We need the 'I'm not in business, I facilitate micro business" model to exist.
But at the same time, we have to admit that those micro businesses avoid the regulation that normal small (and large) businesses have to do. This is an unfair advantage. As such, it makes a good compromise to allow them to exist, but have them pay a tax to equalize things out. They avoid the business regulations, but have to pay to do it.
Ideally, this will allow the innovation - such as getting clients via apps - but prevent the major abuses.
We should use this same model for the other 'facilitating micro businesses" such as AirBnB.
"What's your password or you go to jail?"
"I don't remember what's my password."
"He's lying, throw him in jail!"
Five years later, released from jail because they crack the password, finding embarrassing porn, but nothing illegal.
But no compensation for throwing a man in jail for the 'crime' of a poor memory.
Read this article:
The real problem with your philosophy is that so much of that information is secretly personably identifiable.
It is like the extra data a browser gives - things like versions, addons, etc. There is enough variability that you can determine the exact person.
It may not be good enough in a court of law, but it is good enough for a private investigator.
In my remarks I made the point that this resolution was perhaps well-intentioned, but bought into a really dangerous idea that somehow DRM-based access to the law from an exclusive private provider is "good enough." I was actually joined by the standards establishment in arguing strenuously that "read only access" simply doesn't exist and DRM is futile. A law is either public or it isn't. (And if a law isn't public, it isn't a law!)
Look, it's not their fault if some idiot drives 300 miles. It's only their fault for making a crappy movie, or rather for over-charging for it. If they gave that piece of crap away for free that would be just about right.
They owe him the ticket price. That's it.
Most locks can be opened in 5 seconds with a 'bump key'.
Even the best locks can easily be defeated by a sledge hammer.
The real advantage of most locks is that it TELLS you when they have been attacked. A good Bluetooth lock should keep an easily accessible record of how many times and when it was opened.
But yes, this should be fixed. Even simple encryption is better than plain text password transmission.
People that play computer games tend to be:
1) Computer literate = average or greater intelligence and having the skills to self-teach technological skills.
2) Not dirt poor = having the many advantages of the middle class life.
3) Not have parents that are tyrannical puritans that discourage kids from learning.
Same topic (different article
) was submitted by myself on Friday May 13, 2016 @09:58AM
The Washington Post article was longer and had more info, if not as much formatting.
You don't use the same password for your email as you use for your bank account because you want to make sure that when one is compromised, the other is not.
Using a single login is just a slightly easier version of using the same password for all your accounts.
It is JUST as stupid as using the same password for your every account.
The only difference is that the people with your password are promising not to steal money from you outright.
They don't promise to respect your privacy in any way, because they are planning on abusing the crap out of it.
Trusting someone that's outright plan is to abuse your trust is not a smart thing to do.
The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the pavement is precisely 1 bananosecond.