Thanks Greasemonkey and SOSADFORUS. No they are going to have a hard time implementing this, but I can assure you they want this as bad as they want amnesty if not more so.
Printable View
Thanks Greasemonkey and SOSADFORUS. No they are going to have a hard time implementing this, but I can assure you they want this as bad as they want amnesty if not more so.
The Worst Technology Laws
Five ways legislation has made a mess of technology, plus five problems that desperately need a legal solution.
Anush Yegyazarian, PC World
PC World
Tuesday, July 31, 2007; 1:19 AM
Given how much technology affects all parts of our lives these days, it's scary to think about how often Congress gets regulation of tech issues wrong. Sometimes it passes laws, like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), that make things worse. Other times it ignores vital issues such as online privacy, leaving us at the mercy of companies and whatever their privacy policies say this week.
Here's my list of the five technology laws most in need of an overhaul, along with five areas in which, well, there ought to be a law.
Few people argue that copyright shouldn't exist--after all, the creators of the music, art, video, and other content we enjoy should be able to profit from their work and control its distribution. But 1998's Digital Millennium Copyright Act (as well as that same year's Copyright Term Extension Act, which protects copyrights virtually indefinitely) goes too far.
By making it illegal to break the encryption that may protect a work, the DMCA takes away the ability that we used to have before the digital age to freely move around our own content for personal purposes. The law also hinders research into new technologies and prohibits accepted software practices like reverse engineering. Court rulings have mitigated some of these issues, but researchers and consumer advocacy groups both say they can still feelthe chilling effect.
There's another problem: The complex copyright system best serves big corporations, which can hire experts to navigate its myriad rules. But average Joes are creating lots of new content--YouTube videos, podcasts, blogs, and more. Mashups allow people to easily take content created by others, mix it up, and produce something new. Copyright rules are too complex for most amateur creators to apply to their own works, or even to follow as they borrow and remix existing products.
You can argue that the goals--increase security and get a better handle on immigration by instituting a national identity card--are good. The card is supposed to replace your driver's license and would be issued only after a stringent check of your identity and residency status. And data from the cards would be used to create a national database of identity information easily shared across state lines. But 2005's Real ID Act--enacted without debate--has a number of significant flaws.
It mandates that all the identity cards include some technology to make them machine readable so that companies and agencies can easily get at the information they contain. But the act gives only a bare set of guidelines for this technology and doesn't require that all states use the same system. It also neglects to specify even a minimum standard for the security of this highly sensitive information. Each state can choose its own level of security, but since everything is linked, the data is only as safe as the flimsiest system. Nothing in the law specifies how the data will be shared in practice--it may be reasonable, for example, for your bank or employer to have access to your Social Security number and residency status, but should the liquor store clerk who's checking your age have it too?
The IDs are supposed to debut next year, though there are some moves in Congress now to delay the implementation or repeal the act entirely.
Patently Absurd
Ever wonder why each day seems to bring news of another patent-infringement lawsuit? Or why U.S. cell phone networks are so slow? Or why so few cities offer wireless Internet service? The answers lie, at least in part, in these lousy government decisions.
The patent system is broken. Even Congress knows that, andcontroversial effortsto overhaul it are under way. The Patent Office has acrushing backlogof hundreds of thousands of patent review requests, a rigidly defined time limit in which to do those reviews, and little extra time to keep up with the rapidly changing tech field. Is it any wonder thatsilly patentsget approved?
Bad patent grants lead to frivolous lawsuits that can cost millions of dollars even if they're settled early on--and you and I end up footing the bill in the form of higher prices. The throng of pointless patents also makes it hard for companies to find the legitimate ones that they may unknowingly violate. And all the lawsuits create uncertainty for buyers and a veritable nightmare for users of a product embroiled in a patent battle--something devotees ofRIM's BlackBerry devicesknow all too well.
Once upon a time, our government decided that we didn't need a cellular technology standard. The cost of that strategy has been slower networks, spotty coverage, and more limited services than in many other countries.
