Mitchell Kapor Leaves Groove Over TIA

Deao writes "Mitchell Kapor, one of the founders of the EFF, has quit Groove. Supposedly he has left to pursue open source software interests, but insiders say he is unhappy with Groove's products forming a crucial part of the Total Information Awareness project. Read all about it at the NYTimes (Free Registration required)."

Comments

I'm very sad of this!

[Anonymous Coward]

Mitchell Kapor was my very best friend (and colleague) at Groove!!

PLEASE, what should I do with my life now ??!

Reg Free Link

[Anonymous Coward]

Click here.

Re:Reg Free Link

[geeber]

Why oh why does EVERY link to a New York Times article have to point out the free registration?

It just means that as a follow up there will be 5 or 6 posts scarfing up easy karma by pointing out the reg free link.

Can't we all agree just to stop the madness!

Re:Reg Free Link

[Anonymous Coward]

Better yet, why don't the janitors provide a reg free link?

Re:Reg Free Link

[Anonymous Coward]

Why oh why does EVERY link to a New York Times article have to point out the free registration?

Shut the fuck up.

Re:Reg Free Link

[jd142]

Better yet, why do so many people bitch about getting access to free information? Come on people, just sit down and generate a random id, sign up for it on hotmail and use that for everything. Why do you think I have such an odd id? Check the hotmail account once a month, delete everything there. Is that so hard to do to get free access to something?

Re:Reg Free Link

[micromoog]

It's harder than clicking on a link provided reguarly by one karma whore or another.

Re:Reg Free Link

[curtisk]

yeah, I hear ya, but at least this guy posted it AC, so its not really karma whoring

Re:Reg Free Link

[dnaSpyDir]

ya don't even need an actual email addy, it's not like NYT emails the password to u... make something up.

Re:Reg Free Link

[Ryan Amos]

Better yet why doesn't slashdot just post the reg free link to begin with :P Maybe they have a deal with the NYT to not link to reg-free pages? Who knows.

Re:Reg Free Link

[Paradise Pete]

It just means that as a follow up there will be 5 or 6 posts scarfing up easy karma

So what? The purpose of moderation is to make more visible the better/more useful posts. The free link is useful. So the mod system functions. The fact that Karma gets distributed is a side-effect, not the purpose.

Re:Reg Free Link

[Lodragandraoidh]

HERE is what a guy who worked for microsoft has to say about the passport login system hotmail and other MS and partner sites use.

Probably why most people balk at having to create accounts and login to these sites.

Consistency

[Montgomery Burns III]

At least he is consistent (between professional work and philosophy).... Kudos

Reg-free link here...

[imag0]

http://archives.nytimes.com/2003/03/11/business/11 PRIV.html

hmm

[DonFinch]

I'm glad he's doing what feels right to him but, given the choice, I rather know the inside of the beast then be at its mercy.

Re:hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Please learn the difference between 'then' and 'than'. The way you wrote it, it sounds like you want to get to know the beast so you can better be at its mercy later.

Re:hmm

[DonFinch]

Dammit Jim, I'm a geek not a English Professor!
;-)

Ethics

[Joe the Lesser]

"Computer scientists are going to have the same kinds of battles that physicists did amidst the fallout of Hiroshima and Nagasaki,"

I hadn't actually thought of it this way, but it's a good point. If in the future I find myself coding something dubious for a government or corporation, what is the correct ethical choice?

Re:Ethics

[banzai51]

Whatever you feel is right, of course. However, don't be shocked if your decision has consequences, i.e. loss of job.

Re:Ethics

[Elwood P Dowd]

The correct ethical choice would be to include a back door that would allow you to later hack their computers and bring them to their proverbial knees.

Yes, I'm kidding.

Re:Ethics

[$$$$$exyGal]

The physicists in the Hiroshima era didn't seem to have any choice but to make the bomb, because it was a race. If they didn't make the bomb, first, then a nation hostile to the United States might get it done first. That put a lot of pressure on the physicists.

In this case, though, there doesn't seem to be any race, so there shouldn't be as much pressure to just walk away.

Re:Ethics

[PhxBlue]

If in the future I find myself coding something dubious for a government or corporation, what is the correct ethical choice?

If you're relying on someone else to answer that for you, then you've made the wrong choice already. Just follow whatever course of action is most ethical for you; because, at the end of the day, it's not your naysayers you'll see when you look in the mirror.

Re:Ethics

[truthsearch]

I'm considering quitting my current job, without another one lined up, because I have a moral dilemma (seriously) developing with Microsoft's products. I feel support of their products is support of their actions, some of which I consider immoral. I was just given my first .NET project to work on, but I'm quickly looking for something elsewhere with Linux or Unix. As a last resort I might just quit within a few weeks and look for something while living off savings for 6 months.

If you've got an open position for a linux developer in the NY metro area, please contact me.

Re:Ethics

[RocketScientist]

OK, here's your ethical dilemma. Linux is Free Software (GNU/Linux is Free Software....heh). That means you can't put restrictions on use into the software license. That means that if the TIA wants to use Linux...they can. And we can either all stop working on it or we can assume that we're working for a greater good than TIA is evil.

An interesting aside to the free software movement, no? Think about it, if you license something under GPL, you can't say who can or can't use it, just what baggage they have to handle in order to resell or distribute it (provide source if they modify it and resell it). Free means free, so that means terrorists, Palestinians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, no matter which side of any particular war you choose, if you develop free software one implication is that people that you don't like can pick it up and use it to do things you don't like.

That means that the government can use it also. To watch you. And that they've got the source to make sure there aren't any backdoors.

A little bit of new perspective. I'm not saying it's a good thing or a bad thing, just an unexplored thing.

Re:Ethics

[Anonymous Coward]

How retarded can you be? Whether you like an OS or not has absolutely bearing on how moral Microsoft is. Now is not the best time to be searching for a job, and if you willingly put yourself in that position, you are a complete moron.

