I've always been amused by the figures that are put on software piracy.
Unlike things like producing a line of denim clothing and putting the Levis brand on it, creating pirated software costs virtually nothing. It takes just as much effort to copy a DVD containing your latest vacation photos as copying a DVD containing a $10k software package.
Just because they discovered a few thousand copies of expensive software doesn't mean that it either cost that much to produce, or has that much sale value (pirated software sells for far less). Neither does it mean that the loss in sales is nearly as much, as many of those who buy/download pirated software would never have bought the software in the first place.
I and my boyfriend use our modded PS2 to play games such as the japanese versions of the Final Fantasy series, Xenogears and Xenosaga (which are not otherwise available in Europe), DDR of various incarnations (which, in Europe, are replaced by the Dancing Stage series, which has a lot less quality songs) and so on.
We also use our, legally purchased and not modified in any way (not even region-less), SONY DVD-recorder to make copies of movies, TV-shows and so on.
Since it's now late enough that this reply won't turn into a heated flamewar, no. I don't think the murder of Anna Lindh is relevant to the gun control issue.
The murder of Anna Lindh could not have been prevented by legalising guns in Sweden. It could've been prevented by bodyguards however. Bodyguards may also get a permit to carry guns in public.
I also acknowledge the fact that should anyone try to threaten my loved ones, I'd see a definite wish for having a gun. That does not make me want to go out and get a gun though.
Every place in the world has violence. Imagine for instance if someone hijacked a plane you were on, threatened to crash it into New York, and the gun control laws allowed any passenger on that airplane to carry a weapon. What do you think would happen? Would you think it would be easier or harder for the hijackers to hijack the plane? Would anyone survive at all, regardless of the hijackers actual plans?
I'll send you an iPod for $1. All you need to do is to send me the $1 bill, then ask 50 of your friends to send me $1 each, then tell 50 of THEIR friends to send me $1 each. In addition, every one of your 50 friends can also get an iPod for $1, as long as every one of their 50 friends send me $1.
(Substitute "sign up for blah" wherever appropriate)
No, you don't buy a car the first model year (1.0). That's why you wait for Car 1.1 or higher. Waiting until the new model (2.0) is out is just plain stupid.:)
You might very well be right. In fact, there have been cases where authorities have failed to regulate database use. An example of that is the registration of political views here in Sweden during the 50s and 60s, which was illegal but happened anyway.
I believe there will be cases where this regulation will fail, as well as when it'll succeed. I think that if it succeeds, it'll be because groups of ordinary citizens like you and me will be keeping an eye on the authorities, because I do not trust them to regulate things properly without enough supervision from the outside.
I think that in the end, we'll both be right, to one degree or another. It's been an interesting discussion.
Well, even if there is a national database, it doesn't necessarily mean that anyone can access anything about anyone else.
It's fairly trivial to make sure that a traffic cop (or their HQ) will only have access to your driving record (and possibly if you're a known fugutive), just like it is today. Just make sure that the national ID database usage is regulated properly, as any other database should be.
Actually, their "nightmare scenario" is already happening. People are already being recorded for their (extreme) political views.
I have little doubt that outspoken members of the BNP are already in the databases of your secret police, where they'll remain for any future government to look up.
A national ID won't make any difference here though. But it does have its benefits in other matters.
That's partially my point. National ID card or database or not, it all depends on how it's used.
Data will be collected and stored in a database regardless of wether it's a centralized database or several databases at a number of different organizations.
What people should be fighting is not a national ID system but the ABUSE of such a system, and for that matter, the abuse of the CURRENT systems, that happen too frequently already.
Yes, the secret police here in Sweden did register who was a potential terrorist, and who spoke out against the government during the 50s and 60s. However, that was illegal and it was all collected and brought up on people's screens without the knowledge of the people being investigated. They had no idea who had access to the information about them, or how it was used.
This isn't much different from what's happened in other countries though and the existance or lack of a national ID database wouldn't have stopped this practice in the slightest. In fact, in many countries that did not HAVE a national ID system, things got way worse. And I'm talking about western countries here.
