|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
 Posted - 01/11/2006 : 00:27:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Well, we do have nut-cases in Sweden too...
Sound like generic religious gurus... "Another day at the office" for the Men of God. That's why I don't pay them much attention. Bjorn Borg (probably before your time), on the other hand, I paid attention to when I was a kid in the late 70's and early 80's. In his prime, the guy was incredible on the tennis court. Sports become more competitive over time, but I think he'd be a threat, if not World Champion even today. |
Ron White |
 |
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2006 : 04:38:00 [Permalink]
|
Hmmm...perhaps a planned distraction to cover their illegal internet spying?
Or if it isn't a planned fake political distraction perhaps it's some "please the base, stop the porn" nonsense.
I'll believe it when my spam stops. There is already some law against spamming isn't there? And I'm sure there's a law against harassment whether by email or other means. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9696 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2006 : 06:58:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ronnywhite
Bjorn Borg (probably before your time
Don't I wish that was true... |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2006 : 21:50:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Hmmm...
Actually, in the big picture, I think the government getting more seriously involved in the Internet could be a good thing. I'll explain.
The "unenforceability" problem with these, or other laws relates to how easy (or hard, in this case) it is to track and record Internet events and connections, and likewise send notifications or complaints of illicit activities to authorities... and you know what? The nature of computers and exchanges in digital form lend themselves ideally to just such a pursuit... in fact, in conjunction with the incredible trends of technological advance in the field, if we wanted to ask for an environment which would make a fair and efficient "policing" effort easy to implement... we probably couldn't even conceive of something better. Dirt cheap and massive memory and storage, ever-faster processors, and increasing bandwidths could easily enable features in new versions of browsers by which one could just click- from a dropdown menu- a transgression, criminal or otherwise- as soon as it happens... just type details (if desired) into a textbox, click "OK" and instantly proper authorities have a record- be them an ISP, the local police, the FBI, or whomever. Just 5 seconds of time- a few "clicks"- that's it... no trips to police stations, lawyers, bureaucrats (or the like) necessary.
Usually, one wouldn't even have to go to court to slap-the-irons on a scamming scheister or predatory dumbskull... the record of "what happened" would be right there to protect the innocent, too. The same accountability would apply to nutcases playing such games from the other side of the fence... using the notification feature to raise suspicion or direct authorities at innocent parties. They abuse the feature? To start with they get a ticket... just like running a red light. They keep it up? The penalties escalate. Hitting them in the wallet to start with (where a lot of such bananas hate it the worst) would be simple- just a mouse click away. The local/state police would have no gripes about having to allocate manpower to examine such online complaints- because for them, it would be easy money. And there's a digital record of the exact event in question, so this would make the police accountable, too. "My 5-year-old found out my password and did it"(???)... "I left it logged-on, I left the room, and my rottweiler did it"(???) Sorry... just like claims of their 5-year-old or rottweiler grabbing the steering wheel, slamming into a school bus, and leaving that empty whiskey bottle in the back seat they're still responsible- at least financially. Initially there'd be gripes, but know what? The Internet would clean-up overnight once the scumbags and ripoff artists got the message: "From now on, you're taking your chances". Not just clean... pristine, sparkling clean. No more spam, pedophiles stalking chatboards, or other such nonsense. All malicious loonytunes would soon go back to cutting out paper dolls, the pedophiles and stalkers would again be stuck with their sleazy magazines, the grifters would be selling junk bonds, swamp land, or forging payroll checks again, and most hackers would have to go back to playing Dungeons and Dragons.
So once they decide to get a handle on it, a secure digital medium with government involved could have it's good points! RE privacy, we have to put a certain amount of trust in our authorities and faith in government to see to it this is used right. But I'll bet this kind of thing- or some variation- is likely, or might even be inevitable in time. I, personally, would have no problem with it because of the kind of accountability made possible by the digital environment.
The news interviewed a computing writer who said "The hackers will always win, because they have technology on their side" which to me, makes no sense at all because the government hasn't even attempted to integrate security into the Internet... they've just let it evolve at the whims of the free market. Security efforts thus far have only been on the provider/consumer application side by commercial organizations as the free market has demanded. Does this guy think that DARPA and the folks they employ from MIT, Caltech, Carnegie-Mellon etc. are a bunch of dimwits, and hackers are "masterminds" they just can't hope to compete with? Well, that's not the case... not by a long shot. They haven't even seriously tried yet, that's all. Government- for all it's shortcomings- has an excellent track record of success and technical accomplishment given a well-understood science... when they decide to "get down to business" things can happen fast. Just look at the Manhatton Project, and compared to that, this stuff is bean counting.