Re:Ethics

[gpinzone]

It's always a race. For example, if we don't come up with a method to crack 2,048 public key encryption, someone else will. You can't assume it could only happen by perfecting a quantum computer; someone could find a way to calculate products of primes quicker. The point is, it's not a matter of if, it's when.

Re:Ethics

[Anonymous Coward]

One word of advice. Look for the job first, quit later. This isn't 1999 you know.

Re:Ethics

[truthsearch]

There are many jobs in the NY metro area. What don't you understand about the correlation of immoral practices by Microsoft and being a developer on Windows? Developing software for Windows at my company supports their use of the OS. Using their products means supporting their actions. If I'm against their actions I must not support them by using or developing for their products. And if my moral obligations are more important than money then I'm not at all a moron for quitting.

Re:Ethics

[Anonymous Coward]

How retarded can you be? You have a problem with someone quitting their job for moral reasons? No matter what the basis for those moral beliefs? You're the complete moron.

Re:Ethics

[blamanj]

The choices aren't always cut and dried,either. Imagine you are working on a project that helps a company keep track of it's public reputation (and presumably do something about it.) Then you discover that one of the top customers for the product is an organization you find ethically dubious, like a tobacco company or the Church of Scientology. (Real examples, folks, not just theoretical ones.)

The software itself isn't unethical, but you find the fruit of your labor being used in ways you didn't expect.

Re:Ethics

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello, Eric. Welcome back.

Re:Ethics

[Soko]

You must have very strong ethics my friend. Perhaps too strong?

Like it or not, you will at some time or another support Microsoft in this industry. They're just too big and too pervasive to ignore and still put food on the table. (By your logic, SAMBA and WINE should not exist for Linux, since they support products from an un-ethical company, but I digress.)

Realistically, Microsoft isn't going away any time soon - if ever. It takes quite a while to fritter away $40 Billion, and that's just the war chest. IMHO, we can either continue to tilt at windmills or we can be more constructive and try to modify the beasts behaviour. If Microsoft were to stop being so arrogant and paranoid at the same time, they would likely be a pretty cool company (Aside: Look at what's happened to the stuffiest corp of all time - Big Blue). Then, these moral dillemas won't de-rail us from getting our jobs done.

BTW, I'm not saying you should tone down or compromise your ethics in any way - I'm saying that you should try to find more constructive ways to uphold them than possibly hanging your future out dry. We need advocates, not martyrs.

God bless, and best of luck to you - I hope you make a wise decision.

Soko

Re:Ethics

[Anonymous Coward]

standing up for his beliefs makes him a moron? what does that make you for calling him a retard? if he doesn't like the company and doesn't want to support them then he can't use their os

Re:Ethics

[mr.nicholas]

Think about it, if you license something under GPL, you can't say who can or can't use it...

Why not come up with a variation of the GPL, the GPLL (Gnu Public License for Liberty) that has a direct stipulation in it that it can't be used by various agencies of world governments.

I mean, hell, if Microsoft can include a EULA that has such ridiculous measures as their right to log into your machine and examine applications and data, certainly saying that TIPS, or the CIA/FBI/Homeland Security can't use the program would quite legal.

In fact, it might be a way to help get EULA's struck down in court: perhaps the US government would fight over the right to use anything GPLL'd and consequently invalidate all stupid EULA's in the process.

Re:Ethics

[reallocate]

There is never a single "correct" ethical choice. Recognize that what seems "dubious" to you may be seen as desirable and beneficial by others, and vice versa. Make your own decision and don't worry if anyone else sees it as "correct".

Re:Ethics

[The Bungi]

It would be even better if you just did it instead of crowing about it on Slashdot (of all places). Indeed, saying "I quit my job because blah blah blah Micro$soft is evil, blah blah" would be several magnitudes better than what you're doing, here.

In my opinion this is about the most ass-backwards thing a person can do, mainly because -by your own admission - you work with Microsoft products, not on Microsoft products. I personally know two people who have quit Microsoft because they felt they were working for a company whose value system was diametrically opposed to theirs. I respect that, even though I don't necessarily agree with it.

You, on the other hand, come across as more pathetic and grandstanding than anything else.

Re:Ethics

[GigsVT]

What don't you understand about the correlation of immoral practices by Microsoft and being a developer on Windows?

They are just rationalizing their crimes against humanity. You did the right thing.

Re:Ethics

[RocketScientist]

Because at that point, where do you draw the line? Government agencies are bad? What about NGO's that push a specific agenda? What about places like the Palestinian Authority, that aren't quite a government? How about the Red Cross, the Red Crescent? You going to keep up a list of who can and can't, and for what? And then take the heat for doing it in a way that's politically motivated?

not so much, I think. It's either free software, or it's not free software. Middle grounds are very slippery.

Re:Ethics

[iabervon]

I'd be glad if the software I write makes life better for Palestinians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. Even people whose actions I don't approve of deserve better than to have to deal with a MicroSoft interface or have their computers crash on them. Sure, I don't think much of the Bush administration, but my life isn't any better if they're annoyed by their computers. And if they're going to be watching me, I certainly don't want there to be backdoors in the tools they're using; it's bad enough for the government to have that information.

Most of all, I hope that my work makes life more pleasant for terrorists. Perhaps it will serve in some small way to make up for the government activity which supposedly represents me, and serve to distinguish the behavior of US citizens from that of the US government.

War is a lot of wasted effort (since there's effort on both sides intended to counteract the other side's effort). Providing general tools to everyone simply reduces the duplicated and wasted effort.

Re:Ethics

[ibi]

Unless you've got the resources of Mitch Kapor, your best bet is to get active now to avoid having to make such difficult decisions later. (Come to think of it, Mr. Kapor has a pretty impressive record of getting active himself - if more of us had joined him maybe he wouldn't have had to leave Groove ...)

So now would be a good time to join the EFF or ACLU or whatever fits your particular view of the world.

Facing the future alone is a losing strategy.