We (Sweden) have a national ID standard, created by the SIS (Swedish Standards Institute). Any drivers license, ID-card or (I believe) Swedish passport is a valid SIS ID.
We have all of the "good" points of your list and very little of the "bad" ones.
I happen to know another western country that is becoming more and more the opposite, despite their lack of national IDs.
In Denmark, ID-cards (of which a drivers license is one type) will also work as a library card, medical insurance card and so on. There's been trials with combining credit cards and ID-cards (basically, a credit card with the same information as a valid ID-card printed on it).
This reduces the amount of cards that you're required to carry significantly. Now, it's still possible to get any of those cards separately if you wish, however most people chose the convenience of having it all on one card.
Oh, and by the way, it's not compulsory to carry an ID-card in Denmark. There are no fines, nor jail-time if you don't.
Still, it's extremely effective because most people don't mind the convenience with the system. And, the regulations specifying the use of databases that contains personal information protects your privacy.
No, but it does make a bloody good excuse to stop and search, doesn't it. For an ID card to be effective it has to be compulsory. If it's compulsory the police have to be given at least stop and check powers over and above what they have now. Expect to be stopped on a daily or weekly basis and be asked to identify yourself. I obviously won't be stopped because I'm a white male. ID cards are enablers for racism.
Police in the US regularly stop black youths for no reason whatsoever other than that they happen to be in their own neighbourhoods. Many of them don't have IDs, but they get stopped and asked to identify themselves anyway.
Me, on the other hand, an asian in a country where ethnic diversity is far less than in the US, where national IDs are a fact (although not compulsory), have NEVER been stopped and asked to identify myself.
Now, I don't doubt that many of them are terrorists and criminals. However, most of the prisoners in Guantanamo bay have not been charged with a crime, they're just being held indefinitely. And, there ARE people who are just being held there because of mistaken identity, that they shared a name with a terrorist, or are related to a terrorist and so on.
How does the lack of a national ID help them? How would the EXISTANCE of a national ID help them? The issue is not national IDs or not, it's about how the data that exists in various databases is used. A national ID will make it easier to reference the RIGHT person. It has no effect on wether you will get stopped at roadblocks or not though.
You may think this is unreasonable. Well, how about the recording of party sympathies that plauged the US during the 50s and 60s. Did you know that the FBI kept records of people who had attended communist party meetings? Did the lack of a national ID stop them from doing that?
You WILL be discriminated against regardless of a national ID or not, as long as people have a reason for discriminating against you. What you should be fighting isn't a national ID, but the abuse of databases that record personal information. Such as the ones used to single out Japanese citizens (US, World War II), communists (US, 50s, 60s) or muslims (US, 2001-current).
Forging ID-cards is trivial regardless of wether you use a single ID-card or not. In the US, many places take social security cards as IDs. Tell me, how is it more difficult to forge a social security card than a single ID-card? What about the fact that different ID-cards have different information? I can always claim that my (unknown) card is a valid ID-card in my [state|country].
"In terms of civil liberties you are lucky and a little naive, just 60 years ago fairly near where you live..."
Oh, and by the way, I'm asian. Anyone that looks at me will be able to tell that I'm asian. You don't need an ID-card to lock up people who happens to be of a certain ethnicity. I actually happen to know this for a fact.
Just look at the US, for instance. Do google for "February 19, 1942", "Executive Order 9066" or maybe even "american concentration camps".
You might get hits about things dated in 2002, disregard them, they've obviously got nothing to do with civil liberties and has nothing to do with ethnicity.
So, standardize the information. Make it so that the information on the card is the same regardless of wether you have a passport, ID-card or drivers license, like the way it's over here.
That way, you would only need EITHER a passport, ID-card or drivers license to identify yourself.
I'm sorry, but that has nothing to do with ID-cards. If you're going to discriminate, an ID-card more or less won't stop you.
I'm asian, living in Sweden. Anyone who as much as looks at me will be able to tell. I'm legally allowed to NOT have an ID-card. Even if I got rid of all my ID-cards, there'd still be records about my ethnicity. There'd still be records with my address, phone number and so on.