As an example of how it was pulled-off on a smaller scale with decades old technology, overall the ATM network has worked great for a long time! The only difference was that security was integrated in the design phase. |
Ron White |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 01/12/2006 : 02:30:00 [Permalink]
|
...we have to put a certain amount of trust in our authorities and faith in government to see to it this is used right....
[ahem..]Somehow I don't think now is the time. |
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2006 : 16:05:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
...we have to put a certain amount of trust in our authorities and faith in government to see to it this is used right....
[ahem..]Somehow I don't think now is the time.
Since I'm now on an (overdue) diet from diatribing, I'll say "Well, I see what you mean." |
Ron White |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2006 : 04:48:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ronnywhite
Actually, in the big picture, I think the government getting more seriously involved in the Internet could be a good thing. I'll explain.
snip...
While conceptually possible, you've got to take into consideration that for it to be usable as a tool for prosecution, it's got top be a pretty bulletproof system itself. Backwards compatibilty with what we have now pretty much precludes that outright. Not too many are going to sign up for Internet Version X.Y.
All servers, ISP's and anyone else responsible for hosting or directing traffic on the internet would have to be using a hardware and software combination which precluded hacking or any other form of inaccuracy, intentional or otherwise.
Whoever you put in charge of controlling the system security essentially has the ability to circumvent it. I don't think any of us would trust our own government(s) with the job. For it to be useful, it'd be too cumbersome to be usable. The great thing about the internet is that it works for a diverse range of hardware and software implementations. Sure it means you've got to filter the rubbish from the useful stuff, but there's always some compromise in any useable system.
Your ATM example isn't a bad one, but remember in order to use an ATM:
- You have to organise it in advance with a financial institution.
- You have to carry an object (usually a card of some sort) with you and ensure it's security.
- You may only use machines that the financial institution explicitly approves of.
- The range of features available from ATM's is quite limited. Enough to make internet banking quite popular.
These issues aside, ATM related crime is far from insignificant. I'm not saying the system is bad, but it's really apples and oranges wrt the internet.
|
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2006 : 13:49:31 [Permalink]
|
After saying 3 times "I shall not diatribe," allow me to comment .
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
While conceptually possible, you've got to take into consideration... All servers, ISP's and anyone else responsible for hosting or directing traffic on the internet...
Absolutely true, but this is an environment where both hardware and software hit the scrapyards with (annoying) regularity every few years. The most important aspect of the system is in place- the fiber optic lines connecting the backbone and other branches- and the bandwidth is adequate for growth and improvement. That's the biggie. Some kind of identifying "license" for end-users will undoubtedly be needed. As for the ISPs etc. integrating it, that wouldn't seem to be a problem, due too the aforementioned constant change and upgrade of both hardware and softwarwe. Accountability on the part of ISPs and such will increase and change dramatically... as for the end-user, it will be a matter of keeping their Internet access info secure just as they must their credit card numbers, personal documents, etc. (a necessary evil at this point.)
quote:
Whoever you put in charge of controlling the system security essentially has the ability to circumvent it....
I agree fully that there's a danger of abuse by authorities should they become tyrannical (depending upon where one draws that line) but after all, the whole thing was their idea to begin with. You are capable and prudent enough to avoid being "taken" by online ruses, keep your credit numbers safe, know how to keep the knuckleheads and derelicts away from your kids when they're online, keep every new virus from clobbering your hard drive or transmitting your sensitive information to intrusive thieves and nuts etc... but since computers are now almost like the family TV of decades past, and not everybody is similarly savvy and capable... there are ever-bigger problems in the making. They must be proactively addressed.
quote:
Your ATM example...
RE the ATMs, point was, that was possible and implemented decades ago with (then relatively new and now long antiquated) technology... the point being, although imperfect, even at that stage it was successfully implemented with very impressive efficiency, and security. Of course, perfection doesn't exist in our world- anywhere- even in the courts where justice is dispensed (consider the death row inmates pardoned in the US through DNA evidence decades old [with other innocents likely long-gone]) but I'm of the opinion that digital technologies- if strategically planned by scientists (who's judgment, honesty, and competence I trust more than politicians)- security could be pretty darned good at this point, especially compared to courts (in the US anyway) where ad hoc elements abound. Sure, anarchists and cynics will hate it, but I think it both can and eventually has to happen... just a question of when (maybe soon). Bill Gates and the standardization he's forced could turn out to be a good thing by accelerating such transition... a matter of point-of-view, depending upon how one feels about having faith in government (realistically, concerning many aspects of life, we have to anyway.)
quote:
The great thing about the internet is that it works for a diverse range of hardware and software implementations.... Sure, ...
