*lies.

I guarantee this can either backfire (allowing ID thieves to gain your I-D even more easily through social engineering), or can be used to track individuals. The applications, key fobs, or cards all can easily have a form of RFID or other forms of tracking implemented inside of them, and could likely make finding out what you are up to even easier than before. There are far better methods than the solution suggested above, such as better protocols, encryption standards, or simple web of trust that can be implemented without the need for any need for political debates.

Bottom line - This is something unnecessary, and there are already much better, cheaper and far less invasive methods of security.

Thank you for the promote!

In reply to this comment by longde:
*promote

Incentives drive the world. Even the most liberal people know this, that's why there's social engineering. "Fat tax" is just an incentive to buy healthier food, because it's cheaper. Smoking tax is just an incentive to stop smoking and to rake in money. All those social engineering "Do as we want you to do" taxes are incentives. They understand. They just apply it poorly.
>> ^blankfist:

Incentives? You mean like greed? What's going to stop the corporations from taking over VideoSift once they've amassed a thousand power points and hire an army and kills us all?!
No, I think we should force people to fix their fair share of dead videos under threat of expulsion. It's the only protection we have from a corporate takeover.

With a few friends and a little patience its easy to Social engineer this at local malls and in parks. Your Target should be someone who is almost completely engrossed in texting on a phone or tablet. As your target walks closer to where you wish them to go slowly have yourself or friends move slightly in to their path, Do not block the path just move enough and look like your paying attention to something else that they can catch you out of the corner of their eye and change direction slightly to avoid hitting you. A few more feet and another person/friend does the same thing. Slightly crowded areas work best but not too crowded. They must have enough room to judge that not really paying attention to local surroundings is ok. Anyplace close to a parking lot or road will not work. As the sound of a car generally will make people more aware of their surrounding.
We've had them walk in to walls, Benches, foodcourt seating areas.

Why yes, We where bored when we cam up with this. It turned in to a little social experiment for college courses we where taking. The results where scary.

There is a two-way contractual system The bank agrees to loan, taking on all the risks associated with such load. The borrow does the same. ... You say the borrower should check his account, but that is barely his job: whereas it is the job of the banks.

I'm having a tough time conjoining these two bits here. We both agree that the loan is a two-way contract where the bank agrees to lend, and the borrower agrees to borrow - and that both parties agree to the risks involved. And yet there is this second bit here where you say that it is 'barely the job' of the borrower to check his balance and manage his end of the contract. If someone agrees to a contract that carries the risk of bankruptcy, homelessness, or financial ruin then to say it is 'barely' thier job to check the account comes off to me as insanely negligent.

I'd be interested to hear your explanation for all the banks that are doing just fine because they didn't buy into the mortgage scheme. I've heard radio interviews where they simply say that they didn't lend to anyone who couldn't be reasonably expected to pay for it. How did they escape your Catch-22?

Depends on the bank. Peeling back the onion that is the banking industry is complex, but back in the 90s the ones that were really pushing for the repeal of Glass-Steagall were not 'banks' in the sense that most people think about them. They were large, multi-national financial institutions and insurance companies - AIG being the principle player. These kinds of big money houses saw a way to make profit on the buying & selling of mortgages as financial packages WITHIN the financial industry itself. Effectively, the customer getting the loan was utterly irrelevant to these big players. They were interested in the financial packaging - not the loans themselves.

So when the law was changed, it allowed them to throughput mortgages within their own organizations. Historically, Glass-Steagall made it illegal for a financial house like AIG to buy & sell mortgages from banks that it owned or partnered with. But after the change, they could pool all the loans together and market them as a product. They started putting pressure on the smaller players to churn out more debt. There were banks that didn't play the game, but it was tough becuase all through the late 90s and early 00s, people were making money hand over fist the sl-easy way.

I have no doubt that there were politicians who pushed for easier mortgages to please their vocal minority constituents, but the people who stood most to gain were the wall street big money handlers. In your estimation, which of these groups tends to get their way in politics most readily? And therefor, which of these groups is more to blame?

