PKI can implement information sharing where any of N parties can 'erase' it. It can implement it so that the 'server' can't see or erase the information. It can implement information storage so that any of those parties can search for a checksum or key that servers can search for, but again not read.

Implementation isn't trivial, I don't see any cry for it and thus doubt it's likely, but it's entirely possible.

Frankly, since the NSA and your healthcare providers and credit reporters and social media systems all have a vested interest in having all that crap, I'd wager it'll become a battleground eventually. And then, trivial or not, it'll just be possible: perhaps baked into FOSS if there's a cry for it.

From what I understand (IANA PCI Expert) POS gets the card number less and less.

Some POS magnetic heads now come with encryption literally built into the head elements. The cardswipe heads encrypt card data, then send the encrypted chunk to the card processor. The card processor sends back confirmation data. Newer systems are capable of making it so that the closest that Target gets to your data is a token that is not the card data: it can be reused by the business (adjustments, additional charges if you're at a hotel, that sort of thing), but it only makes sense to the point of sale and the processor: 'We agree that 1555-5555-5555-1515' will map to a card ending in 1515, owned by Jane Doe'.

The cardswipe system has a PKI methodology that enables the processor updating the encryption keys. So, keys are processor-specific, processor controlled. Point of Sale never touches the keys, the card data... they just get little accountant-friendly tokens.

This is pretty new stuff, so it's likely NOT in place at Target.

Please, if I misunderstand this aspect of P2PE, some PCI expert is welcome to fix my understanding.

OK, so I've RTFReport, and this story is crap. The data flowing into the report is inconsistent, so any conclusion is suspect.

First, go to page 9, where the 44 comes from. Look at the data in context. Look at the columns and try to interpret them.

Seems weird that most states #'s in cols 1 and 2 go up, but OR's go down. That literally makes no sense: more completed apps than people applying!? W.T.F.

Second, it looks like Oregon's got about 20 thousand submittals, and 6k deemed eleigible. WHY only 44? What's the missing detail? The report mentions technical problems in OR. Something weird/fishy here.

So, the report is built on data submitted by the states. And Oregon's (and a few others') seems to not parse sanely. THAT IS NOT THE SAME AS 'OMG!'. That's bureaucratic derptitude, or GIGO or whatever. It's a problem.

Rather than squawk about the failings (red meat for partisan flamewars and sensationalist wankery -- how sad that the only remaining slashdot effect is slashdot's editorial effort to drive up their internal reads/clicks), the nerdy takeaway seems to be an acceleration on the climb of enrollments on page 3 (cool, techies are getting the tech under control), and the report's attempt to gather and slice/dice data to guide states on decisions of what works or what doesn't (mmm, data to manipulate!)

Legal entities have been around for centuries. Ships stolen, then used for piracy, have been found guilty of crimes and destroyed. They were represented by agents, so 'facing one's accuser' was solved centuries ago. Other legal fictions include: companies, cooperatives (co-ops), coprorations, municipalities, political parties, sovereigns, states, temples, and trade unions (src: wikipedia 'Legal Entity'). And this isn't even that new of a question: Thirty years or more ago, a legal brief and book started to ask whether a tree could have standing, since it was understood that it would be granted standing if carved into a boat. In the last decade, a couple specific watersheds and ecosystems have gathered a degree of standing (seems like this was in New Zealand and Ecuador, perhaps?). This was done so that case law could form around protecting these directly, rather than forcing someone to prove their own personal damage by an abuse by another.

Each Legal Entity (aka legal fiction) may have limitations on what they're allowed, laws to govern their agents, limitations on what laws they're held liable for.

Slashdotters also easily see this becoming an issue due to technology: will technologically-created entities be granted rights? What level of tissue regeneration crosses from a 'vat grown organ' to enough sentience to earn rights? Can we clone ourselves completely to have 'hot spares', or does a sentient clone gain any rights? Similarly, several proponents of Singularity believe they'll copy themselves into code. Does the originator retain their rights and possessions? Can they 'claw back' stuff they signed away to their code alterego? Does the code alterego get any rights?