Re:Ethics

[Christopher Thomas]

It's always a race. For example, if we don't come up with a method to crack 2,048 public key encryption, someone else will. You can't assume it could only happen by perfecting a quantum computer; someone could find a way to calculate products of primes quicker. The point is, it's not a matter of if, it's when.

[I'm assuming you're talking about RSA, as you're mentioning products of primes.]

The universe, however, feels no need to bow to human ingenuity. By what reasoning do you conclude that a non-quantum polynomial-time factoring approach exists?

Non-polynomial of *any* speed doesn't help you, if the person making the key was smart enough to add a few extra bits. Exponential problems are nasty that way.

A more intelligent approach is to say that a polynomimal- or near-polynomial time factoring algorithm *might* exist, and try to assess the chance of it a) existing and b) being discovered given an assumed amount of effort for a time window of interest. Remember, the NSA's been working on it for quite some time, with no apparent results yet.

A _wiser_ approach, given the apparent security of the encryption itself, is to look at other vulnerabilities of the system you're trying to protect.

Re:Ethics

[Surak]

Yeah, but that didn't stop Oppenheimer from having some serious doubts either. Serious enough doubts that they had him investigated.

Besides, there are always races, as another poster pointed out, and there's always ways the government makes people feel that it is their "patriotic duty" to help out. You think the guys who wrote Echelon or Carnivore have any trouble sleeping at night? I doubt it.

Re:Ethics

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Yes, it's always a race. But in the case of the race for the atomic bomb, it was more-or-less even. We had smarter scientists on our side of the pond, but that wasn't much of an advantage. It was a surprisingly close thing. A year's delay on our part and that bomb might have exploded over London instead of Hiroshima.

In this case, however, the NSA is so far ahead of the rest of the world in signals intelligence that it's not really fair to call it a race. If we dismantled the NSA today, it would still be years before the rest of the world could catch up to our capabilites.

Re:Ethics

[SN74S181]

Better get started re-writing all that GPL code then, as you're not going to be allowed to merge it into your GPLL-licensed project.

Maybe you can call it LLinux?

Re:Ethics

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless, of course, you have one of those magical mirrors, in which case the correct ethical choice is: Blue.

Re:Ethics

[smittyoneeach]

You're right, but there is a tension between the subjective for you and the objective most ethical .

You clearly frame the real-world question.

Nevertheless, the human mind is capable of rationalizing anything <insert historical example here>.

What sort of feedback loop monitors the conscience?

Re:Ethics

[gpinzone]

Sort of... The Germans were very close. They just thought they needed heavy water to do it. When Berlin fell, you could argue that the research should have stopped since the rest of the axis powers could not have come up with such a weapon. (Of course it was feared that the Russians probably got some bomb making intelligence from their invasion of Germany.)

You don't know how much the NSA really knows. Facial recognition would have been thought too difficult until twin Isreali teens came up with a way to do it better than anyone else to date. Did the NSA have that capability long ago? Maybe, but that doesn't stop others from innovating.

Re:Ethics

[Mr. Bad Example]

"Computer scientists are going to have the same kinds of battles that physicists did amidst the fallout of Hiroshima and Nagasaki,"

Am I the only one picturing Kaiju Big Battel style combat between Oppenheimer and Szilard?

("Oh no! It is Enrico Fermi! We must flee the city!")

Re:Ethics

[mdxi]

Wrong. It is possible, though difficult, to work in computers without supporting Microsoft. I do it every day, though I had to go 5 months without work to find a place where I could do it.

In my present job we use 100% Linux and OpenBSD, we write our systems in Perl, we are formally GPLing and releasing our work, we're gently pushing for our peer agencies across the state to join us, and they're starting to realize that not only have the best solution available, but that our methods give everyone the biggest payback for the least expenditure.

Also, I *do* believe that Samba and WINE shouldn't exist, in much the same way that the GPL shouldn't have to exist. In an ideal world, we all work together and horrible hacks like WINE aren't needed. More viscerally, I feel that people who take the easy way out and fall back to WINE and friends for everything are being spineless, opportunistic cowards with no real ethics at all. "But gaming!" is no excuse; either start coding or go get a console. "But Word files!" is no excuse; tell people to send you plaintext/RDF/HTML/CSV/any other standard, interoperable format. The network effect of Office won't go away until people stop reflexively duck-and-covering before it.

People say they wish they didn't have to put up with Microsoft. Well, that's only going to happen if you're willing to shut up and then put up, and work to make it happen.

Re:Ethics

[Anonymous Coward]

If you take that to its logical extreme, building anything and distributing it carries the same problems. Explosives, guns, even box cutters. And really, what difference would it make to those people if we said they couldn't use it? Would they respect it? Once the tool is created the power exists. Commercial or not, open source or not.

I wouldn't worry about it. The motivations are the problem, not the tools they have to use. Given motivation, people can do bad things with almost anything.

Re:Ethics

[Luckster7]

Back in my Windows days I used warftpd which in the license said it was completely free for use except for government and police. While I think this is completely against the spirit of open source, you could always release an open source project under the GPL with a couple restrictions against government use. Besides, I though the MA Dept. of Revenue switching to Linux was a good thing.

Re:Ethics

[RocketScientist]

You can't release a product under the GPL, which is a free software license, and then restrict the freedom to use the software. That's kind of my whole point. Free is free. Not free is not free. Restricting the license in any way means you aren't using the GPL.

Re:Ethics

[metamatic]

Speaking as someone who has never paid for Microsoft software and doesn't use it, I have to say, bravo.

Not working with Microsoft has not been the death of my career. Hackers of the world, you have nothing to fear but fear itself.

Re:Ethics

[spitzak]

You can make any rules you want for code that you write.

However you could not incorporate any GPL code into it because the GPL does not allow it's code to be restricted by such rules.

Re:Ethics

[HiThere]

If you say it's dubious, then you've already evaluated it. There's two or three possibilities, but I assume you know which one you mean.

