"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Mary Fisher wrote:
So you only store data which could be useful to a miner for six years.
I see. Right. Safe as houses, really ...
While I have it stored, no one is going to mine it... ;-)
Are you absolutely 100% copper-bottomed certain of that?
Where on Earth have you put it?
:-)
I was thinking of personal material. Ancient accounts give a wealth of
information to the social historian.
One of the oddities of our modern day ability to store so much is the
likelihood that there will be far less preserved for future historians. A
paper ledger can last 100 years or more, a file on a disk is likely to
find itself erased to make space for new stuff, or simply left to languish
on a format no one has the equipment to read any more.
That's why I keep paper records -and in a condition which will mean that
they last longer than a century.
Alas space to store them is not... ;-)
Build a shed. A concrete one with steel doors and properly alarmed.
Got one of them ;-) guess what....
er - no?
Even with chip and pin? There seems to be a lot of confusion and perhaps
Yup even with chip and pin. The thing that changes with chip and pin is
the retailers liability for fraud. It used to be the case they were to an
extent protected from fraud carried out by the customers. If they offer
C&P then this is still the case (even if the customer elects not to use
it), however if the do not offer it and the customer commits fraud then
the retailer would be liable not the merchant account company.
Friends of mine seem concerned that if fraud is carried out on their cards
they (the friends) won't have the protection they used to have. I'm not an
expert on this, I had changes to conditions this morning and am still wading
through them. We seem to get changes with every statement, it's not easy to
keep up with them.
I suppose to need to ask if you are unsure...
Which I did and was told that you were talking to a wider audience.You,
said that, not someone else.The use of one to indicate the general could
be useful in avoiding misunderstandings.
Indeed, one will take more care...
I would not want you to miss me ;-)
And I would.
Thanks...
If I remembered ...
I think .... ;-)
LOL!
So NO system is foolproof so the criticism of the ID one being prone to
faults because of government tenders and carelessness and cheapness has
lost value.
There are degrees here - from good but not perfect to very very bad. To
know that perfect is not achievable is no justification for accepting the
latter.
Who's accepting it? Who's saying that it WILL happen?
Don't think anyone has accused the current proposals of "cheapness", quite
the reverse.
er - I don't think said quite that.
The tender process brings its own problems ... less involvement from
parties with vested interests.
Such as?
Many of the main weaknesses of the current proposed system (from an
engineering point of view) are that it has fundamental conflicts of
interest built into it. To give an example, for good security of access to
database it is better to centralise access to it, but for any practical
use in an ID system it needs to be vastly distributed.
Yes. are you saying that security can be compromised by that?
For counter terrorism activities you need a complex database integrated
into many facets of day to day life so as to capture the transactions that
you can later mine to work out connections and relationships. However a
tightly integrated system like this becomes a very attractive terrorist
target itself because of the potential disruption you can cause to those
very same day to day activities.
Oh, you are.
Secure, cheap, optional, and non invading, then it would be ok...
Which of those would you be prepared to compromise?
If you^h^h^h one could convince me there was a tangible benefit to be had,
then "cheap"
How I miss DOS sometimes ... :-)
Tell you what, if it were secure and people were PAID to have it, they'd
all be in favour, would they?
I would not have thought so...
What about other people? Even the earlier objectors in this thread?
Ask'em ;-)
I think they've gone to bed. Which I am or I'll be in trouble.
That may be true, but it makes two assumptions. Firstly that the holders
of the information are benign,
There is no proof that they are not.
Can you substantiate that statement?
Of course not.
You can't prove that anyone is benign either.
and secondly that having something to hide is always indicative of
wrongdoing.
Why else hide something?
A multitude of reasons....
Embarrassment, personal safety, privacy, employment prospects, even
national security. I am sure even you can think of things relating to
peoples identity and movements that would be damaging in the wrong hands
(especially when combined with their occupations).
No.
I live under a stone, obviously. It's very nice though, a happy stone with
lots of other happy people. The only sad thing is that so many others
aren't, presumably for the reasons in your last paragraph.
It's sad.
Night night,
Mary
--
Cheers,
John.
/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/