Suppose you have a "smart" credit card in the form of one of those "credit card" calculators. Keypad + simple LCD display.

When you use the card, you type a pin/password on the card, which then generates a new single-use credit card number which attaches to your account, encrypts it with your personal key, and sends it off when the card is swiped.

If you lose your card, no one else has access since they don't have your PIN(*). No one can snoop the data since it's encrypted en-route. No one can copy your card since the information never leaves the card and anyway the number is single-use only.

Suppose this same card is in the form of a thumb drive. It identifies as a security token, and will encode and decode on request, but will not under any circumstance let the keys out. All calculations are done on the device, the code is fixed and cannot be changed, and requires a PIN once when the computer boots.

You don't have to worry about viruses or data leaks.

Since it is a thumb drive, you can add public keys with abandon. To do business with any company, you send them a token encoded with your private key and their public key, they send you information using their private key and your public key. The card will require the operator to enter the PIN to store a new corporate key (for convenience). All the public keys for your credit cards, store cards, bank access, &c are stored in one place.

Suppose the device is blue-tooth enabled. Now you don't need to hunt around for a USB port - you can enter your pin and hit "accept" when you want to make a purchase at a store - after the LCD display shows you the purchase price.

If you lose your device you get a new one. Go to the bank, show identification, get a new card with the bank's keys on it. If the bank keeps a backup of your stored corporate keys, they can download the keys along with your new private key at their secure site.

The important bit for all of this is a) the calculations are done on the device not an external computer, and b) storage for multiple corporate keys (visa, MC, Pennys, Wal-Mart, &c) in one device.

This has been obvious for years, it's just one of those cases where the entrenched monopoly has no incentive to fix the problem.

(*) Even assuming a thief can hack the physical card, it takes credit card theft away from "millions of cards were exposed by computer hack" to "lots of work required to hack a single card". And your bank will invalidate your old private key when the new card is issued.

That's not a problem for me.

It's reached the point where I just don't care about the feelings or rights of the "legal owners of income" any more.

For lots of issues there are mitigating circumstances, ways to "consider the other person's point of view", ways to frame the discussion as shades of grey.

Not for these people.

I don't care about the arguments any more. No mitigating circumstances, no heartfelt appeals to starving artists, no reframing of the situation from their point of view.

There comes a point when considering their view is too much of a reach, and you admit to yourself that these people are just plain evil.

Buddah fought against evil, and so do I.

Mr. Dot-Butt-Cum is a despicable low-life (really) whose illegal operation will do more good for the world than all the media conglomerates put together. I applaud him for his sense of hurt, his outrage, and most importantly - his sense of doing something about it!

It's a problem for you, not a problem for me. I wonder how many people think it's not a problem for them, either?

The page under "Server requirements" has this interesting tidbit:

Get out the popcorn, this should be fun to watch!

(And a P.S. for web designers: mega.co.nz is a model of website design efficiency. Easy to read, short and to-the-point, graphics and layout which improve the presentation, and fast loading.)

The site isn't live yet, but the information pages are *really* interesting.

1) Distributed storage?

Mega is inviting people to be a mega storage node. Allocate some storage and bandwidth on your system, and Mega will store files there.

This would imply (to me, at least) that the site will use distributed storage. If I'm right, that means it will be nigh impossible for any authority to take the data offline in a single action. All Kim needs is a list associating peoples' files with where they are physically stored, and it won't matter to *the users* if the site gets taken down - he can just publish the list and everyone can get their files from the cloud storage nodes directly. (I'm probably overlooking a more elegant solution, such as unpublicized backup domains which can be announced as alternate portals if the main site gets taken down.)

Also - They propose to *pay you* for being a mega storage node. That won't be popular, no sirreee...

2) Published API?

They propose to publish a comprehensive API and software dev kit. In their words: "We hope to see a thriving ecosystem of crypto-enabled third-party client apps emerge."

We don't need to trust Kim for security. Open source applications will sprout like weeds, and you can choose from whichever publisher you trust. (The Firefox plugin from Mozilla perhaps, or the version put out by the Apache foundation...)

2) Encryption == No liability?

In their words: "You hold the keys to what you store in the cloud, not us."

This neatly avoids any liability on their part for hosting content, and at the same time protects everyone's online content from random web snooping by the likes of CIA, NSA, and various repressive regimes. Including Chinese hackers.

IANAL, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that attaching liability to this type of storage would require new laws, and a sea shift in the way liability is determined. Any such change would be unworkable, since it would also encompass broad swatches of the existing internet.

3) Better functionality

The site mentions improvements in functionality, such as having servers near the customer for speed (due to the distributed nature of storage), complete disk functionality, and so on.

====================

I have to say, this *really does* look like it will change the world, and will be the future made manifest.

Go check out Mega.co.nz and see for yourself - it's an interesting read.

(Oh, and if you would like to help erode the influence of the media conglomerates (RIAA, MPAA, &c), getting a free account and storing your legally owned files would be a drop in the bucket towards that end.)

They should change the name from "We The People" to "Why We Won't Listen".

I mean, seriously - has any petition on that site been acted upon? Does the number of petitioners even matter?

The site was only a stop-gap measure to give people hope in the credibility of the federal government. It's run its course as people have realized how pointless it is.

It was total PR, it's purpose was to address growing anger at the federal government and defuse some of the "Occupy Wall Street" demonstrations.

While writing the post I googled the article, but can't find it. The current debate on gun control is flooding the search results right now, even for something as specific as Scientific American.

On further reflection, I decided to say nothing as to which side was the "right" side of this issue. I'm trying to make a larger point, and the actual debate is secondary. Also, I'm hoping that this will encourage people to post evidence that I'm unaware of. (I clam that the evidence is clear on this issue, but I might be wrong.)

I can remember reading the article in my youth, it had clear conclusions. It's less relevant today than more modern statistics.

Sorry for the omission, it was somewhat on purpose.

I applaud the attitude. Verifying assumptions and otherwise scientific thinking are what we need most.

It's not just politicians, it's everywhere - even on Slashdot.

If you look at the gun control debate and only consider the evidence, the answer is obvious. It's been obvious for a long time - there was an article in Scientific American decades ago which explained the evidence and statistics. The conclusion hasn't changed since then.

And yet, people go back and forth on this very website arguing storylines instead of facts. Both sides continuously cite heartfelt stories in an attempt to sway others that what they believe is correct. The statistics are there, there's some attempt to mislead the debate by framing the numbers in specific ways, but overall it's clear-cut.

Being a scientist means you make evidence-based decisions. I may not like the decisions, and it may feel wrong to me, but at the end of the day I know that basing decisions on evidence is the most likely path to success.

If you don't form your beliefs based on evidence in the gun debate, why bother using evidence at all? If you can believe stories over evidence, then vaccinations cause autism, cell phones cause cancer, a little inflation is good, and a talking snake convinced a rib-woman to eat an apple from a magic tree.

There are cases where we don't have enough information, and "best guess" and "expert opinion" can probably serve; however, many times the evidence is overwhelming and the path is clear.

We would all do well to stop talking "pathos" in our posts and concentrate on facts.

That's what we should be doing, really: keep the debate focused on evidence. When there's a clear indication from evidence, don't let the other side wander off into storyland.

(I chose gun control as an emotionally-charged topic that's fresh in people's minds. I claim the point is valid for many issues discussed on Slashdot.)

And we all know, the best way to foster creativity is...

...make it mandatory!