> U.S. joined that one 1974 Also the year WIPO became a United Nations entity. Probably the reason why.

Actually, since the inception of the Berne convention, Copyright was modified that copyright laws from country to country would be observed across political and national lines. Prior to Berne, there were no guidelines, and individual countries' copyright laws held, but for their own country. Most of these things are managed through the World Intellectual Property Organization and its Copyright Treaty signed by a great number of nations. So, diatribe aside, it isn't just the U.S.

No Agenda Show actually. They exposed (as the first scanners were going in) that the former chief of Homeland Security (Chertoff) is the one responsible for bringing them in. Nevermind his security consulting group has a client that manufactures the machines. No Agenda has been consistently months ahead of both the news and public reaction on a number of similar issues. http://noagendashow.com/

What's a "modem"? ;)

try to find a union for IT in the U.S. And then try and waggle that around as a weapon in an at-will state, and see what that gets you...

>> we banned the admins from touching the critical environments unless the software engineers who had designed said environments okayed it Interesting quote here. In the UNIX world (I'm assuming you're talking a Win environment) the security structure is exactly the opposite. You grant permissions just enough for development to do their job, granting sudo level access where necessary, holding it back where appropriate. Often times you'll find that the very most brilliant of software developers are quite uninitiate in the ways of the operating system (unless they're a systems programmer, at which point this comment does not apply). They know an IDE, perhaps some basic shell to get their job done, and maybe even a very small portion of the software serving stack they're dealing with (in a web services world, this tends to be the case). In my 20 years, I've only found 3 or 4 developers that could be trusted with shell to their own serving platform. Sad, but true. That's why I find your comment so interesting. I have never seen it where the developers (usually clueless) dictated system access policies to admins. Admins are admins for a reason. :)