Clearly the most ethical course is to refuse to do something if it is unethical. This won't keep someone from less scruples from doing it, but it keeps your hands clean. Anything more than that can get you in real trouble.

An alternative course is to plan several widely varied courses of action forwards, assuming that you did different things. Then figure out which one terminates in the most desireable future, and act on that one. Where you end up will depend on what you consider, and how accurate your projections are.

Saying "I was only doing my job" is a clear wrong answer. But there are a lot of other ways forwards from that. Depending on who was asking you to do what, you might try leaving the country, but figure out your costs and benefits first. And check on the immigration requirements. (Your choices will be more limited than you expect -- there are no more frontiers.)

A better choice is to avoid getting into that situation in the first place. One benefit of being a college radical is that it can eliminate that temptation... from the most obvious sources.

Re:Ethics

[HiThere]

It's not new or unexplored. That clause was put in on purpose. Yes, governments can use it too... but you know that they could anyway. Governments only obey the rules when it's convenient (well, the powerful arms of government, anyway). Ditto for "rogue nations", and "the axis of evil", and "criminal conspiracies". So since we can't stop the bad guys, we might as well acknowledge it up front. And write it into the contract that anyone using it can't stop us, either.

This doesn't mean that I think they won't break it, but the GPL is a bit difficult to break unless you are a software distributor. So I doubt that they will. Why should they? MS and Adobe may have reasons to want to break the GPL agreement, but I doubt that the three letter agencies do. In order to do that they'd need to be distributing code outside their agencies. And that's a rare event.

Re:Ethics

[msfodder]

Code it like a recent college graduate. You get a linked list and every 'x' interations have it loop back on NULL. That's a fix.

Re:Ethics

[Zigg]

Why not come up with a variation of the GPL, the GPLL (Gnu Public License for Liberty) that has a direct stipulation in it that it can't be used by various agencies of world governments.

You forget one important point. Governments are responsible for the laws that make your license enforceable. If they really wanted to use your software, they'd find a way; especially if they wanted to use it for the nefarious deeds you seem to fear they will use it for.

In addition, as is also pointed out by other contributors to this thread, such a clause would most certainly backfire in one way or another.

Re:Ethics

[einhverfr]

GPLL-- why it won't work:

Governments? They write the law.

Organized Crime? Do you Really think they care about the license?

Terrorists? They are a subset of organized crime. See above.

Re:Ethics

[einhverfr]

Right on!

I completely agree. If the Israeli Government wants to use my software, or whether it is Hammas... If Microsoft wants to use it (so long as they abide by the GPL), that is all OK.

The thing is-- the US government prohibits export to various different countries which they feel threaten the US. With open source development, however, redistribution can span the globe with perhaps a few exceptions because redistribution is not limited. This means that Lybia could more easily obtain RedHat Linux than Microsoft Windows, and so could Iran, Cuba, and Afghanistan.

Of course, with Windows, piracy creates the same effect.

Two issues:

1: When you publically release software for sale or open source, you relinquish control over what it could be used for. Who says WindowsCE or Linux could not be used to power Iraqi UAV's?

2: When you are working on an inhouse application for a single client, they have control over how it is used. In this case, you have to make up your own mind.

But licensing will not solve this issue. Nor should it. Blockading countries like Cuba arguably have kept them as strong enemies to the US while trading with China has helped dramatically increase the mutual security of the two countries. What goes with Cuba also holds true for Iraq and North Korea.

We are a global community now. We should make sure that we don't let multinationals unduly exploit people but restricting trade on ideas isn't going to happen. Six degrees of separation. Fewer in the software development community ;-)

Re:Ethics

[Daniel Phillips]

I'm considering quitting my current job, without another one lined up, because I have a moral dilemma (seriously) developing with Microsoft's products. I feel support of their products is support of their actions, some of which I consider immoral. I was just given my first .NET project to work on, but I'm quickly looking for something elsewhere with Linux or Unix. As a last resort I might just quit within a few weeks and look for something while living off savings for 6 months.

Line up your new job before you quit. Continue to perform your current work competently, but spend no more of your valuable time on it than you are legally obliged to. Take inventory of all your holiday time, schedule it as soon as possible, and spend your holidays contacting potential employers, and if possible, interviewing. Use your remaining time on your job to learn as much as possible that may be of use to you in your new career, with an ethical employer bright enough to act in their own interest by leveraging free software, and moral enough not to support the business methods of a convicted and unrepentant monopolist.

Re:Ethics

[Spruce Moose]

Think about it, if you license something under GPL, you can't say who can or can't use it, just what baggage they have to handle in order to resell or distribute it (provide source if they modify it and resell it).

Is this true? Consider section 4 of the GPL (version 2):

You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.

Re:Ethics

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no such thing as "the GPL with a couple restrictions". At that point you have a new license that may resemble the GPL, but code under your license cannot be merged with any GPL'd code.

Re:Ethics

[IamTheRealMike]

I don't really see the problem. I pay taxes. Those taxes are used at least in part to buy big guns. I wish they weren't, but I can't stop that. It's just a part of living in society - we give some of the results of our work away, and it might be used for purposes of which we disapprove.

Far more likely is that somebody writes some free software, and then it's used in a proprietary product (but the GPL doesn't protect you because it's bundled, not linked, or whatever). That'd piss me off immensely, and although I could immediately stop it for future versions by amending the license, it would then not be free software.

Re:Ethics

[freestyle-fiend]

Part of the beauty of Free Software is that anyone may use it. Because of the difficulty in deciding which uses are bad, this is a good thing. Publishers of software that is not freely redistributable have a duty to ensure that their software is not used for morally wrong purposes, as they already discrimmate between potential users. Where Free Software (and other freely redistributable software) is one of the tools of people who behave badly, we should find another tool that we can restrict their use of.

After all, freely redistributable software is delibrately not scarce, while software that is not freely redistributable is artificially scarce. If a 'bad person' requires air and weapons in order to be bad, then we should stop selling them weapons, rather than try to prevent them obtaining air. This is because this is just easier to prevent them from getting weapons than to prevent them getting air.