The United States has four major cellular carriers--AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, and Verizon--which use two base technologies (GSM/GPRS and CDMA) and at least four upgraded technologies (EDGE, UMTS, EvDO, HSDPA) to handle their users' traffic. Coverage areas vary by vendor because each one has to build its own network, but even users of the same carrier will get different network speeds depending on where they are, since vendors deploy faster technologies in stages.
Because of these competing and incompatible technologies, when you switch carriers you often must get a new phone even if you don't want one. And it's easier for carriers to lock in a popular cell phone model (iPhone, anyone?). Moreover, since hardware makers must create models to support each of these different technologies, their development costs go up as well, and that eventually gets passed on to consumers.
Many European and Asian countries, whose governments have chosen a single cellular technology standard, have services that simply don't exist here or have been slow to debut, such as cellular payment systems (which are made easier by use of a single tech standard) and live TV broadcasts (which require ubiquitous high speeds).
This one varies by region, but it's a bad idea no matter where you are. Certain states, such as Missouri and Pennsylvania, havemade it illegalfor individual cities and towns to offer broadband, video, or wireless services to their residents. Yes, private companies do often provide those services to the cities in question, and such companies may be able to maintain the networks required for these services more cheaply than a government agency. It's also true that not all residents of a given area would want their tax dollars used this way. But why shouldn't local governments compete with their own offerings if that's what the majority of residents want?
If my town wants to offer free or low-cost wireless access with my tax dollars and it can do so efficiently, why shouldn't it? Given the importance of an always-on connection in today's society, and the high value we place on competition, having an extra player willing to step in and offer greater choice--and sometimes the only choice--should be encouraged, not prohibited.
Errors of Omission
It's not just the laws Congress has passed that get us in trouble. Sometimes the problem lies with the major technology issues that our senators and representatives have ignored. On the next few pages are five technology problems desperately in need of a law.
As our world grows ever more connected, the amount of data any one company (or government agency) collects about us also increases, as do thenew threats to your privacy. But outside of a few heavily regulated fields such as the financial and health-care industries, few rules exist to govern the collection, storage, sale, accuracy, and security of that data.
Google knowstremendous amounts about us, and it's only going to learn more as increasing numbers of users sign up for its services and as itsproposed acquisition of advertising firm DoubleClickgives it access to a huge new treasure trove of databases. Nothing but Google's own goodwill can keep the company from storing that data until your grandchildren have kids or selling that data to all and sundry. (Sure, Google's privacy policy promises some protections, but only until the company decides to change its policy.)
GPS services know where you are anytime you have your device on, and could be used to tell how fast you're traveling--a fact your auto-insurance agent would likely want to know. And mobile marketers want access to your location information so they can send you ads for restaurants and shops in your immediate area. Again, no rules exist to spell out what these companies can and can't do with the data they're collecting about you.
We need a comprehensive set of standards for how these different companies handle our data and what they can do with it. We also need laws that allow us to review and challenge data about us, just as we can with financial data now. And we should have a national lawrequiring companies and government agenciesthat collect and store sensitive information to notify us quickly if our data is lost or stolen.
When we buy a song, a video, or any other piece of entertainment, we should be able to move it around to our various devices, take it with us when we travel, and share it within our homes. Such capabilities used to fall under the concept of "fair use," but with the DMCA and Hollywood's fears about peer-to-peer piracy, fair use has come under attack.
Congress should end the debate once and for all, by giving consumers a clear set of guidelines about what they can and cannot do with content they have bought. Andthose rulesshould preserve the commonsense minimum set of rights that we used to have, and not require us to pay every time we want to enjoy our media on a different device. 'Nuff said.
Just Make It Fair
Three priorities for Congress: Keep the Internet a level playing field, make monthly bills from service providers simple to read and dispute, and ensure that electronic voting is secure and free from interference.
This should be a no-brainer: Big companies shouldn't be able to pay to have the data from their Web sites and services travel more quickly along the Internet than those of smaller companies or individual users. But many people in government--most recently the folks at theFederal Trade Commission--don't seem to get the concept.
Allowing unequal service leads to anan Internet imbalancethat ultimately will hurt innovation and competition. And that means we, the consumers, lose out.
