"To much security is NOT security..its a jail."
In the name of security, we seem to resurrecting McCarthyism. What is also particularity distressing about the massive assault on civil liberties is that many of those in charge of our political system today were the "flower children" of the 1970's. However, you won't be able to lay blame on the flower children for much longer since they are retiring. The "fatal" blow to American democracy will probably come from the Obama generation.
As you point out, perfect security is unattainable. What is also unattainable goal is our ability to protect our public facilities (point defense). We simply cannot afford enough "guards" to protect every airport, bus station, train station, water treatment facility etc. The effective solution is interception before the act.
According to Bryan Suits KFI 640 Radio - DARK SECRET PLACE the major fallout of Wikileaks is really embarrassment rather than national security. Nothing like airing dirty laundry of "truths", that in retrospect are obvious, such as source of Spanish copyright law.
Anyway KFI does eventually post Podcasts, but the December 5, 2010 podcast has not yet been posted. The podcast, when posted, discusses the bigger implications, I do not recall any mention of Spain. I also assume that it will soon be available, but only for a short period of time.
"You have to realize that this entails immense responsibilities." We are a nation of entitlements without responsibility. Just look at our financial system based on the right to steal with NO responsibility for the consequences. And to think, the Government legitimized these actions by bailing them out with taxpayer $$$$. I guess crime pays.
And Net-Neutrality Becomes and Even More Elusive Dream
These "censorship" actions plus the security hysteria over our numerous wars (drugs, piracy, terrorism, WikiLeaks) does not bode well for net-neutrality.
Once companies roll-over to appease a special interest group to "block" so-called offending material; every special interest group will start demanding the right to block content or to even force feed you specific content.
Amazon.com has apparently caved in to government demands to block access to Wikileaks.
Want to checkout the lunch specials at the McDonalds website, well you can after viewing a PETA presentation on how McDonalds abuses animals. Michelle Obama may even have a government sponsored video offering some friendly advice on "healthy" food alternatives to McDonalds. The future of the internet.
When you buy a product you own it. It's time to quash the corporate gobbledygook that you are only leasing the product at their sufferance and that you don't own it. You do.
Monetizing is only one aspect of a bigger problem in the corporate mindset, that is an unfounded "need-to-grow" at any cost. Corporations need to realize that consumers will only consume so much and to adjust their business model to that demand.
Instead, when a business satiates its market, it goes on an irrational quest for future economic growth. One aspect of this symptom are ludicrous acquisitions/mergers by companies to achieve "synergies". The classic example is the failed merger between Time-Warner and AmericaOnline (AOL). Intel seems to have gone down this losing path with the purchase of McAfee. American business mindset needs to put aside the concept of growth-at-any-cost and have a more collaborative relationship.
As a quick aside the New York Times recently noted that independent experimenters were making "the Kinect to do things it was not really meant to do." to imply that independent innovation was, in a sense, stealing from Microsoft! So only established corporations can create ideas and monetize them??????
In the 1960s, a Science Fiction author (Mack Reynolds) wrote many stories were the hero was duped into joining a revolutionary front. The stories typically ended with the hero dying as he realizes that the revolutionary front was really created by the Government as a means of controlling the disaffected.
I used to subscribe to PC Magazine, but dropped my subscription because the magazine did not represent the computer user. Seemed that most of the article supported corporate interests, such as the RIAA. PC World on the other hand seemed to be more user friendly. In any event I am pleased that PC Magazine has taken a more proactive position.
Let me add that a "passive point defense" is ultimately unworkable. The focus now is on airports, but there are alternative targets, bus stations, and rail stations. Well then put "security" on those. Again there are ever more alternatives, water treatment plants, power plants. Throw in some more "security". Wait we can't afford that and there won't even be enough "security" people available. We will never ever have enough security. The correct solution would be hunting the terrorists down. War is a dirty business. Time to stop worrying about the "rights" of the terrorists.
@ V, you missed upholding the ideals of your namesake: V for Vendetta. The Wikipedia entry writes: "The film had been seen by many political groups as an allegory of oppression by government." Which leads me to the conspiracy hypotheses that the editors generating these editorials received some sort of "encouragement" from an undisclosed entity. Its a sad statement on American society when newspaper editors, who are normally liberal, would roll over concerning the protection essential liberties and regurgitate the "party line" at the behest of some undisclosed entity.
"... once it's published or distributed you can no longer physically stop everyone from making copies."
One interpretation underlying the concept of property is scarcity. That is people begin to assert ownership of physical objects when scarcity creates a perceived value. Water rights for example. So, if something can be infinite rather than scarce, then the property right to that something should vaporize.
Asserting that so-called "intellectual property" is a valid concept of property is one of those cases of be careful of what you ask for. If the US, as a nation, takes the position that so-called "intellectual property" is a valid concept, other nations will too.
The US is now in an orgy of deficit spending. China holds X billions of dollars of our debt. What happens if China decides use our IOUs to buy out the patent trolls or to actually buy US corporations, which means also means transferring the ownership of underlying patents to Chinese companies.