Alternatively, I could vet everybody who I distribute GPL software to, without violating the GPL (unless I am also distributing binaries indiscrimminately), and hope that other people do the same.

Re:Ethics

[Alsee]

the NSA's been working on it for quite some time, with no apparent results yet.

Based on NSA press releases they apparently haven't had any results on anything. Ever. Chuckle.

-

Re:Ethics

[DancingSword]

Yes, it's always a race.

Interesting, that...

ALWAYS a race...

We Have To Develop BioWeapons Of Mass Inhumanity Or They Will First
( with the implicit "We Are Virtuous And Need To Use Them On Others,
They Are Evil And Need Such Used On Them" )

Fallacy/assumption.

If all smart ones stopped contributing to sentient entropy, it'd speed-along slower.

( and HOW to get ones to stop contributing to racial slaughter? by contributing to racial well-being, since it IS an alternative... )

Fallacies can phuck theirselfs.

As for the question of whether such .. competition .. improves the chances that we'll wipe our own race out quicker...

... and we maintain that we have no responsibility for the consequences of our actions...
Bah

Can you blame him for having a conscience?

[hafree]

"Mitch cares very much about the social impact of technology" - I think that really says it all here. How would you feel knowing that you are the reason certain civil liberties and rights to privacy no longer exist?

Re:Can you blame him for having a conscience?

[HeelToe]

Right, but you have to weigh this. Maybe you look back 20 years later and wonder if you'd stayed on the board, could you have prevented the curtailing to TIA demands that led to some elimination of privacy rights?

Maybe he could have done more good by remaining involved than not. Tough situation to be in, either way.

Re:Can you blame him for having a conscience?

[pnatural]

Please forgive my picking nits, but I really don't like it when people express this idea incorrectly.

Rights do not "no longer exist". You may have them or not have them, but they don't vanish because they are ideas. They are central to the human experience, and it's only thru collective will (or the end of a gun) do we decide who gets to exercise them and who does not.

It's like that song that says "and I won't forget the men who died who gave that right to me". Those men didn't give me my rights - a higher power did. The founders of the USA realized this -- that these rights are inalienable.

Only thru systematic, Orwellian control of language and thought can rights "no longer exist".

Re:Can you blame him for having a conscience?

[jd142]

The founders of the USA realized this -- that these rights are inalienable.

And yet they denied them to women, blacks, non-land owners, etc. If the founders really believed all men were created equal, why did only certain men get rights?

And don't forget, some of the first bills passed by Congress were the Alien and Sedition acts. The Alien act allowed the government to lock up non-citizen males age 14 and up who belonged to any country we were at war with. Didn't matter if they were innocent of any wrong doing. Congress threw the right to a fair trial right out the window. Luckily the British (you know, the people we were upset with) still had Magna Carta to protect their rights.

And the Sedition act would punish you if you "write, print, utter or publish. . . writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either house of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States," which means that Rush Limbaugh could have been arrested for Sedition during the Clinton administration if the act were still enforced.

Because of its weakness at the time, the Supreme Court didn't even rule them as unconstitutional (I don't know if they were ever approached about it; I couldn't find that.) The acts were eventually allowed to expire about 10 years later.

So please, don't venerate the founders of the USA. They were human. In other words, they were hypocrites. They talked about the inalienable rights of men, but kept slaves. The south wanted slaves counted as men for population reasons, so they could have more representatives, but they didn't want them to have rights. They engaged in acts of terrorism (Boston Tea Party) and used biological weapons against indigenous peoples (small pox blankets). And even today this country engages in taxation without representation: the citizens of the District of Columbia pay federal taxes but have no elected Federal representatives. And their population is greater than Wyoming's. Imagine if Congress decided to tell Wyoming citizens that they would continue to pay federal taxes but would lose their Senators and Representatives!

Sorry, don't mean to be a troll or flame bait, but the veneration of the "Founding Fathers" really gets to me after awhile.

Re:Can you blame him for having a conscience?

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Hoo boy. Your idea is noble, but ultimately flawed. While you might choose to believe that rights are gifts to us from God, and many people do, that's not a terribly useful position when trying to deal with real-world problems.

In the real world, rights are guarantees. That's all. The Bill of Rights says that Congress is prohibited from making a law abridging the freedom of speech. That's a guarantee to the people of the United States that their federal government won't interfere with their liberty when it comes to expressing themselves. It's not a recognition of a divine right; it's merely a guarantee.

The reason I say your position isn't useful is this: of the people who subscribe to your theory, every one has a different idea of what rights his creator has endowed him with. Some people think they have a right to refuse to pay income taxes; hardly anybody agrees with them. "But this right is inalienable," they say. Nobody listens. So the position that rights-- whatever you think your rights might be-- are divine in nature and origin just won't get you very far.

Please forgive my picking nits, but I really don't like it when people express this idea incorrectly. ;-)

Re:Can you blame him for having a conscience?

[HiThere]

O?
"Rights" is a piece of information. It was created out of environmental noise during the 1400-1700's. But information can not only be created, it can be destroyed.

For rights to manifest, they need a social context that supports them. If they don't manifest, then no one sees them. If no one sees them, then the idea of what they are becomes fuzzier and fuzzier. Until it fades into the environmental noise.

Do you have free speech? The only proof is free speech. A "right" to free speech? What proof can exist?

Possibly "rights" could be defined in some objectively measurable way that comes near to matching our intuitive knowledge of them. But if so, I haven't seen the definition. So I suspect them of being the form of information called belief.

Re:Can you blame him for having a conscience?

[HiThere]

The supreme court had not at that time established it's right to judge whether or not laws adhered to the constitution. During that period there came a case when the supreme court supported an act of the government "For the reason that it was supported by the constitution" (paraphrase: I don't remember the exact wording.) Then it quickly shut up about that right for around 70 years, until during the period before the Civil War it started asserting this right again. Since then it's right to judge the acts of congress hasn't been seriously questioned. But it's tradition more than the constitution that gives them this right.