Anyone determined enough would be able to tell that I support GLB-issues. Another point for discrimination. How would getting rid of ID-cards stop me from being discriminated about that? What if I was to hug or kiss another girl in a semi-public place? Would it matter if I carried an ID-card or not?
You *WILL* be able to be identified regardless of wether you have ID-cards or not. The issue is not about the cards, but on how you protect data that can be matched against you. Such data can be matched against you regardless of wether you have a national ID-card or not. Making it harder for organizations to match you uniquely only makes it more expensive to maintain such databases, and it increases the chances that your identity will be mistaken for someone elses. However, it does NOT stop anyone determined to find out details about you, merely makes it take a bit longer.
And what makes you think that you can't get screwed over even if there is no "One True Database". In the UK, people are still being mistaken for criminals, in the states, even Senators are being stopped as terrorist suspects.
Here in Sweden, there's been a standard for ID-cards for several years. Any SIS-approved ID-card (such as, for instance, my drivers license, bank ID or postal ID) is valid for identification.
I have yet to see any lack of civil liberties resulting from this. On the contrary, our ID-cards, along with our personal numbers (think social security numbers, except better) make it easier to make sure who's who. And that's the point if it all, anyway. To let you tell others that you're the one that your ID-card says you are.
As for databases, well, there'll never be a "one true database" anyway. Different organizations will always have their own databases. A standardized ID will let them make sure who's who though, so that you won't get confused with that terrorist guy on the floor above, who just happens to share your last name.
Now, if you'll pardon me, I'm going to go and see if that Swiss Bikini-team is still hiring. I'm so tired of working in the Swedish Army Knife factory...
Slashdot Mirror
User tigress has responded to 0% of geeks that fail to meet her criteria. ...ohwait! Darn!
I've always been amused by the figures that are put on software piracy.
Unlike things like producing a line of denim clothing and putting the Levis brand on it, creating pirated software costs virtually nothing. It takes just as much effort to copy a DVD containing your latest vacation photos as copying a DVD containing a $10k software package.
Just because they discovered a few thousand copies of expensive software doesn't mean that it either cost that much to produce, or has that much sale value (pirated software sells for far less). Neither does it mean that the loss in sales is nearly as much, as many of those who buy/download pirated software would never have bought the software in the first place.
Oh, it was the police. I happen to know.
http://slashdot.org/~tigress/journal/136577
Now, how about a Free iSun Fire E25K?
I and my boyfriend use our modded PS2 to play games such as the japanese versions of the Final Fantasy series, Xenogears and Xenosaga (which are not otherwise available in Europe), DDR of various incarnations (which, in Europe, are replaced by the Dancing Stage series, which has a lot less quality songs) and so on.
We also use our, legally purchased and not modified in any way (not even region-less), SONY DVD-recorder to make copies of movies, TV-shows and so on.
To be honest, between Doom and Quake, I must say that I actually prefer good ol' Counter Strike.
Since it's now late enough that this reply won't turn into a heated flamewar, no. I don't think the murder of Anna Lindh is relevant to the gun control issue.
The murder of Anna Lindh could not have been prevented by legalising guns in Sweden. It could've been prevented by bodyguards however. Bodyguards may also get a permit to carry guns in public.
I also acknowledge the fact that should anyone try to threaten my loved ones, I'd see a definite wish for having a gun. That does not make me want to go out and get a gun though.
Every place in the world has violence. Imagine for instance if someone hijacked a plane you were on, threatened to crash it into New York, and the gun control laws allowed any passenger on that airplane to carry a weapon. What do you think would happen? Would you think it would be easier or harder for the hijackers to hijack the plane? Would anyone survive at all, regardless of the hijackers actual plans?
Bad taste? Well, you brought up our 9/11 (2002).
I'm from Sweden. Besides my term in the army, where I was required to have one, I've never needed a gun in my whole life.
Well, in Sweden (I don't know about other countries), you're allowed to make copies of extracts of books and magazines. It's called "Fair Use".
Under fair use, you're not allowed to copy entire books or magazines but an article or two is allowed.
I've been plenty of other places, and Texas is big. It's bigger than any European country.
Texas: 678,054 sq km.