There should be a prioritization of traffic, but it should look only at what kind of data is being transferred, not who sent it. Data that requires fast, uninterrupted service, such as streaming video, should get priority, whether that video is ESPN's game highlights or footage of your Hawaiian vacation.
Take a look at your cell phone, telephone, and cable bills. Odds are, you'll spot an item or two that you know little about, or perhaps can't identify at all. Maybe your spouse ordered a new service or your child downloaded a ring tone or game. But the abbreviated jargon on most of these bills makes it hard to know for sure.
That's why consumer groups are mobilizing to get Congress or individual states to set a billing standard so that you know exactly what you're being charged for, andby whom.
That latter point has become increasingly important as cell phone carriers work with third parties to provide customers with services ranging from games to daily jokes. It's too easy to sign up for something--sometimes without even knowing it--and way too hard to figure out how to unsubscribe. Theproblemextends to ISPs and Web services, which often have partnership deals and may share your credit card information when you sign up for special offers.
Congress should require companies that bill you to include a plain-English description of the service you're being charged for, along with a phone number you can use to cancel. That would go a long way toward helping consumers make sure they can control their finances and prevent fraud.
After the fiasco of the Florida presidential election count in 2000, Congress passed the Help America Vote Act in 2002, allocating hundreds of millions of dollars to get states to update their voting systems and, presumably, to reduce errors and fraud. While e-voting machines have certainly made things easier for voters and county officials for the most part, they've also beenplagued by so many identified security problems, and software and deployment errors, that some states (including Florida) are banning them altogether.
One of the chief problems with the machines is that they offer no paper trail to check against electronic tallies if a glitch crops up. If the machine crashes or a discrepancy in voter counts surfaces, you're out of luck. Mandating a paper trail would help to resolve such conflicts when they arise. Some states already demand such verification, but it's important enough that we should have this requirement nationwide. We also need stricter oversight of the machines' software and physical security, so we can be sure that any election-eve patches are legitimate.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00065.html
Very interesting jp, and what good are the patent laws if other countries can copy what ever they want "China".
Will other countries be able to access our ID information, with all the outsourcing they already know way to much about us, you don't know who is processing information for banks, loans, your phone, how much of our information do they have etc. Its bad enough someone steeling your ID in your own country but imagine if you had to fight it half way around the world.
The law already allows for access between all states and Mexico and Canada for the real ID information. There is nothing in the law that would prevent access to our information globally say to interpol or some other international agency or country.Quote:
Originally Posted by SOSADFORUS
I am waiting on a video from Representative Jim Guest which will explain the real id and its dangers.
July 20, 2007
AMA's Report on Medical Use of RFID
The American Medical Association (AMA) Releases RFID Report. The AMA's report Radio Frequency ID Devices in Humans came as a result of a resolution "RFID Labeling in Humans." The report focused on the ethical consequences surrounding the use of RFID implants in humans. The report outlined potential risks with the technology: physical risk to patients; confidentiality; patient privacy; effective informed consent; and security of the information contained on the device. The report recommends that the medical community support investigation of the technology to be able to make informed medical decisions regarding the use of these devices.
Posted by EPIC at July 20, 2007 1:55 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.privacycoalition.org/cgibin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/136
U.S., E.U. Partner on New Security Measures
by Corrie Dosh
01 August 2007 divider Boston - Transatlantic travel has rebounded to pre-Sept. 11 levels, but security measures enacted during the past six years have created both friction and cooperation between the European Union and the United States, said panelists during a session on international travel security challenges last month at the National Business Travel Association's conference here.
This year, a new approach to border security by the E.U., enhancements to the U.S. Visa Waiver Program and a transatlantic Open Skies agreement promise to facilitate more travel than ever before between Western Europe and North America. But increased travel begets a greater need for new security technology--including deployment of new U.S. Transportation Security Administration systems expected by the this fall--and for greater cooperation on programs such as an agreement reached at the end of June to share data on air passengers.
According to OAG, airlines in March operated 21,833 flights between Western Europe and North America, marking the greatest transatlantic flight frequency volume reported by OAG for that month since 2001.