Your question is this... Who is more to blame - the person MAKING A BRIBE or the person TAKING THE BRIBE? My answer is that the person TAKING THE BRIBE bears the greater guilt. All the bribes in the world are worthless if the other guy doesn't TAKE it. Businesses have no power to pass laws. That power rests in Congress. They are the stewards. They are the gatekeepers. They are the ones that are given public trust to only pass good laws, and to guard against this kind of crap.

Sadly - this is what happens when you allow a strong, central government to exist. I remember VERY clearly in the 90s that when AIG, Barney Frank, and a bunch of other guys were strong-arming the repeal of Glass-Stegall they were VERY insistent and persuasive that they were doing a really GOOD thing. It was going to lower the cost of housing. It was going to get more poor people into homes. It was going to make a lot of money for the middle-class, and ease the burden of the poor. In fact, the "repeal Glass-Stegall" guys were vociferious in accusing those OPPOSING their plan of being evil, selfish, cruel, and racist. And until October of 2008, who could really argue with them?

Government should have known better. Glass-Steagall was made a law SPECIFICALLY to prevent housing market collapses like this. It was implemented as a direct result of similar shenanigans which caused the Great Depression and the crash of the 20s. But because government people were wanting votes and conduct 'social engineering', they changed the laws. AIG didn't change the laws. Government did. They bear the ultimate responsibility.

In no way does this absolve folks like AIG. Quite frankly, the federal bailout is a massive crime aginst the people. It dumped money into financial houses to shield them from the consequences of their stupidity. The banks should have been allowed to fail. When this kind of thing happens, you let the chips fall and then the system rebuilds itself. And it does so rather quickly when government isn't there screwing things up like they did in the 30s.

Perhaps the reason the american army is seen by the world to have equipment but lacking in competence is that you don't have enough gays. Maybe the ultimate army is a genetically and socially engineered army of gay men!

And i might add, qm, that whilst your argument is valid, the reason there is mistrust in the first instance is that gays were treated unfairly in the past. If they had always been equal, then they would have no modern suspicions of being treated unfairly.

Steal money off a guy every day for half of his life, then tell him that you're sorry and you won't steal from him anymore - but don't be surprised if he checks his wallet every now and then.

Religious doctrine? Cults? Market research? Corporate policy? Economic policy by banks, hedge funds, Wall St.? Big Pharma? Big Agro? Big Oil?

These are all excellent points, and in my zeal I have to admit that it was rather hyperbolic to say government is the “only” institution that creates the “I was following orders” mentality. In that I stand corrected. However, I stand by the substance of the idea that government is the primary violator, and that history’s most egregious examples are government created.

If you are down on government save us all the time and just denounce humanity and go live in a cave somewhere.

I’m down on big central governments. Limited, small government at the municipal, county, and state level which are held to a high standard of culpability and performance by voters is fine. Big federal government that implements one-size policies on nations for social engineering are lousy. Federal government is for national defense and some intra/inter state trade regulations. That’s it. The constitution was designed to keep federal powers limited. It is no surprise that one of our man-child president’s great irritations with the country he runs is that the constitution doesn’t allow him to do more “TO” the public.

Build your own running water system, police, and fire dept. while you're at it.

Feds don’t do those things. Those are city, state, and county functions.

Maybe instead of bitching about the TSA you could suggest an alternative?

I have. Profile the likely offenders and stop hassling people who are low statistical risks. It will decrease the workload, reduce costs, and speed up the process a hundred-fold.

I'm not going to sit here and scream… even though I don't like them either. … The kid will be just fine. He'll get over it. … It's a brave new world.

Brave New World. Oh, what fools these mortals be. I’d suggest brushing up on your Huxley and Shakespeare. I doubt Huxley would be applauding your, “bend over and take it” sentiment. You might think it is admirable. History suggests that such a docile attitude towards central government is profoundly unwise. Government is meant to be questioned, held to account, challenged, and regarded with suspicion.

