Slashdot Mirror
MS Cites National Security to Justify Closed Source
guacamolefoo writes: "It was recently reported in eWeek that "A senior Microsoft Corp. executive told a federal court last week that sharing information with competitors could damage national security and even threaten the U.S. war effort in Afghanistan. He later acknowledged that some Microsoft code was so flawed it could not be safely disclosed."
(Emphasis added.) The follow up from Microsoft is even better: As a result of the flaws, Microsoft has asked the court to allow a "national security" carve-out from the requirement that any code or API's be made public. Microsoft has therefore taken the position that their code is so bad that it must kept secret to keep people from being killed by it. Windows - the Pinto of the 21st century."
War is always the best excuse. One of my favorite cartoons on this is Mark Fiore's, at http://markfiore.com/animation/excuse.html. :)
qslack.com
"Uhh, the judge is acting pissed. Did you see the way she looked at us when she said 'Obey the court'?"
"Yeah, how can we BS her on this?"
"Uhh, maybe we can find a link to terrorism?"
"YEA! That's it! We can't comply, because of National Security"
Harmph....
www.eFax.com are spammers
The Pinto was never as dangerous as M$ products.
Well, at least I hope it doesn't. A comment like this from a Microsoft bigwig doesn't sound encouraging... Mid-air GPF anyone? *ouch*
Worrying isn't it?
I figure if Microsoft code was handling anything important, we'd be dead already. The concept adds a whole new meaning to BSOD.
Some people have a way with words, and some people, um, thingy.
- reverse gravity
- send the tightly-controlled, stable market into a state of chaos
- put thousands of people out of work (how could MS pay its employees if they gave their products away?)
- bring back Elvis (in the form of MP3s distributed by the masses who were previously restricted by MS DRM)
- cause the judge's personal computer to automatically download pornography every day
Didn't we see this in Ghostbusters?After supporting MS's statements that all source should be closed and hidden in order to maintain national security, the US government has agreed to hide all tall buildings. All tall buildings will now be covered with large black clothes. In order to maintain national security, anyone caught talking about these buildings will be arresting. Since terrorists will be unable to clearly see and hear about these buildings, they will no longer be able to attack them. Thank you and good night.
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
Stupid job ads, weird spam, occasional insight at
They can name it something like 'Patch Lola Patch.'
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
Microsoft's view:
If the software has security flaws, then the code and APIs cannot be made public.
Open source view:
If the code and APIs are made public, then the software does not have security flaws.
So, Microsoft, we are finally in agreement, yes?
To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
"Microsoft has invested substantial time and resources in providing great interoperability between .Net and older technologies," Allchin said. "Sun's strategy of promoting '100 percent pure' Java applications discourages interoperability."
So, according to Microsoft, it is better to have one company provide (ie control) the degree of interoperability between systems than to have another company promote a single standard for the whole industry to use and share.
I can't imagine that line of thinking going over very well with military officials used to building redundancy into everything.
You might also paraphase the above statements as follows:
"Microsoft has choosen to ignore freely available and already established standards and instead has wasted substantial time and resources needlessly reinventing the wheel by developing our own internal standards (that we won't share and that we admit are not really very good) so that we can control the degree of interoperability between our proprietary new product, and our former (and soon to be former) competitor's technologies"
"Sun's strategy of creating and sharing a standard that encourages 100% interoperability between all systems discourages interoperability (but only in respect to our systems, because ours are made to be incompatible with the accepted standard that everyone else uses)."
Oh boy, can I please buy your systems for my Army?
My next sig will be ready soon, but friends can beat the rush!
Your Honor, we at Microsoft believe that if we ever revealed the source code for MS Windows, more children would immediately start taking drugs. Husbands would start to beat their wives. Small animals would become uncontrollable, staining many expensive carpets. Certain food-groups would become more perishable. 2nd law of thermodynamics would be repealled. Finally, a giant hole would open up in space time, causing the end of the universe.
Your honor, it is a matter or national security, no international security, no galactic security, that we be allowed to continue our profitable monopoly.
Think she'll buy it?
=brian
This is a particularly absurd claim for application programmer interfaces (APIs) - by definition, APIs are disclosed to other developers, so the only reason to "hide" them is to prevent competition.
y TakeOverMachineinInvisibleMode()A ndSendPlaintextViaWirelessCard()
r it yAndGenerateVirusesWithGeneticAlgorithm()
Well, they may have a point though. Thier "hidden" APIs can be a big security risk, such as:
BecomeRootUserWithoutNeedingPassword()
Secretl
DecryptAllFiles
and, of course the one Outlook and Word uses:
MakeProgramsRun90PercentFasterButTurnOffAllSecu
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
One is sort of chunky and ugly, and she won't let you see her naked, and you pretty much know already that you wouldn't really enjoy it if she did. The other has a slim, beautiful body, and when she takes off her clothes and parades it around, all the men ooh and ahh over it. That's the analogy I like to use. Maybe it isn't 100% correct, but that's the impression I get when you've got MS saying "No, no, you don't want to see our source code!" and meanwhile, you've got these open source softwares that are taking it all off, and saying "hey, baby, look at THESE!" Microsoft is NOT sexy. Linux, apache, and all of those wonderful open source projects ARE. But this is just how I see it. I mean, if I was to go on a date with a woman, and she proudly told me that she has an MCSA certification, I'd probably politely nod, but secretly be planning on my escape (maybe run away after telling her I had to use the restroom). On the other hand, if she told me that she had her own php based website, and that her text editor of choice was vim, then I'd be all weak-kneed and googly-eyed, and I'd want her to have my children. But again, that's just me. I don't know how it is for other people. I mean, I may not really UNDERSTAND beautiful women, but I sure like to look at them. So, I don't think there's any action required, as in "let's get rid of Microsoft." I think that it's really just a matter of educating the masses that there's an alternative, and it looks good naked. Or as you might say, it's a lot safer because the code can be (and is) made public without compromising national security.
>The basic fact of religion is that God has
... 1st person evidence please.
>stated many times that He doesn't want to be
>easily found--hence, no fact should be hard to
>accept for anyone of a religious mind.
prove that "god" "said" this.
i'll accept *.wav's or *.mp3's or *.ogg's
... hi bingo