Internet ID for all Americans?

[CPA]

Schmidt stressed today that anonymity and pseudonymity will remain possible on the Internet. "I don't have to get a credential, if I don't want to," he said. There's no chance that "a centralized database will emerge," and "we need the private sector to lead the implementation of this," he said.

Jim Dempsey of the Center for Democracy and Technology, who spoke later at the event, said any Internet ID must be created by the private sector--and also voluntary and competitive.

"The government cannot create that identity infrastructure," Dempsey said. "If it tried to, it wouldn't be trusted."

While this certainly has the potential for abuse, I'll reserve my final judgement until we see how it is actually implemented.

It doesn't matter who would create, the feds would get their hands on it. They just want someone else to foot the bill.

 

[Patranus]

It doesn't matter who would create, the feds would get their hands on it. They just want someone else to foot the bill.

Not only that but Schmidt wants to track people all over the internet. Google has lost a lot of ground to Facebook in terms of their SSO/user tracking.

 

[JSt0rm]

It's not even really about the quality of the content, even though that is a valid concern. The real problem is the DRM stuff that really only does two things:

1.) Interferes with legal use, and

2.) Makes piracy the easier option.

Fix that.

I'm talking about movies. The only drm we have is the hdmi cable.

 

[JSt0rm]

It's not even really about the quality of the content, even though that is a valid concern. The real problem is the DRM stuff that really only does two things:

1.) Interferes with legal use, and

2.) Makes piracy the easier option.

Fix that.

I agree and I like a lot of those things that aren't omfg life altering, that doesn't change the fact that I'm not going to pay for your shit or anyone elses shit. Especially overpriced shit. It's bad enough so many people charge for shit, but to overprice it? Come on who do they think I am?

But you arent entitled to watch it and consume it unless you pay for it. Just dont watch something if you think it will be crap. Or wait for it to be on tv or netflix.

 

[Darwin333]

if it stops you fucks from downloading content for free lets do it.

If complete repeal of the 4th amendment stops you fucks from smoking dope lets do it. If ya got nothing to hide right?

 

[JSt0rm]

If complete repeal of the 4th amendment stops you fucks from smoking dope lets do it. If ya got nothing to hide right?

You have rights to privacy but I would argue in the event you decide to go online you do forfeit some rights.

The bill of rights says nothing about the internet.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

You have rights to privacy but I would argue in the event you decide to go online you do forfeit some rights.

The bill of rights says nothing about the internet.

That's the dumbest argument I have a ever heard. The constitution doesn't say anything about the usage of nuclear weapons, either.

 

[JSt0rm]

That's the dumbest argument I have a ever heard. The constitution doesn't say anything about the usage of nuclear weapons, either.

and? You dont have a expectation or right of privacy on the roads, why should you have a expectation of privacy on the internet?

 

[JSt0rm]

I honestly have no idea what you are trying to say about nukes.

 

[exdeath]

Will lead to underground internet of peer 2 peer adhoc networks and pirate ISPs!

 

[exdeath]

You have rights to privacy but I would argue in the event you decide to go online you do forfeit some rights.

The bill of rights says nothing about the internet.

So that means 1st Amendment doesn't apply to computers, TV, or internet either, time to be like China?

4th Amendment doesn't mention cars or cell phones or computers, guess police can search your car and cell phone and computer without probable cause or a warrant amiright?

5th-7th Amendments don't mention anything about DNA or video cameras, who needs due process and right to trial by jury when you have unmistakable video and DNA evidence?

Clearly public school has failed, I thought government and constitution classes were mandatory? Unless you haven't finished highschool yet and are still at that phase where you think you know everything.

 

[exdeath]

and? You dont have a expectation or right of privacy on the roads, why should you have a expectation of privacy on the internet?

Yes you do.

Police in all but the most corrupt states cannot search your car on a traffic stop without a warrant or probable cause, and you can refuse if you want to wait around for an hour for them to get the warrant.

Also courts have ruled on numerous occasions in regard to weapons laws that the inside of your car shares the same protection as the inside of your home, thus laws against concealed weapons, etc, do not apply.

 

[exdeath]

I honestly have no idea what I say about anything.

:sneaky:

 

[JSt0rm]

Yes you do.

Police in all but the most corrupt states cannot search your car on a traffic stop without a warrant or probable cause, and you can refuse if you want to wait around for an hour for them to get the warrant.