"We need to find a way to speed travelers through while still finding those needles in the haystack," said panel moderator C. Stewart Verdery Jr., partner and founder of Washington, D.C.-based Monument Policy Group and former first assistant secretary for policy and planning at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
Verdery spearheaded the DHS deployment of the U.S.-VISIT program for foreign visitors and the E.U.-U.S. data-sharing agreement. The data-sharing agreement had raised concerns over privacy rights, so regulators agreed to reduce the amount of data collected on each passenger but to store the information longer. A key factor in the agreement was the establishment of the Traveler Redress Inquiry Program (TRIP), with which "several thousand" travelers have cleared names from no-fly or security lists, Verdery said. The average redress process through TRIP takes about three weeks, he added.
"It gave assurance to travelers that, should cases of misidentification happen, there is a system of redress," said panelist Telmo Baltazar, political justice and home affairs counselor at the Washington, D.C. office of the European Commission.
Europeans and E.U. authorities have been "concerned with the U.S. response to 9/11" and how new security measures affect travel, Baltazar said. "It was an absolute critical thing to establish communication channels," he said.
As the U.S. was tightening security measures, the E.U. was rolling out a new border initiative that eliminates security checkpoints for intra-European land border crossings and sections off international travelers in airports. By the end of the year, E.U. states will have open borders with other E.U. members, as do U.S. states with one another, and focus will be redirected to external borders and ports of entry. E.U. has also started feasibility studies on programs like U.S.-VISIT and the registered traveler initiatives in the United States, Baltazar said.
The U.S. is looking to emulate some E.U. security measures, too, such as the establishment of what some critics call a national ID card. Called the Real ID card, the U.S. program was initiated in 2005. Beginning in 2008, with compliance dates varying by state, travelers may need a federally approved, electronically readable ID card to board an airplane. DHS has been charged with determining which state drivers' license cards do not meet criteria for the Real ID card, Verdery said.
The U.S. Congress on July 26 also approved enhancements to the country's Visa Waiver Program, which allows citizens of pre-approved nations to stay in the U.S. for up to 90 days without a visa. Though E.U. had pushed for visa waiver status for all of its member states in one block, U.S. authorities insisted on evaluating countries on their own, Baltazar said. To qualify for visa waiver status, a country must have a U.S. visa refusal rate of less than 10 percent, compared to a previous threshold of 3 percent, and must actively work with U.S. officials on intelligence and counterterrorism initiatives.
Panelist Dave Breillet, general manager of the commercial airlines unit in TSA's transportation sector network management, said the administration beginning this fall would roll out advanced X-ray scanners at airport security checkpoints and ramp up "visible intermobile response teams" that use scientifically based observation techniques to screen for potentially dangerous passengers.
"We're putting a web of security in place with the checkpoint at the center," Breillet said.
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport is in the midst of testing full-body X-ray machines using "backscatter" technology that critics say executes a virtual strip search. Eight other airports, including those in Miami, Newark, Boston and Los Angeles, are testing new liquid explosives detectors.
TSA also is attempting to focus on the most significant threats, Breillet said, noting that common lighters would no longer be banned from carry-on luggage as of 4 Aug.--freeing security officers to focus on other threats.
http://www.thetransnational.travel/news ... .Aug-07.01
There you go a Global Id Card. Wow, I feel safer already. :roll:
Yes so do I :roll: , we are most assuredly on our way to one world order, sad day for America.
This disaster has already hit alot of people who fly, by being on the no fly list that should not be there. Probably through stolen ID or misinformation.
The really sad part is you can not get Americans to see the danger in anything that is happening in this country, they are so worried about Iraq while our country is being destroyed and invaded by millions, or see all of the consequences that go along with it. They still think this is just Mexicans from Mexico, they can't even fathom this is from countries all they way down to the Panama Canal, or anyone from around the world that can fly in or get to by boat to cross the southern border, just unbelieveable and this is what will bring us to the real ID, along with pressure from the EU,UN,WTO,NAFTA,CAFTA,NAU etc.8O Do we have a chance? :evil: ( our poor children and grandchildren ) Thanks for the articles jp.