Russia: 17,075,200 sq km.
I'll send you an iPod for $1. All you need to do is to send me the $1 bill, then ask 50 of your friends to send me $1 each, then tell 50 of THEIR friends to send me $1 each. In addition, every one of your 50 friends can also get an iPod for $1, as long as every one of their 50 friends send me $1.
(Substitute "sign up for blah" wherever appropriate)
No, you don't buy a car the first model year (1.0). That's why you wait for Car 1.1 or higher. Waiting until the new model (2.0) is out is just plain stupid. :)
You might very well be right. In fact, there have been cases where authorities have failed to regulate database use. An example of that is the registration of political views here in Sweden during the 50s and 60s, which was illegal but happened anyway.
I believe there will be cases where this regulation will fail, as well as when it'll succeed. I think that if it succeeds, it'll be because groups of ordinary citizens like you and me will be keeping an eye on the authorities, because I do not trust them to regulate things properly without enough supervision from the outside.
I think that in the end, we'll both be right, to one degree or another. It's been an interesting discussion.
Well, even if there is a national database, it doesn't necessarily mean that anyone can access anything about anyone else.
It's fairly trivial to make sure that a traffic cop (or their HQ) will only have access to your driving record (and possibly if you're a known fugutive), just like it is today. Just make sure that the national ID database usage is regulated properly, as any other database should be.
Actually, their "nightmare scenario" is already happening. People are already being recorded for their (extreme) political views.
I have little doubt that outspoken members of the BNP are already in the databases of your secret police, where they'll remain for any future government to look up.
A national ID won't make any difference here though. But it does have its benefits in other matters.
That's partially my point. National ID card or database or not, it all depends on how it's used.
Data will be collected and stored in a database regardless of wether it's a centralized database or several databases at a number of different organizations.
What people should be fighting is not a national ID system but the ABUSE of such a system, and for that matter, the abuse of the CURRENT systems, that happen too frequently already.
Yes, the secret police here in Sweden did register who was a potential terrorist, and who spoke out against the government during the 50s and 60s. However, that was illegal and it was all collected and brought up on people's screens without the knowledge of the people being investigated. They had no idea who had access to the information about them, or how it was used.
This isn't much different from what's happened in other countries though and the existance or lack of a national ID database wouldn't have stopped this practice in the slightest. In fact, in many countries that did not HAVE a national ID system, things got way worse. And I'm talking about western countries here.
We (Sweden) have a national ID standard, created by the SIS (Swedish Standards Institute). Any drivers license, ID-card or (I believe) Swedish passport is a valid SIS ID.
We have all of the "good" points of your list and very little of the "bad" ones.
I happen to know another western country that is becoming more and more the opposite, despite their lack of national IDs.
In Denmark, ID-cards (of which a drivers license is one type) will also work as a library card, medical insurance card and so on. There's been trials with combining credit cards and ID-cards (basically, a credit card with the same information as a valid ID-card printed on it).
This reduces the amount of cards that you're required to carry significantly. Now, it's still possible to get any of those cards separately if you wish, however most people chose the convenience of having it all on one card.
Oh, and by the way, it's not compulsory to carry an ID-card in Denmark. There are no fines, nor jail-time if you don't.
Still, it's extremely effective because most people don't mind the convenience with the system. And, the regulations specifying the use of databases that contains personal information protects your privacy.
No, but it does make a bloody good excuse to stop and search, doesn't it. For an ID card to be effective it has to be compulsory. If it's compulsory the police have to be given at least stop and check powers over and above what they have now. Expect to be stopped on a daily or weekly basis and be asked to identify yourself. I obviously won't be stopped because I'm a white male. ID cards are enablers for racism.
Police in the US regularly stop black youths for no reason whatsoever other than that they happen to be in their own neighbourhoods. Many of them don't have IDs, but they get stopped and asked to identify themselves anyway.
Me, on the other hand, an asian in a country where ethnic diversity is far less than in the US, where national IDs are a fact (although not compulsory), have NEVER been stopped and asked to identify myself.
It's not about the IDs.
How many of these have national IDs?
