You might eventually figure out how to scale the Israeli model to the US size
Don't forget the most important question: is it worth it? Does the expenditure match the threat? (the answer is no, btw).
Easier? sure. Just throw a bunch of people with root access to your servers and datastores at the problem. Of course you'll spend huge sums of money and expose yourself to some other risks along the way
I was trying to avoid some typing with the DOD reference, but that obviously didn't work, so let's try a couple of examples. The basic point is that easy-to-access and easy-to-delete are not same thing; data is just too easy to copy.
Example 1: I send you an email with a pdf attachment. You read it, and then we decide to delete all copies of the pdf. Where do we need to look?
Example 2 (a bit more like the system we're talking about):
How do we know which servers to notify for deletion? Do we maintain a list somewhere? Do we tell all of our servers to delete it? What about backups? What do we do if the server is not available when we send the notification?
It is not easy
> And as far as deleting backups on redundant servers, it sounds like it could be done with a few lines of code.
You have obviously never done anything at this scale. Deleting all copies of information on a significant system is a very hard problem to solve. Demonstrating to an auditor that you've deleted everything makes it even harder.
There's actually an entire Defense Department specification/procedure that attempts to describe how to do it: http://www.google.com/?q=DOD+5015
Wow - an entire post of contradictions. Apparently money is not fungible, and neither are customers with money.
There's an argument to be made about a currency bubble, but you're not making it.
For my prediction, I'm going to predict that people will die in automobile accidents in the US tomorrow. About 90 people, in fact. Accurate? yes. Useful in preventing a specific accident? no. More useful than your prediction? probably.
Go ahead, you can have the last post in this thread now
Yep, simplistic is the right word to describe your model - as another poster noted, the model is 'government == bad'. It is interesting to see the back flips you have to go through to keep that one part going (i.e., things like making money non-fungible).
The only real 'trickle down' is in production, not in consumption.
Yeah - that's while all the
That's an insanely simplistic model you're spewing there. Reality is more of a balancing act, with investment meeting demand. At the moment, there is no shortage of investment capital, but high unemployment and other factors have really put a crimp on the demand side of the equation.
Henry Ford understood this balance - that's why he raised his worker's salaries. These days, we get a lot of pressure to keep capital gains and other taxes on the wealthy low, mostly from folks who do not understand this balance.
"We don't care. We don't have to. We're the Phone Company."