CCL (Crypto Carrying License)
In the test lab for USA future, C is becoming a controlled substance.
From http://www.ntk.net/ :
More cut-and-pasting from ukcrypto, Britain's last remaining form of parliamentary oversight. This week: the government's plans to require all security consultants to register with the authorities, and be strictly licensed afore passing on their forbidden, arcane wisdom. First the bad news: the bill in question, the PRIVATE SECURITY INDUSTRY BILL, is already at its Commons' Second Reading, and is set to be law in two months (barring those pesky elections). Now, the good news: at the reading, HO minister Charles "RIP" Clarke said it's mainly aimed at security guards and bouncers, not IT security consultants. Now, the bad news: he added the word "currently" - and, "currently", the Home Office says it *does* apply to computer consultants, but they won't get around to enforcing that until 2005. Now the good news: the main restriction on the license is that you mustn't have a serious criminal record. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/?.refer=text
More cut-and-pasting from ukcrypto, Britain's last remaining form of parliamentary oversight. This week: the government's plans to require all security consultants to register with the authorities, and be strictly licensed afore passing on their forbidden, arcane wisdom. First the bad news: the bill in question, the PRIVATE SECURITY INDUSTRY BILL, is already at its Commons' Second Reading, and is set to be law in two months (barring those pesky elections). Now, the good news: at the reading, HO minister Charles "RIP" Clarke said it's mainly aimed at security guards and bouncers, not IT security consultants. Now, the bad news: he added the word "currently" - and, "currently", the Home Office says it *does* apply to computer consultants, but they won't get around to enforcing that until 2005. Now the good news: the main restriction on the license is that you mustn't have a serious criminal record.
I've seen these snips today... In the US private security consultants have numerous licenses, variable by state. ("C & G" licenses - guns, dogs, exec protect, PIs, etc.) Aren't ya'll just getting worked up over a misnomer? Not to say it won't happen, indeed, some interests could make a powerful argument for tech security licenses, the same rationale would definitely apply. Background links: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/psib/psbinfo.htm#psbds Break it: http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200001/cmbills/067/en /01067x--.htm ~Aimee
No, it's perfectly reasonable to be "worked up" about more government regulations that restrict the actions of programmers and sysadmins and such. Professional organizations, eager to be the ABA cartel for tech, occasionally propose such things. But the beauty and efficency of the tech world is that you don't need to jump over government hurdles to do your job. When I was in high school, I was a tech consultant to a local Good Shepherd hospital -- good cause, and I did it for free. Restricting that would be plain silly. After all, the best person to decide whether a consultant is worth it or not is the person paying their bill. Are you sure you haven't been an ABA member for too long? :) -Declan On Sun, Apr 01, 2001 at 12:15:49AM -0600, Aimee Farr wrote:
More cut-and-pasting from ukcrypto, Britain's last remaining form of parliamentary oversight. This week: the government's plans to require all security consultants to register with the authorities, and be strictly licensed afore passing on their forbidden, arcane wisdom. First the bad news: the bill in question, the PRIVATE SECURITY INDUSTRY BILL, is already at its Commons' Second Reading, and is set to be law in two months (barring those pesky elections). Now, the good news: at the reading, HO minister Charles "RIP" Clarke said it's mainly aimed at security guards and bouncers, not IT security consultants. Now, the bad news: he added the word "currently" - and, "currently", the Home Office says it *does* apply to computer consultants, but they won't get around to enforcing that until 2005. Now the good news: the main restriction on the license is that you mustn't have a serious criminal record.
I've seen these snips today...
In the US private security consultants have numerous licenses, variable by state. ("C & G" licenses - guns, dogs, exec protect, PIs, etc.) Aren't ya'll just getting worked up over a misnomer? Not to say it won't happen, indeed, some interests could make a powerful argument for tech security licenses, the same rationale would definitely apply.
Background links: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/psib/psbinfo.htm#psbds Break it: http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200001/cmbills/067/en /01067x--.htm
~Aimee
Declan said:
No, it's perfectly reasonable to be "worked up" about more government regulations that restrict the actions of programmers and sysadmins and such.
Agree. I was just asking if there was any evidence that tech security licensing was the intent.
Professional organizations, eager to be the ABA cartel for tech, occasionally propose such things. But the beauty and efficency of the tech world is that you don't need to jump over government hurdles to do your job. When I was in high school, I was a tech consultant to a local Good Shepherd hospital -- good cause, and I did it for free. Restricting that would be plain silly.
Agree. And furthermore, you should erase all thoughts of this from their minds. Especially since many of the best consultants have dark pasts. Yes, I think you should be concerned. Crypto and "magickal knowledge" is a threat. Be afraid, be very afraid...
After all, the best person to decide whether a consultant is worth it or not is the person paying their bill. Are you sure you haven't been an ABA member for too long? :)
Erroneous assumptions. I don't even like protection licenses in the states. I understand the reasons for them, and think these reasons are valid, but the "license" is no indication of ability. Indeed, some of the very best.... I'm most violently against any licensing scheme of the sort, and THIS ONE IN PARTICULAR. Ya'll keep dialing the wrong damn number with me. I'm starting to get miffed about it. Go beat your chest somewhere else, Declan. :) ~Aimee
At 02:31 PM 4/1/01 -0500, Aimee Farr wrote:
Agree. I was just asking if there was any evidence that tech security licensing was the intent.
No, you also downplayed the perils of licensing, saying:
In the US private security consultants have numerous licenses, variable by state. ("C & G" licenses - guns, dogs, exec protect, PIs, etc.) Aren't ya'll just getting worked up over a misnomer?
I don't think that one or two posts is "getting worked up" over anything, and in any case I'll reserve final judgment until I read more.
I'm most violently against any licensing scheme of the sort, and THIS ONE IN PARTICULAR. Ya'll keep dialing the wrong damn number with me. I'm starting
Which your original message did not say.
to get miffed about it. Go beat your chest somewhere else, Declan. :)
Go take your men-are-beating-their-chests-and-I'm-a-woman-who-wants-civility comments elsewhere, Aimee. :) -Declan
KING CHEST-BEATER said:
At 02:31 PM 4/1/01 -0500, Aimee Farr wrote:
Agree. I was just asking if there was any evidence that tech security licensing was the intent.
No, you also downplayed the perils of licensing, saying:
In the US private security consultants have numerous licenses, variable by state. ("C & G" licenses - guns, dogs, exec protect, PIs, etc.) Aren't ya'll just getting worked up over a misnomer?
Loaded/provocative questions get better answers. I bet you know that, hotshot.
I don't think that one or two posts is "getting worked up" over anything, and in any case I'll reserve final judgment until I read more.
I was referring to snips landing in my inbox on this issue, ..."which my original message did not say."
I'm most violently against any licensing scheme of the sort, and THIS ONE IN PARTICULAR. Ya'll keep dialing the wrong damn number with me. I'm starting
Which your original message did not say.
Declan, debating *peck!* with you is like...*peck!-peck!* death by *peck!* a dive-bombing Mockingbird. *peck!-peck!-peck!* Gets annoying, sometimes. *peck!-peck!-peck!* Really. *peck!* You just break the skin. *peck!* Come back as *peck!* something that bites. *peck!* It's cruel.
to get miffed about it. Go beat your chest somewhere else, Declan. :) :) Go take your men-are-beating-their-chests-and-I'm-a-woman-who-wants-civility comments elsewhere, Aimee. :)
Wrong number again. This time, you are dialing the wrong damn country code. Declan, curl up around my little finger... while there's still room. ~Aimee
participants (3)
-
Aimee Farr -
Declan McCullagh -
Morlock Elloi