Skip

Larry my man, you tell 'em!
October 17, 2001 10:48 PM   Subscribe

Larry my man, you tell 'em! If this article doesn't make you puke, then September 11th was someone's birthday and they did ATTEND their party. Er....the subject matter of the article is Smart Cards.
posted by HoldenCaulfield (7 comments total)

 
This is the same man who told us to "get over it" in regards to the encroaching loss of privacy. This is a man who sells database software. This is not an endorsement of a possible national strategy, it's an advertisement.

I think Larry should go back to his sexual harrassment and penis-envy fighter jets and let people who are good at something other than being evil incarnate make our public policy decisions.

The scariest thing about Ellison is that he is as evil as people want to believe Bill Gates is. A man who doesn't see the irony of paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to ship stones across the Pacific for a "Zen shrine" is in no position to be advocating government regulation.

Also, Holden, what the hell does your birthday reference mean?
posted by anildash at 11:03 PM on October 17, 2001


Whoopsie, "get over it" was Larry's friend Scott McNealy. My bad.
posted by anildash at 11:04 PM on October 17, 2001


I couldn't have said it better about the Zen shrine. How true. The bday thing was just playing on the fact that whoever's birthday was 9.11 probably canceled or had a scaled down party, meaning if they did attend then 9.11 was like any other day which it wasn't and there isn't one person that didn't puke from that article. BTW, personally I don't think BG is as, excuse the word, evil as Larry. You can just seev it in L's eyes!

For Halloween I'm going as Ellison, and I'll TorT in the rich neighbourhood where all the small companies' CEO's live, boy will they get scared when they see me!
posted by HoldenCaulfield at 11:20 PM on October 17, 2001


Aside from the fact that he wants to run it on Oracle, and has some obvious vested interests, I think Ellison's basic argument is valid. We have a number of federal databases that need to be consolidated and are creating gross inefficiencies in both processes and technology. This wouldn't even be up for debate if it weren't the 'Evil Larry Ellison' writing the article. The real question is whether a central database will make us more vulnerable from a security perspective and if so, is the vulnerability too high a price to pay for the added efficiency.

Privacy activists that hate the idea don't seem to understand that we're not talking about collecting any *new* information; only centralizing the information we already have. Smart cards wouldn't change how much the government knows (which is far more than most people realize); it would only improve the ability to retrieve and validate that information.
posted by lizs at 8:00 AM on October 18, 2001


1. Consolidation of databases means that hacking will be easier.

2. ID cards will give a sense of security, but without any real security. Just because everyone has an ID doesn't mean that nobody will hijack a plane or mow down patrons at McDonalds. This is a "feel good" measure with no real benefits.

3. Consolidation of databases means that every governmental agency will have access to all information. Right now, only the IRS and the SSA know how much money I make. With this system, the local sheriff can find that out.

4. The tighter the information system gets, the easier it is to get into a "catch-22" situation. For example:
- no sir, you need to pass your drivers test to get a license
- sir, we can't issue you car insurance without a license to drive
- sir, you can't buy a car without insurance and a license
- sir, you can't take your drivers test without a car

sure, that's a silly example, but it does happen (happened to me lately, and it wouldn't have happened a couple of years ago before the state's databases were integrated).

5. In general, decentralized systems are more secure than centralized ones (no "head of the dragon" to cut off)

6. More information in one place = greater casualties when abused (note: not "if")

7. Rigorous identification of citizens is one of the first steps of totalitarian governments

8. We currently have a Supreme Court guaranteed right to be anonymous to our government.

9. Did I mention that this won't increase safety or security in any fashion?
posted by yesster at 8:25 AM on October 18, 2001


Privacy activists that hate the idea don't seem to understand that we're not talking about collecting any *new* information; only centralizing the information we already have.

Perhaps it's the information "you" already have which they hate.
posted by walrus at 9:47 AM on October 18, 2001


Just because everyone has an ID doesn't mean that nobody will hijack a plane

Yep: I understood it was fairly common knowledge that the 911 terrorists used fake ID. How could an identity card help?

Identity theft is on the up anyway ... wallet-sized cards just make it really simple.
posted by walrus at 9:51 AM on October 18, 2001


« Older What OS is Micro$oft running?   |   America is the Borg, Taliban -... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post