Re:Can you blame him for having a conscience?

[pnatural]

No one denies they kept slaves. No one denies they were not perfect. No one denies that they were human. Why, then, cannot we look at the outcome of their work and see it for what it was?

You say they left out blacks. I say the very same document was used to free blacks.

You say they kept slaves. I say the country they founded ended slavery all over the world.

You say they believed human rights only applied to white males. I say they understood it applied to all because they excluded no one by name or by omission.

You see the glass half empty. I see it half full. To each his/her/it own.

Re:Can you blame him for having a conscience?

[jd142]

To HiThere: Don't forget Marbury vs Madison, early 1800's establishing not only states rights over federal rights, but also the ability of the SCOTUS to overrule a law.

You say they left out blacks. I say the very same document was used to free blacks.

No, they had to make a specific amendment to the constitution to do that. By that time, it was not the document produced 90 years earlier

You say they kept slaves. I say the country they founded ended slavery all over the world.

Huh? We were one of the last developed countries to free our slaves. For example, Britain outlawed slavery about 30 years before we did. The only reasons they supported the south during the Civil War was 1) as payback to the government for having had the revolution and 2) to keep cheap cotton coming into the English factories. The same way we make nice with the Saudi government, even though Parade Magazine(not a leftist newspaper supplement by any means) listed them as the number 2 worst dicatatorial government in the world while Saddam came in around 5 or 6.

Not to mention the traffic in slavery that still goes on in Africa and Asia.

I say they understood it applied to all because they excluded no one by name or by omission.

If that were the case, then we wouldn't have needed a 13th amendment, freeing the slaves or a 19th amendment giving women the right to vote. In other words, they omitted freedom for blacks and women.

You see the glass half empty. I see it half full. To each his/her/it own.

I like to see the world for what it is. Not what I'd like it to be.

Re:Can you blame him for having a conscience?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well the amazing thing is that even though the system started out flawed, it corrected itself in some regards (ending of slavery.)

anthrax

[Anonymous Coward]

On Feb. 11, House and Senate negotiators agreed that the Total Information Awareness project could not be used against Americans

Oh that's OK then. Its not like Americans would send anthrax in the post.

The world needs more good examples

[SolemnDragon]

1. He left his job because he was uncomfortable with what was happening with what they'd built.
Anybody remember the line that was used on production lines/ development for the atom bomb? "Our job is to build them, not to decide where they fall."

Take heart, folks. Add this one to the tiny corner of the bulletin board labelled "The world is not all bad." People really do sometimes help total strangers, people really do sometimes care about what their work is being used for, and frankly, i'm ALL IN FAVOUR of a guy who can turn around and quit based on what he thinks is an appropriate use of his work. (of course, i might not feel that way if he felt that what he was building SHOULD be spyware and they hadn't been headed there)I'm more willing to respect a belief the less it looks like it's going to mess with other people's- relatively innocent people's- lives. Granted, we can't all pay the rent if we walk off the job for moral reasons, so choose your battles carefully, and we don't all have a widespread fanbase to keep the world aware of what we've just done. (So when you choose them, do it as publicly as possible.) But sometimes, it's worth it, and i'll lead the cheer. Thanks!!!! Good example of what's not all wrong with the world.

Re:The world needs more good examples

[xyzzy]

This whole thing is rather silly. Are people here equating building a P2P collaboration app with shared whiteboads and calendaring with building the atom bomb? I'm sorry, but the two things aren't even CLOSE to morally equivalent.

If they are, all you hackers out there better put down your keyboards, because this is a wakeup call. Practically everything written out there in software-land could be used for nefarious purposes -- whether open source, closed source, or you name it. Remember the Marine training program using Doom?

Re:The world needs more good examples

[Varitek]

Anybody remember the line that was used on production lines/ development for the atom bomb? "Our job is to build them, not to decide where they fall."

Or as Tom Lehrer put it,
"Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down?
That's not my department", said Wehrner von Braun.

Re:The world needs more good examples

[mad.frog]

As Tom Lehrer sang:

"Once rockets go up,
who cares where they come down?
That's not my department,"
says Werner von Braun.

Re:The world needs more good examples

[M.C. Hampster]

To quote (emphasis mine):

If they are, all you hackers out there better put down your keyboards, because this is a wakeup call. Practically everything written out there in software-land could be used for nefarious purposes -- whether open source, closed source, or you name it. Remember the Marine training program using Doom?

According to Dictionary.com the definition for nefarious reads:

Wicked in the extreme; abominable; iniquitous; atrociously villainous; execrable; detestably vile.

Can someone explain to me why the Marine's using Doom for training could even be closed to being called "nefarious"? Why are so many of the examples on Slashdot when describing the "evil" ways technology can be used usually include only the U.S. government or the U.S. military? What about terrorists? What about evil dictators? What about cults?

Since when is training the armed forces considered a "nefarious" use of software?

Re:The world needs more good examples

[xyzzy]

I wasn't holding it up as one. But for some people, it might be.

I was simply using it to demonstrate the fact that software can be used for purposes far afield from the purpose a developer envisoned when it was written. Certainly, being shocked when that happens is rather naive.

Does Kapor think that the DoD has no need for desktop collaboration? If not, does it matter what organization? Is the Army a "good" user and the NSA a "bad" user? What about if the actual user is an Army person, who is doing some duties for the NSA (this is frequently the case)? It gets grey pretty fast.

Re:The world needs more good examples

[Anonymous Coward]

The man is resigning because of a SPECIFIC case where the technology he is developing is being sold for profit by his company for something he finds ethically questionable. Supporting him in this action is not equivalent to stopping development of all software out of fear it is used for "nefarious purposes". He may not be able to force Groove to deny the government their software, but he can resign his position and remove himself from an ethically questionable situation.

Re:The world needs more good examples

[arkanes]

If you're a pacifist, then making tools to trains soldiers would be nefarious. Try to keep up.