Now, I don't doubt that many of them are terrorists and criminals. However, most of the prisoners in Guantanamo bay have not been charged with a crime, they're just being held indefinitely. And, there ARE people who are just being held there because of mistaken identity, that they shared a name with a terrorist, or are related to a terrorist and so on.
How does the lack of a national ID help them? How would the EXISTANCE of a national ID help them? The issue is not national IDs or not, it's about how the data that exists in various databases is used. A national ID will make it easier to reference the RIGHT person. It has no effect on wether you will get stopped at roadblocks or not though.
You may think this is unreasonable. Well, how about the recording of party sympathies that plauged the US during the 50s and 60s. Did you know that the FBI kept records of people who had attended communist party meetings? Did the lack of a national ID stop them from doing that?
You WILL be discriminated against regardless of a national ID or not, as long as people have a reason for discriminating against you. What you should be fighting isn't a national ID, but the abuse of databases that record personal information. Such as the ones used to single out Japanese citizens (US, World War II), communists (US, 50s, 60s) or muslims (US, 2001-current).
Forging ID-cards is trivial regardless of wether you use a single ID-card or not. In the US, many places take social security cards as IDs. Tell me, how is it more difficult to forge a social security card than a single ID-card? What about the fact that different ID-cards have different information? I can always claim that my (unknown) card is a valid ID-card in my [state|country].
"In terms of civil liberties you are lucky and a little naive, just 60 years ago fairly near where you live..."
Oh, and by the way, I'm asian. Anyone that looks at me will be able to tell that I'm asian. You don't need an ID-card to lock up people who happens to be of a certain ethnicity. I actually happen to know this for a fact.
Just look at the US, for instance. Do google for "February 19, 1942", "Executive Order 9066" or maybe even "american concentration camps".
You might get hits about things dated in 2002, disregard them, they've obviously got nothing to do with civil liberties and has nothing to do with ethnicity.
So, standardize the information. Make it so that the information on the card is the same regardless of wether you have a passport, ID-card or drivers license, like the way it's over here.
That way, you would only need EITHER a passport, ID-card or drivers license to identify yourself.
I'm sorry, but that has nothing to do with ID-cards. If you're going to discriminate, an ID-card more or less won't stop you.
I'm asian, living in Sweden. Anyone who as much as looks at me will be able to tell. I'm legally allowed to NOT have an ID-card. Even if I got rid of all my ID-cards, there'd still be records about my ethnicity. There'd still be records with my address, phone number and so on.
Anyone determined enough would be able to tell that I support GLB-issues. Another point for discrimination. How would getting rid of ID-cards stop me from being discriminated about that? What if I was to hug or kiss another girl in a semi-public place? Would it matter if I carried an ID-card or not?
You *WILL* be able to be identified regardless of wether you have ID-cards or not. The issue is not about the cards, but on how you protect data that can be matched against you. Such data can be matched against you regardless of wether you have a national ID-card or not. Making it harder for organizations to match you uniquely only makes it more expensive to maintain such databases, and it increases the chances that your identity will be mistaken for someone elses. However, it does NOT stop anyone determined to find out details about you, merely makes it take a bit longer.
And what makes you think that you can't get screwed over even if there is no "One True Database". In the UK, people are still being mistaken for criminals, in the states, even Senators are being stopped as terrorist suspects.
Here in Sweden, there's been a standard for ID-cards for several years. Any SIS-approved ID-card (such as, for instance, my drivers license, bank ID or postal ID) is valid for identification.
I have yet to see any lack of civil liberties resulting from this. On the contrary, our ID-cards, along with our personal numbers (think social security numbers, except better) make it easier to make sure who's who. And that's the point if it all, anyway. To let you tell others that you're the one that your ID-card says you are.
As for databases, well, there'll never be a "one true database" anyway. Different organizations will always have their own databases. A standardized ID will let them make sure who's who though, so that you won't get confused with that terrorist guy on the floor above, who just happens to share your last name.
"And, if you're in Australia..."
Now, if you'll pardon me, I'm going to go and see if that Swiss Bikini-team is still hiring. I'm so tired of working in the Swedish Army Knife factory...