The problem is there are two competing realities. For individuals of good standing with the law, who have a longstanding address, who pay their taxes, and generally can be counted on to pay their tickets and fines, who live in neighborhoods generally free of violence and crime, the police are little better than revenue agents of municipalities who can't afford their own real police department and rely on the County, but can afford half a dozen traffic enforcement cars plus the constable and whomever else they can get out to stake out their few miles of highway or parkway territory. Once we hired Lawmen to protect us from Highwaymen who would stop and rob any that passed by. Now, in far too many jurisdictions, the Police are the Highwaymen we must fear, filling their monthly quota of tickets with automated license plate scanners and 'subjective', "officer's word vs motorist" type tickets like not using a signal on a lane change or rolling a stop on a right turn. The people of property, who should honor and respect the police as the Peacemakers, instead view them as just a better organized and more entrenched class of Robber. Don't get me started on the whole "arresting money and property" thing. When these traffic enforcement types get into a tight situation, they are under-equipped by training or experience to deal with defiance and willfulness with anything but an unequivocal position of dominance, which often only enrages the situation, and is anybody surprised these jurisdictions don't wan't to see film of these guys in over their heads and falling back on "well, I have a gun, a taser and a club, plus the guys are watching, so which one can I justify on the paperwork?".
In the neighborhoods where violence and crime are more prevalent, where we rely on the police to clean up the mess people (or their parents, or lack thereof)have made of their lives, the true Peacekeepers amongst our Lawmen live with the knowledge that the next traffic stop or domestic call may turn insanely violent at any instant, and that they only have their fellow officers who will come to their aide. They also have to put up with, to various degrees, the same revenue stream/ticket quota system other municipalities require of their less busy Traffic Enforcement types. Of those officers I have spoken to about this, they mostly embrace the cameras, except where the knowledge of their existence emboldens the public, their presence robs the officer of the chance to exercise some judgement or discretion in de-escalating (or decriminalizing) a stupid situation, and the potential for being the one who provides the footage of a fellow officer doing something that the armchair quarterbacks eventually decide they could or would have done differently. They have to rely on each other, the politicians and money grubbers have turned our Lawmen and Peacekeepers into (if we are lucky) revenue agents the rest of us avoid like the plague, or by the book robots who can't risk looking bad on camera...
I too have not found avoiding buying things with the word "Sony" on them too difficult, except for some movie dvds to watch on the airplane. No music since the root kit compromised my company laptop and got me on IT's sh*t list. Bought a new flatscreen, just walked past the Sony section. What with the defeaturing of the game consols, I bought Xbox 360 instead of PS3. Gota feel for 'em. R9 Earthquake, then a Tusnami, then a melt down, but makes you wonder if it isnt a message of some sort.
The technology exists right now, the standard three phase credential system, with encryption, Secure ID tokens, strong passwords, security questions, and VPN to access the Internet from any computer with reasonable security. It is possible to authenticate yourself if that is required or desired. The issue isn't that you can't do it, it is that it is a bit more inconvenient, and you might not want to. The analogy I like best is the Old West. There needs to be a part of the Internet that is civilized (ie "east of the Mississippi") and where credential are required, for things like banking, accessing your corporate environment, shopping etc) where using the computer is reasonably safe. There is a sherrif in every town, and there may be a policeman on every corner.
At the same time, there needs to be a part of the internet where anonimity is allowable or desireable (ie "west of the Mississippi") where anything goes, like whistleblowing, political speech, etc. There just isnt a one-size-fits-all model. Just as in the Old West, if you go there, you had best be prepared to defend yourself because it is a long way between sherrifs, and those that you do encounter may be working for the local land baron.
As an IT guy for a major defense contractor, I can, by quoting only widely published data, and not violating any security oaths, state authoritatively that a massive number of packets bombard every ISP in the Free World from mainland China every moment, and a significant number of packets are going back. This isn't an opinion, this is a fact of life for every IT security organization.
Google pulling out the China market may be a matter of "clearing away the forest so we can see the trees". Other legitimate web operators in China may soon follow, or be classed as part of the problem and not part of the solution. I don't see any noble motivation here, I think Google is done a benefits/cost analysis, figuring in the bad press, and the value of their intellectual property, and the cost of having to defend it, and staking out a position. To apply a World war 2 analogy, they would prefer to become something like the Switzerland of the Internet, instead of taking on the role Belgium.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Buckwally.
Why people dont like police, and officer both love and hate the cameras...