As for us not being ready, that's baloney -- If anything, an unwillingness to cause big upsets seems like a trait of an ossified and post-climax nation or culture. When we need to, we routinely write laws out of expediency. When there's big money at stake, legal challenges routinely slow progress for financial, not ethical immaturity reasons. There's no reason a legal system can't step into this 'personhood of a chimp' tangle, decide that the benefits outweigh the impacts and declare that a chimp or critter of another species has some rights, gets a guardian ad leitem (like CASA does for kids), and faces some laws/limits/penalties. Heck, in the case of endangered species, such a process could be more effective than current actions/measures. I bet we'll see other nations continue to experiment along these lines.

I was going to point out to Roger W Moore that he missed the part where all OP said was 'looks like LHC', nothing more. Maybe a jab about overreacting.

But then I realized that I'm in a disturbingly tiny minority of the civilized world that geeks out at his 2nd paragraph and that his defensiveness is 'cuz he probably struggles to get 9/10ths of people he meets to understand why LHC and Big Science are a BFD.

Keep preaching the technological and engineering awesomeness, Roger. And kudos to everyone involved.

Am sure you're aware that a cookbook can be copyrighted, but not the recipes therein.

Analogously, the API documentation (en masse) can be copyrighted. Format of the documentation, annotations and sample code, etc. are the 'creative work' in this example, but not the recipes (the api calls) or the ingredients (the parameters of those calls). And copyrighting a functional framework itself (especially one that was pushed as a free portable run-anywhere languages so aggressively for more than a decade) is akin to trying to claw back a recipe once it has been shared. It's the epitome of why recipes aren't copyrightable.

Umyeah, thanks for adding another category to my list of 'shit Slashdot pretends to know':

Literature.

More specifically, literary criticism. Especially criticism as dictated by someone that thinks Jeff Foxworthy lacks pretension or that his opinion on literary criticism matters, thinks that the bible is 'grossly underrated' (wrong both in estimating it's current impact and what it deserves) and used the term 'butt naked' (it's BUCK naked, FYI). Let me guess: you also don't like modern art.

Here's the list, FWIW:
NASA & Rocket Science.
Economics.
Intellectual Property Law (not insanely dumb, just a Venn-Diagram of two incompatible circlejerks).
Law, in general.
Most things international.
Ethics vs. Religion.
Theism and Atheism.
* Literature.

I get less worked up about this since I came to my own shitty overgeneralization: slashdot is a large population of mediocre alpha computer nerds who mistake their computer fu for omniscience. Don't get me wrong; I'm still here for the occasional brilliant comment as much as the news itself. Like many good recipes, there's enough spice/quality peppered into the mix for me to rank slashdot miles above the comments in Youtube or 4chan, but it's steadily being diminished by the crap comments as dimmer smug people hold forth at length.

PS: "Just viewed as fiction"?! What the bubbling incoherent fuck else would one view a novel as?

Totally agree!

Integrated circuits are built using photolithography and chemical, not mechanical processes. There are so many advanced tricks being utilized that a 'printer' can't do, that 10-15 years is stunningly overoptimistic.

OTOH, building blocks (custom units like i/o, cpu, gpu -- flexible like FPGA, all-in-ones like screens or storage blocks) plus printable plus commodity materials could be really cool in 10-15 years.

As the head of a university, Agarwal has a vested interest in receiving a continuing stream of cheap grad student and postdoc labor. His views are predictable: mumble mumble 'online courseware' mumble 'disruption' mumble mumble 'grad school good' mumble mumble unicorns rainbows mumble 'everyone should get advanced degrees.'

