|
| [ Main Page ][ First New ] |
 |
Posted by Caliber
on Wednesday February 1, 2012 @ 05:13am >> [ reply ][ rating +0 ] So I hear that Google and some other major web presences have decided to write their own internet enforcement bill for congress. What's the thoughts on that idea? If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck... |
|
Posted by voltaic
on Wednesday February 1, 2012 @ 12:47pm >> [ reply ][ rating +0 ] So I hear that Google and some other major web presences have decided to write their own internet enforcement bill for congress. What's the thoughts on that idea? Industry self-regulation is almost always better than government enforced regulation. The ideal model in my view would be companies gathering together to create self-regulatory bodies and with the government appointing a kind of overseeing evaluator to make sure things are on the up-and-up from a high level. FINRA and the SEC are a decent model for that in terms of regulating retail investments. "it's good that they shop and spend and camp out waiting for the great deal to save $5 on a toaster." - Stealth |
|
Posted by Caliber
on Wednesday February 1, 2012 @ 09:48pm >> [ reply ][ rating +0 ] So I hear that Google and some other major web presences have decided to write their own internet enforcement bill for congress. What's the thoughts on that idea? Industry self-regulation is almost always better than government enforced regulation. The ideal model in my view would be companies gathering together to create self-regulatory bodies and with the government appointing a kind of overseeing evaluator to make sure things are on the up-and-up from a high level. FINRA and the SEC are a decent model for that in terms of regulating retail investments. I have "faith" issues with this. It seems to lead down a corruptive path... While I might be able to stomach google et al to maybe improve piracy legislation, I damn sure wouldn't trust bank of america to improve currency law or chrysler to write safety standards. I don't ultimately see things working out in the best interest of the "little guy" or for good order and discipline in general I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of how awesome I am... |
|
Posted by kodrik
on Sunday February 5, 2012 @ 11:22am >> [ reply ][ rating +0 ] I have "faith" issues with this. It seems to lead down a corruptive path... While I might be able to stomach google et al to maybe improve piracy legislation, I damn sure wouldn't trust bank of america to improve currency law or chrysler to write safety standards. I don't ultimately see things working out in the best interest of the "little guy" or for good order and discipline in general I agree with Caliber, I don't have faith in the people running these companies either. In an ideal world with smart people running companies for the best long term interest of the companies, you wouldn't need regulations. But the truth is you have people willing to take huge risk to get quick profits They will bet on a risky strategies instead of safe ones because if the bet is successful, they will reap immense rewards. If the bet fails, they might declare bankruptcy and get another high paid job somewhere else. If you want to do away with regulations then you have to make the consequences of speculation at the level much more severe for the decision makers otherwise they will keep gambling with the future of others and our society. If someone told you to go to a casino for one hour, bet any amount of your money and split the profit for themselves but not worry about losses. The smartest person would make the smartest bet so he is most likely to come back with some winnings but most people would make the riskiest bet with the highest returns because they don't have anything to lose. If I were to have someone play my money in a casino in this fashion, I would impose limits, a maximum bet amount, minimum odds to a bet. The best would be that he gambles his own money and future so he plays smart, but it's not the case with the head of most corporations. I do agree in principle with what volt said also: The ideal model in my view would be companies gathering together to create self-regulatory bodies and with the government appointing a kind of overseeing evaluator to make sure things are on the up-and-up from a high level.</qoute> But the companies mix but be from a large enough scope so as not to have a too narrow view of the consequences of their actions. The government is not the best candidate to lay the rules but can play a role enforcing them I would not wish to a dog or to a snake, to the most low and misfortunate creature of the earth-I would not wish to any of them what I have had to suffer for things that I am not guilty of [...]; but I am so convinced to be right that if you could execute me two times, and if I could be reborn two other times, I would live again to do what I have done already.~Bartolomeo Vanzetti |
|
Posted by voltaic