US Real ID card plan starved of funds
Anne Broache, CNET News.com
30 July 2007 10:34 AM
The fate of a Bush-backed national identification card is up in the air after the US senate rejected providing US$300 million in funding for the plan.
By a 50-44 vote mostly along party lines, the chamber set aside a Republican-backed amendment to a homeland security spending bill that would have spread US$300 million across the states to help them implement the so-called Real ID Act.
The Senate also agreed unanimously to adopt an amendment, proposed by vocal Real ID critic Max Baucus, which prohibits the use of any of the spending bill's funding for "planning, testing, piloting, or developing a national identification card."
The votes leave just US$50 million in additional Real ID grants for states in the the final bill, which passed by an 89-4 vote late Thursday and is now headed to the president's desk. President Bush has previously vowed to veto the entire measure, but it was not immediately clear whether that was still the case.
The remaining grant figure appears unlikely to satisfy state officials, many of whom have blasted Real ID as an "unfunded mandate." The Department of Homeland Security projects the cost of Real ID for states and taxpayers over the next 10 years at more than US$23 billion. Seventeen states have already enacted statutes or resolutions registering their opposition to the new requirements, according to the American Civil Liberties Union's RealNightmare.org. (Not all states, however, feel that way.)
The Real ID Act, which was enacted in 2005 after being glued to an emergency war spending bill, is designed to carry out a proposal suggested by the 9/11 Commission, which reported that some of the September 11 hijackers had fraudulently obtained state driver's licenses. But critics argue the plan is misguided, insufficiently privacy-protective and prohibitively expensive.
The law dictates that, starting on May 11, 2008, Americans will need a federally approved, "machine readable" ID card to travel on an airplane, open a bank account, collect Social Security payments or take advantage of nearly any government service. Before issuing the cards, which would have to adhere to Homeland Security standards, states would be required to verify electronically that identification documents, such as birth certificates, presented by their citizens are authentic. (States that agree in advance to abide by the rules would be given until 2013 to comply.)
In remarks on the Senate floor earlier this week, Senator Lamar Alexander, one of the failed amendment's sponsors, said he offered up the funding increase because "if the Congress requires the states to adopt REAL ID or something similar to REAL ID, then the Congress ought to pay for it".
But even he voiced doubts about the structure of the mandate and said he would be working with his colleagues to revisit the requirements. "I think insofar as REAL ID goes," he went on, according to a written transcript of his remarks, "we should either fund it or we should repeal it."
Critics -- including the American Civil Liberties Union, the free-market Cato Institute and Citizens Against Government Waste -- had likened Alexander's proposal to "sucker money," arguing it would do little to help states with the estimated multibillion-dollar implementation costs.
Thursday's vote indicated "Real ID is dead in the water, and it is clear that no amount of money can save it," ACLU Legislative Counsel Tim Sparapani said in a statement. "The only solution to Real ID is to scrap and replace it, and Congress has caught on."
It wasn't the first time that senators have used pivotal bills in recent months to rebel against the new requirements.
Civil liberties advocates and Senate opponents of Real ID credited the death of a contentious immigration bill late last month to disagreements over proposals to broaden required uses of the digital identification cards. The debate included an unsuccessful attempt to kill off an amendment that would have barred employers from compelling new hires to present Real ID-compliant documents.
Politicians in both chambers have also proposed bills this year that would repeal the original Real ID Act and replace it with what civil liberties groups view as more flexible, privacy-protecting requirements.
http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/security/s ... 640,00.htm
08/06/07; Vol. 22 No. 14
Mixed signs
A lack of federal funding for Real ID leaves states in the lurch
By Alice Lipowicz
Two years after enactment of the Real ID Act to create national driver’s license standards, the long ride toward implementation has been slow and bumpy, and the road ahead still has some potholes to dodge.
Recent developments suggest that deployment of the controversial Real ID national identification program still faces significant obstacles related to its $11 billion cost and its privacy and security risks.
Legislatures in 17 states have taken action opposing the act, according to the American Civil Liberties Union. What’s more, the Senate recently took a stand against funding it. An amendment submitted by Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) to provide $300 million toward Real ID implementation costs failed July 26.
Real ID “is a massive, unfunded federal mandate on the states,â€