Re:The world needs more good examples

[M.C. Hampster]

I wasn't holding it up as one. But for some people, it might be.

That is true, especially around here it seems. I didn't mean to imply you weren't making a good point, I just was questioning why the same ol' tired examples are used around here.

Re:The world needs more good examples

[M.C. Hampster]

If you're a pacifist, then making tools to trains soldiers would be nefarious. Try to keep up.

Sorry, I don't really take pure pacifism seriously. I will try to keep up though.

Re:The world needs more good examples

[SuiteSisterMary]

If you're a pacifist, would you really have designed and published Doom?

Re:The world needs more good examples

[arkanes]

Stranger things have happened. Some people know the difference between fantasy and reality. Granted, the kind of person who does is not likely to get enormously bent out of shape by a training program, when theres lots more legitimate things to get bent out of shape over.

Re:The world needs more good examples

[HiThere]

The marines using Doom for training is nefarious because it will get too many of them killed. In a foolish and dangerous manner.

Seriously, Doom doesn't attempt to be a realistic simulation. It's entertainment.

Re:The world needs more good examples

[lommer]

Ok, I know this may sound like it, but it's not flaimbait, it's my honest opinion. That's why I am taking responsibility for it by posting logged-in.

Personally, I would state that working on a project like TIA is worse than the atomic bomb. Yes you read that right. And yes, I know that the atomic bombs used in WWII killed millions (hundreds-of-thousands?) of people.

The key difference lies in the fact that if the Americans didn't develop the atomic bomb, the soviets would have. Any poli-sci student can tell you that in the nuclear era, the only thing worse than two nations with nuclear weapons is one (the Mutual Assured Destruction principle doesn't work when only one power is nuclear capable).

However, the TIA project is NOT neccesary in a free democracy, does not hinder foreign relations, and only serves to enable government surpression of domestic problems in an orwellian fashion. In short, the atomic bomb was a neccesary evil, the TIA project is not.

Re:The world needs more good examples

[xyzzy]

Well, it is flamebait :-)

I wasn't comparing TIA with the atomic bomb. I was comparing building collaborative software with working on the atomic bomb. That's what Groove does, they don't "build TIA". They are an equivalent to the guys who sold the steel that went into the casing.

I find your opinion of Mutual Asssured Destruction (i.e. "MAD") rather interesting. At the time, MAD was just a theory -- it only worked in retrospect (and there were many times when people wondered if it WOULD work -- for instance, Cuba and Viet Nam). Apropos of that, it was MAD that led to many of the bloody proxy wars between the US and the USSR: Nam and Afghanistan.

So here's an interesting question. If you learned that the Soviet Union were building a "TIA", would it become OK? :-)

Re:The world needs more good examples

[lommer]

Good points. I guess I missinterpreted your post (or didn't read carefully enough :-)

I suppose that MAD was only a theory, but it did work (so far - that could change with the way the world is going*...). However, I don't think it was MAD that caused the proxy wars. Those proxy wars stemmed from the Soviet-American rivalry, and the competition was basically a choice between total anihhilation of the world and many *relatively* little bloody proxy wars around the globe. If you took nuclear weapons out of the equation, I believe that you would end up with a direct World War III between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Would that really be better than the proxy wars?

No, and as I'm sure you know, they actually did build something pretty close to the TIA (not similar in terms of the technological focus, but in terms of spying on their citizens). The reason I don't think it would be ok is because there's no benifit to having multiple nations spying on their citizens, like there is benefit in the MAD principle.

*not only do rogue states not factor well into the MAD theory, the Americans are closer to deploying nuclear weapons now than they have since the cold war.

do you think....

[rob-fu]

kapor would have stepped down if he wasn't incredibly wealthy? IIRC he was one of the founders of Lotus...

Re:do you think....

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, he was the designer of Lotus 1-2-3. He founded Lotus Development in '82 and left in '87.

Re:do you think....

[Surak]

Yup. There's an (admittedly somewhat out of date) bio on his web site here. Mitch was pretty much the guy that ripped off Dan Bricklin's VisiCalc...errr..I mean designed Lotus 1-2-3 and co-developed it along with Jonathan Sachs.

Kapor wasn't always considered one of the good guys, either. Many in the software industry considered him to be somewhat obnoxious and it was widely grokked that at least some of Lotus' downfall in office suites can be attributed to Kapor's bad decisions. In retrospect, I'd say Microsoft just ate their lunch by being the first to market with a Windows-based office suite, personally.

But yeah, Kapor made his fortune by cocreating the PCs first killer app.

Re:do you think....

[digerata]

Not only was he the founder of Lotus, he split off and founded Groove (as stated in the article). Groove is a really kick ass program that allows some of the coolest colloboration between remote users. We looked at it to satisfy several needs for us, including video conferencing. It provides a great platform to develop on as well. You can create some jaw dropping integrated tools very easily.

The deal breaker we found, however, was that it is only for windows. The SDK is even based in COM. Talk about forward thinking!

Re:do you think....

[asscroft]

ok, but that hasn't stopped some people from trying to get richer. most rich people, actually try to get richer. whether by good or evil means, as long as the ends are them getting richer. Nice to see an exception to the rule.

Re:do you think....

[Anonymous Coward]

- kapor would have stepped down if he wasn't incredibly wealthy?

Perhaps he wouldn't have quit, but nonetheless he gave a good example most wealthy people actually DON'T follow at all.

Re:do you think....

[SN74S181]

Kapor was one of the 'touch-n-feel lawsuit' dudes, who tried to establish a legal precedent that the way menus were arranged on PC applications could be copyrighted and other software developers could not produce similar menus.

He, in other words, was one of the hated fuckers.

*blinks* Does anybody else see it?

[Taldo]

but insiders say he is unhappy with Groove's products forming a crucial part of the Total Information Awareness project. Read all about it at the NYTimes (Free Registration required)."

Is it just me? Or is the irony here almost toxic?