on Sunday February 5, 2012 @ 08:10am >> [ reply ][ rating +0 ] I have "faith" issues with this. It seems to lead down a corruptive path... While I might be able to stomach google et al to maybe improve piracy legislation, I damn sure wouldn't trust bank of america to improve currency law or chrysler to write safety standards. I don't ultimately see things working out in the best interest of the "little guy" or for good order and discipline in general I get that, believe me. But history shows that since the 1970s or so self-regulating bodies (in developed countries, not in Zimbabwe) end up doing pretty well because incentives get aligned and members realize the benefits to taking part. They don't necessarily become eternal paragons of optimal performance, which is why they still need some kind of governing oversight, but they're pretty good. Currency is a separate issue: since it isn't a private function, naturally it shouldn't be privately overseen as the founders recognized in the Constitution. ;) "it's good that they shop and spend and camp out waiting for the great deal to save $5 on a toaster." - Stealth |
|
|
|
Posted by Krux
on Saturday December 24, 2011 @ 01:29pm >> [ reply ][ rating +1 ] Also probably worth a look: NICE Cybersecurity Workforce Framework http://csrc.nist.gov/nice/framework/ Its only a tad over 100 pages. The comment period has been extended to January 27, 2012. "Online petitions totally effect social change." -- voltaic |
|
Posted by Krux
on Saturday December 24, 2011 @ 01:28pm >> [ reply ][ rating +0 ] An Open Letter From Internet Engineers to the U.S. Congress https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/12/internet-inventors-warn-against-sopa-and-pipa "What's worse, thinking you're being paranoid or knowing you should be?" |
|
Posted by Stealth
on Saturday December 24, 2011 @ 08:13pm >> [ reply ][ rating +0 ] An Open Letter From Internet Engineers to the U.S. Congress https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/12/internet-inventors-warn-against-sopa-and-pipa So I had been watching some of the debate that was on the tube.. when people where trying to get things change.. good changes, good suggestions and it seemed like none of the people cared.. maybe 1/2rd seemed to get it, but of course the other 2/3rds just kept saying no, no no and blocking any change. It made me so mad to listen to.. so painful. "No training? To go to bed with a man and lie to him? She's a woman. She's got all the training she needs." |
|
Posted by Krux
on Monday December 26, 2011 @ 10:19am >> [ reply ][ rating +0 ] An Open Letter From Internet Engineers to the U.S. Congress https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/12/internet-inventors-warn-against-sopa-and-pipa So I had been watching some of the debate that was on the tube.. when people where trying to get things change.. good changes, good suggestions and it seemed like none of the people cared.. maybe 1/2rd seemed to get it, but of course the other 2/3rds just kept saying no, no no and blocking any change. It made me so mad to listen to.. so painful. That's the problem. None of these people making the decisions have any idea what the Internet is let alone how it works, and how it can be horribly broken. Then the whole thing being driven in because of commercial interests is just a big red flag. "Trippin' our brains off, killing kids, raping women...Viet-fucking-Nam! God I fucking miss it!" 'When were you in Vietnam?' "'93, come to think of it, maybe it wasn't even Vietnam. Maybe it was South Philly." |
|
Posted by voltaic
on Monday December 26, 2011 @ 08:31pm >> [ reply ][ rating +0 ] So I had been watching some of the debate that was on the tube.. when people where trying to get things change.. good changes, good suggestions and it seemed like none of the people cared.. maybe 1/2rd seemed to get it, but of course the other 2/3rds just kept saying no, no no and blocking any change. It made me so mad to listen to.. so painful. That's the problem. None of these people making the decisions have any idea what the Internet is let alone how it works, and how it can be horribly broken. Then the whole thing being driven in because of commercial interests is just a big red flag. Originally, this was one strength of the republican democracy. You couldn't know everything, so sensible everyday people were elected to make decisions and they'd be advised by knowledgeable interests, cabinets, etc. and use common sense to arrive at a legislative position The problem arose with a confluence of different factors: professional politicians, financial lobbies, etc. So we've still got the good part of the system but it's been taken over by the bad. See I don't have a problem with former CEOs of major banks being advisors on economic policy or sitting on the Fed Reserve Board. They've got the knowledge to fill that role reasonably. The problem is that they are incentivized by interests to make decisions in their interest rather than using their experience and knowledge to make well-considered decision overall. "it's good that they shop and spend and camp out waiting for the great deal to save $5 on a toaster." - Stealth |
|
Posted by Stealth
on Tuesday December 27, 2011 @ 07:45pm >> [ reply ][ rating +0 ] See I don't have a problem with former CEOs of major banks being advisors on economic policy or sitting on the Fed Reserve Board. They've got the knowledge to fill that role reasonably. The problem is that they are incentivized by interests to make decisions in their interest rather than using their experience and knowledge to make well-considered decision overall. This But it's damn near impossible to get anyone in charge to give up their own public interest or money for the greater good. "Governments and corporations need people like you and me. We are samurai. The keyboard cowboys. And all those other people out there who have no idea what's going on are the cattle. Mooo!" --Mr. The Plague, |
|
|
|
|