cripples small business, and therefore we shouldn't have any regulation!" is so asinine as to be retarded.
Bull fucking shit. That is not the case at all, so stop pretending it is. This is about making the penalty for a data breach far more painful than taking the actual steps to secure it, which is what needs to be done in order to get the "free market" to actually do anything.
Except the way it can be used is generally why the data itself being leaked is a bad thing.
And no, there is nothing with "government authority" allowing bullshit like this. And definitely no "government authority" actually protecting people. Pull your head out of your ass.
I'm not saying the government is going to be awesome at it. But they are going to be far, far, far better at it than a company that allows repeated data breaches.
And shove your agism comment up your ass.
Also - who is responsible for the fine if the breach is due to "off the shelf" software?
The company using it. They did not take proper precautions and did not do proper security auditing.
If they can't be bothered to secure my data, then fuck them.
Why should the size of a company have any bearing whatsoever on this discussion? Is it somehow more ok for a tiny company to have a breach of data than a large one?
Good fucking riddance. If they can't actually secure my private data, they shouldn't be in business in the first fucking place.
You people always bitch and moan about "regulations being a burden!", but for some reason, you think it's completely fucking ok for companies to just not give two shits about someone's data.
As someone who is involved in putting in place processes to cope with legislation like this I can only say it sounds like yet another ludicrous set of disincentives for small businesses./quote.
As someone who does business on the internet, I say good fucking riddance to assholes like you. The rules proposed seem quite reasonable, and if you can't be bothered to secure my data, then I don't want you in business in the first fucking place.
WRONG. While an advertiser can't do that, that action is not very common at all. However, an advertiser, or a company with which you trusted your data can fail to properly secure it, and have it leaked. When that happens, you can have a situation that is just as bad, if not worse, than the one you described.
It won't. But it definitely helps with protecting against some of the other threats.
Remember, businesses can be just as oppressive as governments.
Shut the fuck up, seriously. This idea that companies should not be held responsible for their actions is completely asinine.
If you don't want companies to be held responsible, go find somewhere without "government intervention". I hear Somalia is lovely this time of year.
No, just stop it. This bullshit of, "Well I didn't vote for the people who won, therefore I don't have representation" is patently false.
I would say those governments would spend/invest that money far, far, far better than a company that allows repeated data breaches.
I know of no other way to predict the future and make wise decisions, than to look at the past.
So you decide to cherry pick one example from over 30 years ago, instead of going with the much more recent examples, which disprove you. Got it.
Just as much as you have. You have just as much ability to lobby your elected representatives as we do.
I'm sorry, but the "government doesn't have anything, and anything they have is theft!" argument is complete and utter bullshit. There is nothing at all justifying this argument. It has absolutely no place in this, or any other discussion.
And again, as I said, there are many places where government is the only actor with access to enough resources to provide those services. In these areas, the private providers likely have decided they don't feel it's profitable to do so. In such an event, the only actor left to provide the services is government.
That's a real fancy way of saying that people must be compelled to provide you with something as a RIGHT.
there are no market failures, market never fails.
A statement like that can only be made by someone with a religious like faith in the market. Such a person has lost their objectivity regarding the market, and can no longer be taken seriously about it.