The problem is there are two competing realities. For individuals of good standing with the law, who have a longstanding address, who pay their taxes, and generally can be counted on to pay their tickets and fines, who live in neighborhoods generally free of violence and crime, the police are little better than revenue agents of municipalities who can't afford their own real police department and rely on the County, but can afford half a dozen traffic enforcement cars plus the constable and whomever else they can get out to stake out their few miles of highway or parkway territory. Once we hired Lawmen to protect us from Highwaymen who would stop and rob any that passed by. Now, in far too many jurisdictions, the Police are the Highwaymen we must fear, filling their monthly quota of tickets with automated license plate scanners and 'subjective', "officer's word vs motorist" type tickets like not using a signal on a lane change or rolling a stop on a right turn. The people of property, who should honor and respect the police as the Peacemakers, instead view them as just a better organized and more entrenched class of Robber. Don't get me started on the whole "arresting money and property" thing.
When these traffic enforcement types get into a tight situation, they are under-equipped by training or experience to deal with defiance and willfulness with anything but an unequivocal position of dominance, which often only enrages the situation, and is anybody surprised these jurisdictions don't wan't to see film of these guys in over their heads and falling back on "well, I have a gun, a taser and a club, plus the guys are watching, so which one can I justify on the paperwork?".
In the neighborhoods where violence and crime are more prevalent, where we rely on the police to clean up the mess people (or their parents, or lack thereof)have made of their lives, the true Peacekeepers amongst our Lawmen live with the knowledge that the next traffic stop or domestic call may turn insanely violent at any instant, and that they only have their fellow officers who will come to their aide. They also have to put up with, to various degrees, the same revenue stream/ticket quota system other municipalities require of their less busy Traffic Enforcement types. Of those officers I have spoken to about this, they mostly embrace the cameras, except where the knowledge of their existence emboldens the public, their presence robs the officer of the chance to exercise some judgement or discretion in de-escalating (or decriminalizing) a stupid situation, and the potential for being the one who provides the footage of a fellow officer doing something that the armchair quarterbacks eventually decide they could or would have done differently. They have to rely on each other, the politicians and money grubbers have turned our Lawmen and Peacekeepers into (if we are lucky) revenue agents the rest of us avoid like the plague, or by the book robots who can't risk looking bad on camera...
Sony? Another fine product from the people who brought us World war Two...
I too have not found avoiding buying things with the word "Sony" on them too difficult, except for some movie dvds to watch on the airplane. No music since the root kit compromised my company laptop and got me on IT's sh*t list. Bought a new flatscreen, just walked past the Sony section. What with the defeaturing of the game consols, I bought Xbox 360 instead of PS3. Gota feel for 'em. R9 Earthquake, then a Tusnami, then a melt down, but makes you wonder if it isnt a message of some sort.
re: You Can't Get Rid Of Anonymity Online, Even If You Wanted To
The technology exists right now, the standard three phase credential system, with encryption, Secure ID tokens, strong passwords, security questions, and VPN to access the Internet from any computer with reasonable security. It is possible to authenticate yourself if that is required or desired. The issue isn't that you can't do it, it is that it is a bit more inconvenient, and you might not want to. The analogy I like best is the Old West. There needs to be a part of the Internet that is civilized (ie "east of the Mississippi") and where credential are required, for things like banking, accessing your corporate environment, shopping etc) where using the computer is reasonably safe. There is a sherrif in every town, and there may be a policeman on every corner.
At the same time, there needs to be a part of the internet where anonimity is allowable or desireable (ie "west of the Mississippi") where anything goes, like whistleblowing, political speech, etc. There just isnt a one-size-fits-all model. Just as in the Old West, if you go there, you had best be prepared to defend yourself because it is a long way between sherrifs, and those that you do encounter may be working for the local land baron.
Welcome to World War 3.0
As an IT guy for a major defense contractor, I can, by quoting only widely published data, and not violating any security oaths, state authoritatively that a massive number of packets bombard every ISP in the Free World from mainland China every moment, and a significant number of packets are going back. This isn't an opinion, this is a fact of life for every IT security organization.
Google pulling out the China market may be a matter of "clearing away the forest so we can see the trees". Other legitimate web operators in China may soon follow, or be classed as part of the problem and not part of the solution. I don't see any noble motivation here, I think Google is done a benefits/cost analysis, figuring in the bad press, and the value of their intellectual property, and the cost of having to defend it, and staking out a position. To apply a World war 2 analogy, they would prefer to become something like the Switzerland of the Internet, instead of taking on the role Belgium.