There's a bit of irony here: edX is at least embracing the destructive change, even if he's impacting the stark unemployment numbers facing outlier-field PhDs today. Compare this to blind denial: my local fishwrap publisher won't shut up about how his paper will survive, but won't change. He thinks he just has to outwait this faddish innernets-thing...

It looks cool, but I'm not optimistic about this. This reminds me of what sucks about new car stereos and touchscreen phones: I can't do stuff without looking at the damn buttons, and I used to have that blind-friendly interface via tactile feedback.

Buttons and Joysticks have an advantage touchpads and pushy circles lack: Nuanced tactile response. I can *feel* which direction I have the joystick jammed, with an accuracy of several degrees. That normally wouldn't seem like much, until the motion arc of half-an-inch is taken into consideration. Tactile controllers and buttons and joysticks provide back-pressure my finger or thumb feels: 185 degrees feels vastly different than 180 or 175 degrees. If I want to transmit a control action a few degrees left or right, I make and feel the course adjustment before I see it on-screen. If I push A-B repeatedly and keep 'guessing' that B is further than it is, I don't need to glance down to know I overshot -- my thumb feels I'm on the far crown of the button and I adjust the spacing almost subconsciously until I've got their relative positions **LOCKED**.

We all know this isn't new stuff, but by FSM, all manufacturers seem intent upon ignoring the concepts. More recent rental cars I've driven do seem to be trying to unlearn a decade of mistakes on car stereos, though: I'm seeing toggles and buttons in the steering wheel, sometimes the pushbutton interface of 1950's AM car stereos is back with helpful info appearing onscreen above each button... eventually. I'm curious where we'll end up. Maybe voice obviates the need. Or maybe we'll get OLED buttons and folks can stop trying to uninvent tactile interfaces. Or maybe the maker of a 50 dollar joystick will realize that spending extra beans on tactile components is worth it for a device that will consume hundreds of user hours on applications where tactile response is a crux competitive advantage.

Sorry, but I'm with them. You say bonkers stuff that lacks documentation. When challenged, you talk about how great america was 80 years ago... 1933? That's your metric of american greatness? I mean, I personally have a soft spot for '33 cuz that's when my dad was born, but it was the Depression. Perhaps you've heard of how sucky things were until the 40's? If not, might I direct you to Wikipedia and any other encyclopedia or history book.

American greatness has nothing to do with you inventing a pseudohistory invoking a stalinistic FEMA. Get. A. Grip.

You may already understand this, but a good method for map-reduce optimization is token combination (combining synonyms and misspellings and such). I'm not a googler, but have presumed that is behind google being good at similar terms (merging tokens) and poor with quoted strings.

If I'm not wrong, you'd in effect be saying 'damn the specialized system for not allowing an impossible output'.

A partially flawed analogy since the postal service seems to be under partisan siege.

I suspect that you're right that postal services are imploding due to more convenience via internet.

Going a bit further, their only chance in the face of email convenience would be to adapt as they used to (post offices have served numerous other civic purposes in the past). Services like exchanges for Bitcoin are interestingly an example of the sort of space where I'd trust a public trust agency like the post office. Certificate and identity management, anonymized communication, secure public internet, services that support international commerce... adding trust and consistency.

By 2035 100 Million bloggers and expert-wannabes will be predicting things that may or may come true (and no one will remember or care that they were wrong).

Why wait? I predict 100 million bloggers and wankers predicting random shit NEXT YEAR! NEXT MONTH! NEXT WEEK!

(btw, bravo; no mod points or I'd give you them instead of this lame post).

baloney.

A pc with a Linux OS that lets me stream netflix via any means including WINE is 2nd place behind native linux code, but the movie did indeed 'come to linux'. I don't have to reinstall my OS or run in a VM? It's on linux. And who the fuck cares about notepad; MS OFFICE RUNS UNDER WINE (some versions, YMMV, some limitations may apply).

Purism matters nothing in the crossover wars: if I can get netflix to stream on linux, it's better than if it won't.