China is poised to "invest" in Chesapeake Energy. The New York Times recently raised the "national security" issue when it wrote: ""China’s $2.2 billion investment Chesapeake Energy involves a potential transfer of technology and intellectual knowledge to Beijing that some people in Washington may find uncomfortable, and that unease could trip up the deal."
So, if the US continues the brainless push for "strong intellectual property" we may be at the losing end of the concept. First, China may buy this so-called property. Second, developing countries such as India and Korea may decide to begin charging us licensing fees to use their products. Be careful of demanding a property right that you cannot control.
On the post: Breast Cancer Charity Bullying Other Charities Over Trademark
Selective Charity
On the post: Senator Lieberman Says NY Times Should Be Investigated For Publishing Wikileaks Documents
Re: McCarthyism Resurrected
On the post: Senator Lieberman Says NY Times Should Be Investigated For Publishing Wikileaks Documents
McCarthyism Resurrected
On the post: Terrorism And Risk Assessment In Comic Form
Re: Re: Re: Point Defense is a Joke
In the name of security, we seem to resurrecting McCarthyism. What is also particularity distressing about the massive assault on civil liberties is that many of those in charge of our political system today were the "flower children" of the 1970's. However, you won't be able to lay blame on the flower children for much longer since they are retiring. The "fatal" blow to American democracy will probably come from the Obama generation.
On the post: Terrorism And Risk Assessment In Comic Form
Point Defense is a Joke
On the post: No Surprise: Wikileaks Leak Shows US Entertainment Industry Wrote Spain's New Copyright Law
Re: Now lets bring it down a notch
On the post: No Surprise: Wikileaks Leak Shows US Entertainment Industry Wrote Spain's New Copyright Law
Mostly Embarrassing
Anyway KFI does eventually post Podcasts, but the December 5, 2010 podcast has not yet been posted. The podcast, when posted, discusses the bigger implications, I do not recall any mention of Spain. I also assume that it will soon be available, but only for a short period of time.
On the post: PayPal Latest To Cut Off Wikileaks
Re: PayPal Sucks!
On the post: Once Again, Feds Found To Be Abusing Surveillance Procedures With Little Oversight
Re: Re: Re: This disease has to be contained now
On the post: US Has Lost All Moral High Ground On Internet Censorship
And Net-Neutrality Becomes and Even More Elusive Dream
On the post: Google Won't Recommend Most Popular Searches If It Thinks It Might Sorta Have Something To Do With Piracy
Who decides what Consitutes good or bad?
Amazon.com has apparently caved in to government demands to block access to Wikileaks.
Want to checkout the lunch specials at the McDonalds website, well you can after viewing a PETA presentation on how McDonalds abuses animals. Michelle Obama may even have a government sponsored video offering some friendly advice on "healthy" food alternatives to McDonalds. The future of the internet.
On the post: Government Drops Xbox Modding Trial
Its Your Property
On the post: Do We Want To Monetize Every Business Idea?
Corporate Greed
Instead, when a business satiates its market, it goes on an irrational quest for future economic growth. One aspect of this symptom are ludicrous acquisitions/mergers by companies to achieve "synergies". The classic example is the failed merger between Time-Warner and AmericaOnline (AOL). Intel seems to have gone down this losing path with the purchase of McAfee. American business mindset needs to put aside the concept of growth-at-any-cost and have a more collaborative relationship.
As a quick aside the New York Times recently noted that independent experimenters were making "the Kinect to do things it was not really meant to do." to imply that independent innovation was, in a sense, stealing from Microsoft! So only established corporations can create ideas and monetize them??????
On the post: FBI Celebrates That It Prevented FBI's Own Bomb Plot
Its an OLD Plot Line
On the post: PC Mag Responds To Legacy Recording Industry's 'Complaint' Letter
Finally
On the post: Newspapers Say: Shut Up And Get Scanned And Groped
Re: Re: Re: Re: Proof?
On the post: Newspapers Say: Shut Up And Get Scanned And Groped
Re: Re: Re: Exactly!
On the post: Newspapers Say: Shut Up And Get Scanned And Groped
Re: Soliders dying...
On the post: Just Calling Something Property, Doesn't Make It Property
Re: Re: Intellectual property is property
One interpretation underlying the concept of property is scarcity. That is people begin to assert ownership of physical objects when scarcity creates a perceived value. Water rights for example. So, if something can be infinite rather than scarce, then the property right to that something should vaporize.
On the post: Just Calling Something Property, Doesn't Make It Property
"Intellectual Property" and National Security
The US is now in an orgy of deficit spending. China holds X billions of dollars of our debt. What happens if China decides use our IOUs to buy out the patent trolls or to actually buy US corporations, which means also means transferring the ownership of underlying patents to Chinese companies.
China is poised to "invest" in Chesapeake Energy. The New York Times recently raised the "national security" issue when it wrote: ""China’s $2.2 billion investment Chesapeake Energy involves a potential transfer of technology and intellectual knowledge to Beijing that some people in Washington may find uncomfortable, and that unease could trip up the deal."
So, if the US continues the brainless push for "strong intellectual property" we may be at the losing end of the concept. First, China may buy this so-called property. Second, developing countries such as India and Korea may decide to begin charging us licensing fees to use their products. Be careful of demanding a property right that you cannot control.
Next >>