Also courts have ruled on numerous occasions in regard to weapons laws that the inside of your car shares the same protection as the inside of your home, thus laws against concealed weapons, etc, do not apply.

You don't have the right to tint your windows and conceal the activities inside your car. This is more along the lines of what I was referring to. Nice try though.

 

[blackangst1]

i don't see how this could be abused at all

Thanks. You owe me a new meter.

 

[exdeath]

You don't have the right to tint your windows and conceal the activities inside your car. This is more along the lines of what I was referring to. Nice try though.

Here's a child grasping at straws for you:

Tint has nothing to do with search and seizure, it's for safety and visibility when idiots with dark tint can't roll down their windows and wait 2 seconds before pulling out and using tint as an excuse for causing a collision.

Police cannot reach into your vehicle, glove box, under the seat, ask you to pop the trunk, etc, unless they have a reasonable suspicion and probable cause (to be contested and validated in court and thrown out if found not reasonable), and the Supreme Court has ruled a maximum reasonable time you can be detained on the side of the road to obtain a warrant if you refuse.

That said many people tint their windows, some tint darker than "allowed" and are hardly ever bothered if they aren't being jack asses and giving probable cause like driving in the ghetto on 22s or weaving around in traffic or driving with a 150 db exhaust.

And you can drive a U haul, cargo van, a lifted truck too high for it's interior to be observed from ground level, and numerous vehicles without windows where tint doesn't apply.

Nice try though.

 

[manimal]

Will lead to underground internet of peer 2 peer adhoc networks and pirate ISPs!

that actually sounds cool..maybe society will turn into a utupia with a underclass of steampunks who choose to live off the grid...they will be called the strawmen...they shall be lead by Zebo!!!


this is not a call out but a complement to Zebo!!

 

[JSt0rm]

Here's a child grasping at straws for you:

Tint has nothing to do with search and seizure, it's for safety and visibility when idiots with dark tint can't roll down their windows and wait 2 seconds before pulling out and using tint as an excuse for causing a collision.

So you list 1 of 4 reasons why there are laws against window tint?

1)It can restrict the drivers ability to see the road and what's on it.
2)It makes it harder for someone outside the car to identify the driver, which makes it hard for automated traffic cameras to do their job.
3) It makes "defensive driving" difficult when you cannot see the other driver to determine whether he/she sees you.
4) It is dangerous for cops when they cannot see the driver (and a possible gun).

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_is_window_tint_illegal#ixzz1AnZU1Qwu

I'm not grasping at straws. You do not have the right to do whatever you want whenever you want all over the world.
​

 

[JSt0rm]

this is not a call out but a complement to Zebo!!

lies!

 

[zsdersw]

I'm talking about movies. The only drm we have is the hdmi cable.

No, you have various things in place with Bluray. I've never seen a Bluray movie not take ages to load and start playing.

For that reason, I will never buy a Bluray disc.

Besides, I think streaming is the future anyway. The days of distributed physical media are numbered.

 

[zsdersw]

You do not have the right to do whatever you want whenever you want all over the world.

Nowhere did anyone say that was the case.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

and? You dont have a expectation or right of privacy on the roads, why should you have a expectation of privacy on the internet?

Or your cell phone or your land line or your mail or your bedroom. Oh, the bedroom is off limits? Why? It's in the interest of the General Welfare to make sure you aren't passing on AIDS.

Tell me, did you applaud Bush for his actions? Oh I bet not, but if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear right? I'd wager if W had done this you'd be howling.

It seems neocons do have a left equivalent.

 

[CPA]

You don't have the right to tint your windows and conceal the activities inside your car. This is more along the lines of what I was referring to. Nice try though.

You need to stop, seriously. You certainly do have a right to tint your windows in most states and you certainly can conceal your activities - Concealed Carry laws, hello?

 

[zsdersw]

It's very apt that JSt0rm lists his location as "la la land".

 

[Exterous]

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2011/01/obama-strategy-for-online-id/

They're really just giving private companies a little push to create it and a proposal of how it could work and be implemented. They recognize a need for it but want private companies to work it out.

They say flat out they want to be an 'organizer'

Schmidt described government’s role as being more like an organizer

That's more than a little push. That's getting your hands involved along the entire way

What exactly is the problem? In short, internet users have too many passwords and logins, there’s no easy way to prove to any website that you are who you say you are, leading many people to use and re-use weak passwords.

Someone please tell me why the government needs to be involved because people re-use passwords on private websites?