It's almost like the advantages and detriments of free market capitalism vs. socialism applied in a way. Allowed to grow without a predetermined and carefully planned structure and constraints, development of the Internet and associated products exploded. That was good. But, a lack of standardization and control has resulted in the semi-(dis?)organized and con artist/lunatic infested aspect of it. Since our financial transactions, telecommunications, media entertainment, etc. all seem to be on a collision course by virtue of the success of this new medium, given its soon-to-become very feasible nature (shortcoming, if not as of present) I see such a development as very possible, if not likely- or maybe even imperative.
(Final Comment)
During the "mad rush" stage of the Cold War, ABM systems (of recently renewed government interest) were considered and proposed as far back as the early 60's. The main proposed designs in the US in those years involved guided anti-ABM missiles due to available technologies of the time... it was decided that all of the crucial pieces were available except an ability to direct a high-power microwave beam without moving (mechanical) parts, thus, system development was postponed... when this single crucial element became available, effective systems, such as the Sprint II, were rapidly and successfully developed (I still don't understand why they're instead pursuing all of these new, super-expensive, and exotic engineering solutions to a limited nuclear attack, when the problem was already reliably solved by more straightforward and tested engineering solutions in decades past, but that's another topic.) Point is, whether done strategically or it's coincidentally "just happened that way," the Internet grew like crazy left unrestricted for lack of controls, and with the present or soon forthcoming "state of the art" a good handle could be attached to it, and probably will. Just a matter of doing it when similarly "the time's ripe" and I think it will be very soon. |
Ron White |
| Edited by - ronnywhite on 01/15/2006 13:53:16 |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2006 : 04:27:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ronnywhite
but this is an environment where both hardware and software hit the scrapyards with (annoying) regularity every few years. The most important aspect of the system is in place- the fiber optic lines connecting the backbone and other branches- and the bandwidth is adequate for growth and improvement. That's the biggie.
It is and it isn't. No one would like to have to build it from the ground up, but it's a case of the sum being worth far more than the parts. While hardware gets cheaper and cheaper, I can't image some internet governing body saying "Look, I know you've been a part of the internet for x years, but if you don't buy Brand X servers and run the Y protocol exclusively, you will be excommunicated". Anything that "breaks" the current system will be met with extreme oppostion, even (sometimes especially) if it's technically superior.
quote:
Some kind of identifying "license" for end-users will undoubtedly be needed.
This one's a real biggie. I haven't seen anything good enough for the average punter that can do the job, and I've spent a lot of time looking in related areas. Even if the technology does become cheap enough to allow near foolproof validation of identity, many people will object on the grounds of anonymity. I personally don't have too much of a problem with people (or governments for that matter) knowing where I browse and such, but plenty of people would. (I actually work for a law enforcement organisation, in a technical area, so tracibilty and accountability is par for the course for me). Providing databases universally enough to allow transparent authentication processes (which is what most people want, from a usability perspective) without allowing for easy abuse (spam, identiy theft, hate mail and the like) is far from a trivial problem.
quote:
as for the end-user, it will be a matter of keeping their Internet access info secure just as they must their credit card numbers, personal documents, etc. (a necessary evil at this point.)
Unfortunately it won't happen, the more things we expect people to do, the less of them they tend to actually do. People like things to be so simple that they become unsecure. I believe biometrics may offer some solutions here, although requireing every internet terminal to be fitted with a conforming biometric device is an enormous burden. One of the biggest problems (in Australia at any rate) is proving that someone was actually in front of the terminal when "the offence" was comitted.
Who's to say I didn't get up and go for a leak mid paragraph, and it was actually my daughter who jumped on while I was out and got up to mischief? (probably not, she's not even 2, and unless my post is interrupted with Hi-5 lyrics, it probably is me at the keyboard). It is possible to build a system which logs you out if you leave (full time retinal scanning for example) but again, the costs can be prohibitive. Common sense would dictate that if you leave your system "unsecured", you are responsible. I tend to agree, but unfortuntely most legal systems require only the possibility for a breach to allow the guilty party to be exonerated.
quote:
I agree fully that there's a danger of abuse by authorities should they become tyrannical (depending upon where one draws that line) but after all, the whole thing was their idea to begin with. You are capable and prudent enough to avoid being "taken" by online ruses, keep your credit numbers safe, know how to keep the knuckleheads and derelicts away from your kids when they're online, keep every new virus from clobbering your hard drive or transmitting your sensitive information to intrusive thieves and nuts etc... but since computers are now almost like the family TV of decades past, and not everybody is similarly savvy and capable... there are ever-bigger problems in the making. They must be proactively addressed.