The problem, of course, is that the TSA procedures do not work, and using them to only inconvenience a demographic that does not happen to include you, will not make them any more effective.

Well – very true – this is a good point. What the TSA is doing is security theatre. It is not effective at preventing terrorist acts from succeeding. So why are we doing this? If the object is increased SECURITY then the procedure needs to change radically. But if we aren’t willing to do the things that will actually provide security then we’d be better off just abandoning the whole effort as a fruitless exercise.

Allan stole a loaf of bread. Allan is a thief. Allan is black. All blacks are thieves.

Except that’s not what I said or even anything remotely close to it. I’m saying…

“Over 95% of all air travel terrorism has been committed by foreign-born Muslim males between 17-40. The TSA should focus its efforts on this population to increase efficiency.” That isn’t saying “all Muslims are terrorists”. It is only saying, “This population sector is the highest risk”. Correlation does not equal causation but it does tell you where to weight your cases and analysis. Right now, even a basic statistical model would heavily weight the probability of a terrorist act towards foreign-born Muslim males.

The liberal mediopoly lasted from the 40s through the mid-90s. Government schools with a "new" pro-socialist-government message and social engineering experiments have been around since the 70s. The kollijes are a politically-correct joke. And Hollywood has been a liberal mecca and left-wing propaganda machine since post WW2. 90% of journalists identify with the Democrat party.

You mean to tell with all those advantages, FOX is still kicking ratings a$$?

The real reason the leftmedia is dying (and deserves to) is they no longer question authority when authority means leftists in power. Any vestige of 'mainstream' media objectivity vanished during the 2008 election.

So now the Red House, groaning with incompetents and radicals, can't take the heat?

Good.

November 2nd.

>> ^chilaxe:

If there's not the political will to end farm subsidies, it still seems rational to tax expensive drains on society like soft drinks, cigarettes, and the unnecessary use of transfats in restaurant food.
Just pointing out there are deeply rooted irrationalities in the system, like farm subsidies, doesn't seem like a good reason to not take positive action and make the world a better place.


A better place for whom? How do you know soft drinks don't contribute to people's happiness? Cigarettes are harmful to your health, but what about the social smokers that only have a smoke when they meet with friends for a drink? What about responsible people who choose to indulge? They should be punished?

To me, that's the kind of social engineering that simply does not work to cull and reduce certain behavior; it only serves to make people poorer. The tax, I'd argue, is the expensive drain on society.

@raith, the airlines would rightfully make it company policy for the pilots (or any employee) not to be intoxicated during the hours they need to be operational. I wouldn't want to get into a plane where someone is intoxicated. That would be silly.

You're putting words in my mouth. I was never arguing this: "Your arguing that even with these laws, we have these deaths. So your solution is removing these laws altogether?" No. I was responding to Shepppard's remark, and I quote, "There NEEDS to be a deterrent for something that's quite capable of being fatal", and I was showing how it doesn't work as a deterrent.

As for your "bombs on the plane" analogy: airlines typically are owned and operated privately, and they should determine what is allowed on the plane. No one will fly on a plane that allows passengers to bring bombs. It would be a terrible business strategy. Just like no one would want to fly with an airlines that allowed its pilots to drink before takeoff.

Driving on public streets is completely different than flying a commercial plane. It's a completely different paradigm, because the streets are (supposedly) publicly owned and paid for, so we all have a right to use them.

"Anyway, how difficult is it to NOT get drunk before you drive?"


You and Shepppard keep using the term "drunk", but just above the legal limit isn't drunk. To a high school girl having her first Kool•Aid and Vodka drink, it may be. To a fifty year old Navy veteran who sips whiskey all day long, it probably isn't.

Also, don't confuse my stance on this matter as me condoning drinking and driving. I understand it's not good behavior, but I just don't like our desire as a society to punish people for their behavior instead of when they create victims. It's called social engineering, and we've come to accept it as part of civilized society which is dangerous. Examples of social engineering are sin taxes for alcohol & cigarettes and tax incentives for marriage. It's not the hallmark of a free society.

