Seems to me the western world is making itself a perfect target for terrorist of any stripe. All it takes is one successful attack and all the cockroaches come scurrying for cover, making things worse for all the citizens. Sometimes needing less than a successful attack. Any impact is amplified hundredfold.
...to be statutorily required to take reasonable measures to prevent disclosure or use of information, such as IP addresses, websites visited, customer location information and other data, and they would be precluded from using this information without customer consent.
Am I the only one thinking that this is actually a good thing, or am I reading it wrong? Is AT&T really pushing for no privacy over the net, and/or really supporting/arguing for what the alphabet soup are doing?
API: Walking = to move with your legs at a speed that is slower than running
Now, you've said "The literal expression is protectable, the idea/method/function/etc. is not, and there is a gray area in between.". And you also said "But it was (correctly) undisputed that the API could have been written (by its original author) in many different ways while achieving the same purpose and performing the same task.".
What you've said applies to what "Library" is, cos it is (in terms of software dev) 1. literal expression of an operation 2. could have written/arranged another way
but it is not apply to API once it is set, cos it is 1. a definition/description 2. couldn't have written another way as to avoid confusion.
Point 2 above is where Alsup's interoperability kicks in. Imagine someone have a copyright/patent on the word/verb and meaning of "walk", and can deny anyone else from using it or setup a toll on it. Everyone else who want to stay within the law then have to come up with something new every time they want to convey "walk". This will lead to comprehension nightmare.
Hence it boils down to whether someone can copyright/patent the english language (for example, any other language apply) and preclude everyone else from using it. I dunno if someone could "legally" do it, but if it is, it's utterly ridiculous and dangerous, not to mention defeating the purpose of having a language in the 1st place.
Reading the post, I think you're inaccurate. He's not saying that the US, as in the US government, is beyond criticism. There's indeed an implied criticism to the US government in that post.
What I think he's saying is that the US people is beyond criticism. I think this is way worse than saying just the US government is beyond criticism. The implied message seems to be that the US people is a distinct higher species that the rest of the human race, which fits nicely to American Exceptionalism sentiment.
Remember the last time a group of people think that way and do something about it? (-cough- ww2 -cough-)
Reading from the post, I think you're inaccurate. He's not saying that the US, as in US government, is beyond criticism. There's indeed implied criticism to the US government in that post. What he's saying instead is that the US people is beyond criticism. I think this is much worse than saying just the US government is beyond criticism, cos the implied message is then that the US people is a distinct higher species than the rest of the human race. Remember the last time some group of people think that way and do something about it?
Let's say that this ID is only required when accessing govt sites/services. Without an express regulation that this ID cannot be used beyond that, the situation degrade really fast, even without further govt intervention.
Private sites will then see that the ID can cut the cost of maintaining their own database, and allocate those resources to other things. Before long, the ID became standard.
Yes, it is not certain that it'll roll out that way, but will you leave things like privacy and security to chance?
Correct me if I'm wrong here, I think what you're talking is like white/blacklisting rights. The end goal is "controlling" who have rights to what, but differs on approach and initial assumptions.
With blacklisting, the initial assumption is the target have every rights possible. Controls are implemented by having a list which lists the exceptions. If something is not listed on that list, then by default it is assumed the target have that right.
In whitelisting, the initial assumption is that the target doesn't have any right whatsoever. The list then contains the exception to that rule, that is the rights the target have. If something is not listed, then by default it is assumed the target doesn't have that right.
The Constitution then can be seen as a whitelist, in which it grants only those rights/powers to the government, which assumed to be inherently powerless/without rights. So it can be said that Constitution grants Powers to Government.
So how is it not limiting the goverment? In a sense it is, but the term limiting conjures the image that the government can do everything under the sun except those which are listed/regulated in the Constitution. This is a dangerous idea which can drive people complacent/apathy if the government do something outside it's mandate.
So? The only sure way not having any terrorist on board is not having anyone boarding the plane, problem solved case closed. Anything less is the TSA or whatever alphabet-soup.org not doing it's job protecting American people.
A compromise will be prohibiting anyone carrying anything on his/her person. ANYTHING. So passengers will board the plane buck naked. There's ton of advantages of this rule:
1. Flying still an option for travel (see above) 2. The cost of security theater can be significantly reduced, as 3. Search & grope can be minimized 4. Scanner use can be minimized 5. Entertainment value all round, esp when boarding along with supermodels and/or various beautiful people
I'm amazed why this solution still hasn't enforced yet.
The 1st 2 arguments I can understand, though not necessarily agree with, but the last, wow. I hope you're trolling. Torturing for vengeance is morally right? Now I have to wonder what background are you coming from. If you're the one charged for the safety of society, I don't want to be safe anymore. Better face a 1000 jihadist screaming for my blood than face a single person with such conviction.
The next question will be how much do you trust the encrypter and the system. To what level the NSA successfully weaken them, either by weakening the algorithm used by the encrypter, or installed malware on the system, or some other ways not known by us at the present.
To do a binary search, or any other search more advanced than brute force 1 to 1 comparison, the data/records must 1st sorted, or arranged into some format. That sorting will require an entire database records comparison, at least initially. Later records can then be inserted efficiently without doing that initial brute force comparison.
One can argue if that constitute entire database search. If you argue that search is only done at the time an analyst type in a query, for one record and receive the immediate result (0 hop), you're most likely right, algorithms are devised to minimize entire database search. But then again there are threshold number of seeds and hops that can make the search look at the entire database.
However, if one is to consider the entire lifetime of a database, then it can be said that the entire database is queried. A search is nothing more than comparing a myriad number of items against a sample item to get a match. Wouldn't the initial construction of the data structure of a database satisfy that definition?
In where I come from, it is known for a fact that if your name sounds arabic and/or islamic, you can kiss visa to US goodbye. The rejection rate for those people is 99.99%. Even if you fight for it, and lucky enough, you'll have to wait at least 43 days for your papers to be shipped, reviewed, and considered at US homeland.
It doesn't matter who you are, unless you have some pull to make it a diplomatic disaster for the US.
Wow, IDK if you're just pulling my leg or if it's truly your ideal. Can't bring myself to trust 100% even my closest/best friend let alone some nebulous people who are doing the monitoring, cos that's one of the things required for your "ideal" to come true. That much power means great temptations to resist.
If you're true to your ideal, why don't gather others who share it and build a walled garden where you have total surveillance and 0 privacy. That way you get to live your dream.
Yes, what you've said are true, from the standpoint of most/sane people. However, there are other ways to look at the matter. For people dabbling with classified information, things are not as simple as that. I think Jeremy has eloquently explain how people managing classified information see things, and I found it entirely plausible. Please remember, these people are paid to be paranoid and want all things covered. What they want with these kind of policies are not dumbing down down their employees, nor forcing them to live in a fantasy land, but to stop further leaks.
I imagine these policies only enforced on workplace network. Those people can still access the said information as long as they're not using something which can be traced back to the workplace network. Rather than including those caveats in the policy, thus further complicating things for the morons-in-a-hurry masses, the policy writer just be done with it and made it like it's all encompassing.
So, you're right, from the standpoint of most people, it's a dumb move. But Jeremy is also right, from the standpoint of an information manager, it's a smart move.