My opinion see-saws a bit here. Pro-active is generally a better way of doing things, but it's never black and white is it? I mostly tend to side with the "if you're not doing anything wrong, what do you care if someone knows" approach, but I'm also aware of the damage that seemingly innocuous activities like data mining can lead to. I think you and I ought to be able to discuess the merits/negatives of our relative governments without a knock at the door the next day, or much worse. I'm not quite sure where the balance lies on this one.
quote:
but I'm of the opinion that digital technologies- if strategically planned by scientists (who's judgment, honesty, and competence I trust more than politicians)- security could be pretty darned good at this point, especially compared to courts (in the US anyway) where ad hoc elements abound.
I agree with your sentiments entirely. The world would be much better off if run by scientists, with the following caveat, the scientists would have to be interested in running the world. I can see lots of governments getting to the 90% complete stage, and then all the scientists rack off to work on something more interesting  , leaving the ratbags to take over, (again?).
I've often felt that anyone who actually wants to be a politician, probably shouldn't be allowed to be one.
quote:
It's almost like the advantages and detriments of free market capitalism vs. socialism applied in a way. Allowed to grow without a predetermined and carefully planned structure and constraints, development of the Internet and associated products exploded. That was good. But, a lack of standardization and control has resulted in the semi-(dis?)organized and con artist/lunatic infested aspect of it.
Again I mostly agree with you here, only I think the development of standards will continue along the lines of consortiums with input from the government and private entreprise, but with little or no control, much like many standards bodies now. I see it as being an incremental process. The genie is well and truly out and just too big to for us to start deciding how many wishes the genie should grant, and to whom, this late in the game.
quote:
Since our financial transactions, telecommunications, media entertainment, etc. all seem to be on a collision course by virtue of the success of this new medium, given its soon-to-become very feasible nature (shortcoming, if not as of present) I see such a development as very possible, if not likely |
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9696 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2006 : 06:16:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
My opinion see-saws a bit here. Pro-active is generally a better way of doing things, but it's never black and white is it? I mostly tend to side with the "if you're not doing anything wrong, what do you care if someone knows" approach, but I'm also aware of the damage that seemingly innocuous activities like data mining can lead to. I think you and I ought to be able to discuess the merits/negatives of our relative governments without a knock at the door the next day, or much worse. I'm not quite sure where the balance lies on this one.
Privacy, and personal integrity.
While watching porn may not be illegal or wrong as such, people will definitely react differently if it became public knowledge that someone likes kinky sex.
A former co-worker of mine liked to model for nude photographs, and somehow a bunch of pics found their way into my work's e-mail system and started to circulate hysterically. After that, there were only a very few people who treated her the same. While she was a good employee, most of my coworkers pretty much destroyed her ability to perform her duties. Eventually she left the company.
(I really miss her because she was nice, bright, and good looking   )
While privacy is hard to maintain in her position, she uses a pseudonym while online. But if anonymity isn't available, her personal life would be even more exposed should the information fall into the wrong hands. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 01/23/2006 : 22:54:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
A former co-worker of mine liked to model for nude photographs, and somehow a bunch of pics found their way into my work's e-mail system and started to circulate hysterically. After that, there were only a very few people who treated her the same. While she was a good employee, most of my coworkers pretty much destroyed her ability to perform her duties. Eventually she left the company.
(I really miss her because she was nice, bright, and good looking )
Interesting, if sad.
I was driving home last night and heard a semi-talkback session on the radio about some school teacher (kindergarten-primary I believe) being sacked or similar because she was moonlighting as a stripper of some sorts. If she doesn't bring her night job into her day job, and the former doesn't stop her from performing the duties for her latter, I really can't see the problem. Poeple's paranoia tends to be excessive when the issues relate to children, sometimes deservedly so, sometimes not, IMHO. Kids are a lot smarter and less easily brainwashed that we give 'em credit for, occasionally.
The callers opinion's varied quite a lot. I think the subject of the article was teaching at a private/christian school of some sort, so she's pretty much stuffed, they tend to be able to do whatever they like here.
Now, if she was a high school teacher, it could be a much bigger problem, with many of her students attempting to get into venues they probably shouldn't for some extra "study" time with teacher. 
|
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2006 : 18:02:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS:
I was driving home last night and heard a semi-talkback session on the radio about some school teacher (kindergarten-primary I believe) being sacked or similar because she was moonlighting as a stripper of some sorts.
Damn, my first grade teacher was about 4 days older than dirt. Some kids have all the luck. |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