You're not going to win converts by calling people communists.

Perhaps not, but I call it like I see it. There's no sense tip-toeing around peeps out to radically change America into fading europe via saul alinsky tactics.

I think perhaps you missed what was ironic about your comment. As far as I see it, the only reason you come here is to tell people they're idiots for not being conservatives.

What about cat videos? I rather believe I'm pointing out the follies of the left rather than singling out any particular sifter. Really dudes, do you think *I* am such a threat? The primary sifter demographic is left-wing militant atheists between ages 18 and 28. I harbor no illusions about the sift.

Granted, a lot of times you don't actually call people morons, just socialists, fascists, communists, marxists, bolsheviks, etc.

Well, writing 'Statist' all the time gets old, but that's really what we're talking about when we say "Progressive", isn't it? One who believes in social engineering via the State, at the low, low cost of individual liberty.

The thing is, I've just flat out never seen you try to treat anyone to your left with an ounce of respect.

I've had some fair discussions now and again with left-leaning sifters. The door is always open if peeps want to continue the discussion, but it's always going to be the same go-around. But it's OK to agree to disagree.

You don't have any when it comes to nationally known politicians and opinion makers, nor do you have any when it comes to the people here on Videosift.

Any popular politician or opinionist knows they're not going to be loved by everyone, nor do the smart ones much care. If you think I'm being too hard on maddow, stewart, franken, et al then take solace I find similar "arguments" against Limbaugh (drug addict!) or Palin (retarded) quite lame.

I'm sorry your personal experience wasn't up to snuff. Without looking at any past posts, I recall you as being somewhat hostile as well.

When you start the conversation with the kinds of hostility you often level at people here, they don't listen, they just shut down and get defensive.

I can't help it if they take things personally, and may I add this "charge" seems rather suspicious. Usually the "target" is in the video itself (olberman, maddow, maher, etc.) NOT other sifters.

This post wasn't meant to convince anyone of anything, just more of an outburst of exasperation and frustration, which is always a little more satisfying when done within earshot of other people.

Well, even in this thread I think I've made some good points (see Morgenthau above) and I'm not really around much these days. You've got a freakin' CROWN next to your handle and plenty of homies.

These are, unfortunately, interesting times. America remains a right-of-center nation with a 90% religious population. "Atheisift" (or "liberalsift") should welcome a little controversy.

If this will make you feel better:

A;;L ARE WRONG BUT THE RIGHWING! JE$U$ IS AMERICAN REPUBLICAN. WORSHP JE$U$!

But these unprovoked wars and the US hegemony exist, and they're a creation of Democratic and Republican government. Local law enforcement is becoming militarized brownshirts thanks to a large central government. This is a far worse outcome than even the worst that can come from a Libertarian utopia. But you're more worried about a theoretical "economic extortion" from private landowners over the current realistic government tyranny and government's own economic extortion.

What rights in a Libertarian society aren't protected? I'm a minarchist, not an anarchist, so I see government having a specific role, and that is to protect human rights and serve as unbiased arbiter for disputes. I don't understand why you'd think your rights would not be protected, but I'll chock that one up to a lack of understanding what a free society really means. Libertarians don't believe government's role to be forced taxation (theft, servitude), offensive wars, babysitting the world, social engineering by force, imperialism, espionage, suspending habeas corpus, etc. But Democrats and Republicans do.

Now contrast that simple minarchist belief with your own statist belief, and you tell me which society protects rights and which does not. Because in your society I can give you loads of examples where your large government has done the opposite of protecting rights, and has instead encroached upon them.

No. This is a terrible idea. You want to shame people into doing what you wish? Social engineering like that never works.

"I know, if we offer the death penalty that will stop murder altogether! It's brilliant!"

Meritocracy is what you wished for, dag. Stick with that and call it a day.

>> ^RhesusMonk:

Hey, Nathaniel Hawthorne, ease up on the social engineering, wouldja?


Is dag writing a book about all this?

Hey, Nathaniel Hawthorne, ease up on the social engineering, wouldja?