Obvious is obvious

Govt is about compliance not security. Whether its IT, or anything else.

Not that I completely disagree with this, but article is riddled with yellow journalism, lack of understanding, and poor fact checking. PCI for example is payment industry self-regulatory body, and PCI-DSS is rare example of security regulation that went right. Another good example is FIPS, where government stepped in and provided a cryptographic standard.

In a lot of cases compliance is on IT equipment/product vendor to meet mandated procurement/contractual requirements. This process in not always about increased security, but claiming that we would be better off without it entirely is demonstrably wrong. Why? Because vendors know well that security is expensive, and they can get better return on investment from marketing or discounts. Consumers, even IT managers, are often not educated enough to know better.

Stating that IT managers are focusing on compliance is not incorrect, but that has little to do with the government regulation and a lot to do with liability analysis and infeasibility of "complete" protection. Unregulated breaches harder to litigate and will result in lower potential liability than ones that are regulated or covered by some standard so you can be demonstrated to be negligent.

Again, conservative's view that any government regulation bad is outright wrong. Open market, even with perfectly working contract/litigation system, would not always produce desirable results simply because "perfect information for decision makers" is unrealizable assumption.

If you had stuck with your first reply, and neglected your second you would have actually come across as a reasonably intelligent guy worth having a discussion with.

Maybe someday you will learn that regurgitating a straw man every time someone posts something serves no real purpose other than to induce eye rolling in others.

Please, your backpedaling is overly transparent and convinces nobody here.

You posted this article because you thought you found another data point to support your crusade against "bad guberment taking over our lives", but when it turned out that nether you, nor article author knew anything about the topic... embarrassing, I know.

What backpedaling?

Pointing out that you turn the act of posting nonsense into an artform is hardly backpedaling.

As usual the evidence does not support your conclusions, typical state of affairs.

/shrug

I really, really, really suggest you go back to that link I posted before and pick up a copy of Rosetta Stone for English. Perhaps once you learn what the term backpedaling actually means, you can come back and edit your post so as to be less embarrassing for yourself.

Oh, and the fact is that yes the observations contained in that link are symbolic of a very valid data point regarding the actual effects of Big Govt. The fact that some rules at times serve a purpose does not invalidate the concept that going overboard and mismatching rules with punishments is conducive to creating an environment where people become more concerned with meeting the letter of the rules than addressing the underlying issues the rules were supposed to address in the first place.

But I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you know this. Which begs the question as to why after talking something resembling sense, you choose to turn around and make an ass of yourself.. twice.

I have a good idea of what is driving it actually. Though I will save it for now, and see if you feel like digging yourself a little deeper first.

If you intend to deny your intentions, at least do not turn around and provide written proof of it in the very same post you try to deny it.

The fact that you think FREEDOM, FLAG, and CONSTITUTION are something to mock is why we dont trust your kind Sini. You openly show disdain for the 3 most important things we all have in common. As far as I am concerned, anyone who can do that and mean it doesn't deserve to be an American.

Recently in other thread we had a discussion about supposed Democratic heretic-burning inquisitions. Well, if above isn't example of attempted heretic-burning, I don't know what is.

To address Stubs "points":

1. So in your world anyone against PATRIOT bill, must be unpatriotic?
2. "Your kind" makes mockery of FREEDOM, FLAG, and CONSTITUTION by abusing these terms. Anyone disagreeing with "your kind" is accused to be against FREEDOM, FLAG, and CONSTITUTION. Just like you were kind to demonstrate with your post.
3. Your clearly don't believe in First Amendment. Your "don't deserve" comments show that CONSTITUTION and you are unfamiliar strangers. Next time you mention Constitution, make sure you remember how you told me that I "doesn't deserve to be an American" for stating my political views.

I don't know what the patriot bill has to do with this but since you asked, no. I don't know the particulars of the bill but I know I hated the name they gave it from day 1. Its PR bullshit.

Your kind is in reference to people like yourself. People who claim to have everyone's interests at heart but really what you want is everyone dependent on tue government. That's not freedom. When I was in High school we stopped having to say the Pledge of Allegiance because of your kind. I still said it every morning anyway, loud and proud. This nation deserves your respect and allegiance. I will never deny you your right to say anything. However, I too have that right. It is my belief that the things you believe belong somewhere else. Stop trying to change a great country into one of these other socialist nightmares.

You should really try again. Try harder this time, at least make it look like there is something between your ears.

I can only guess that you have had a psychotic break, and weaving threads of reality into something resembling a coherent tapestry is now beyond your grasp.

So you deny that making tons of bad rules, and mindlessly enforcing them leads to bad ends?

Nah, thats your extreme psychosis mistaking the straw men you whip out of thin air for reality again.

Oh and FYI, your stances beyond simple disagreement - since you would use force of military might and state brutality to strip people like Stubs of their civil rights in a rather unconstitutional manner. So your "I am more constitutional than thou" tack rings pretty hollow.

Bingo.

Thanks to Derid's post, somewhere in China poor children are suffering from the straw shortage.

Considering that was the original point of OP, your decision to heavily troll this thread seemed to indicate that you do in fact deny such.

There no real reason for me to create straw men here, nor is it something I typically care to do in any case.