Re:Man or woman?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh bah, modding the parent as a troll is totally wrong. The poster was referring to Mitchell Baker from the mozilla post yesterday (who is a woman). Yay mods.

Not the same

[Codex The Sloth]

The atomic bomb worked.

Mod parent up!

[TopShelf]

All too often our first reaction to something that we don't approve of is to distance ourselves from it, and by doing so we relinquish any opportunity to effect change. In international affairs, consider the differences over the last 10-20 years between the US relationships with Russia and China, and our relationships with Cuba and North Korea. In the former, we've taken steps to open up the lines of commerce and seen those countries change dramatically. In the latter, we've taken a hard-line embargo position, and haven't seen an iota of positive result.

While I respect Kapor's stand, I'd encourage him to stay engaged and voice his opinions.

Re:Mod parent up!

[DonkeyJimmy]

All too often our first reaction to something that we don't approve of is to distance ourselves from it, and by doing so we relinquish any opportunity to effect change.

I dunno, sometimes the best way to incite change is to show your own disagreement. And sometimes the best way to do that is to distance yourself. By leaving the company he is telling everyone just how much he is against it, which is perhaps more powerful then staying on the board and trying to limit the damage.

Re:Mod parent up!

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree completely. By staying "engaged" to this technology, he promotes it. By continuing on as a member of the board of directors, he implicitly approves of any decision that board makes, whether he votes for that action or not. If the action wins, he is responsible. If the actions of that company disagree with his personal ethics, then he is best served by leaving. If only more executives had the balls to bak up their words with action.

And don't miss

[Anonymous Coward]

Fat Chicks in Party Hats. Those of you accustomed to Slashdot spelling and grammar, or the sight of Kate Fent, will feel right at home.

MOD Parent up

[Anonymous Coward]

...I hate having to register.

Re:*blinks* Does anybody else see it?

[sulli]

It's just you.

Well...

[danro]

Is this Mitchell a man or a woman? It's hard to keep them straight these days

Well, he has a beard, for what it's worth...

Re:Well...

[ShinmaWa]

ell, he has a beard, for what it's worth...

Given the physical appearance of most of these people, I wouldn't consider a beard to be conclusive proof.

If it is dubious, the choice is obvious

[MyNameIsFred]

I've always been a firm believer in listening to your instincts. If the voices in your head are raising doubts, there's probably a problem. In those situations, I would argue that the choice is obvious -- quit.

The more damning problem is situations where the feature creep slowly brings on new capabilities. Until one day you look at the big picture and wonder what you had done.

"In Germany, they first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Catholic. Then they came for me -- and by that time there was nobody left to speak up."

-Martin Niemöller

Re:If it is dubious, the choice is obvious

[SN74S181]

OT point:

That dude didn't mention the mentally handicapped or the gypsies.

Nor did he mention the homosexuals.

All groups that were ruthlessly wiped out by the Nazis. The gypies were wiped out to a greater degree than the Jews. And all sorts of liberal Americans were pleased at the eugenics program (i.e. Margaret Sanger) with regard to the mentally handicapped.

Kinda makes one worry about his biases.

Re:If it is dubious, the choice is obvious

[MyNameIsFred]

For more info check out Who Was Martin Niemoller?. Two major points. First, he was a pastor who was held prisoner in Sachsenhausen and Dachau concentration camps. Second, he was a major force behind the Stuttgart Confession of Guilt, in which the German Protestant churches formally accepted guilt for their complicity in Hitler's reign of terror. BTW, my original post is a quote from a speech he gave to the U.S. Congress in the late 60s.

Re:*blinks* Does anybody else see it?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it isn't.

Our peers work for TIA

[hey]

Think about it ... some computer science types answered a want ad for the TIA. Did a few interviews and security checks then accepted a job there. What is wrong with these people?

Re:Our peers work for TIA

[stratjakt]

They want to work, and perhaps dont have the same knee-jerk reaction to the governments initiative that you do?

Not everyone shares the same ideals. Every chef in the country isnt going to quit because some PETA activists think it's wrong to eat.

Ideals dont pay the mortgage or buy food and clothing for your kids.

When you're out of school and no longer one of mom and dads dependants, you see how quickly idealism is replaced by the reality of life.

Groove backdoor will FEED the TIA?

[Bigger R]

Maybe he's unhappy about certain "modifications" to his core technology?

Just like Zimmerman hinting that newer versions of NAI PGP (post 6.58?) might have issues.

And why he refers to it as a delicate situation.

Just a thought.

Re:Groove backdoor will FEED the TIA?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lotus Notes crypto has backdoors for law enforcement. Same for Groove no doubt. Ray Ozzie is a team player in that regard.

Maybe he's leaving after seeing the new MS Office?

[LibertineR]

The new Office suggests that Microsoft finally has their Groupware act together, and from what I understand, the beta is selling like wildfire on the web site. At $20 shipping, half a million copies might sellout before the week is over.

Office + Sharepoint, will kill the market for Groove before they can get one.

This is NOT a troll either, if you dont agree, do a little research. This Office version might actually be worth upgrading to.

Conscientious Brain Drain

[lucasw]

In Howard Rheingold's Tools For Thought it is mentioned that three decades ago many top scientists working on the government funded computer and communications projects left their posts out of dissatisfaction with government policy:

In 1970, a combination of growing opposition to the Vietnam war, and the militarization of all ARPA research, meant that an extraordinary collection of talent in the new fields of computer networks and interactive computing were looking for greener pastures...

Luckily, XEROX and other private companies were around to snatch them up and not let their talents go to waste.

This kind of phenomenon can't be do much good: It doesn't help legitimate national security interests, and scientists and engineers without the means to innovate don't benefit the economy. If young persons decide to avoid engineering or science completely when a perceived immoral government taints those fields, there's even more fallout...

Re:Conscientious Brain Drain

[Anonymous Coward]

No sweat, they can just up the H1B visa qouta and get some indians to do it.

Re:Conscientious Brain Drain

[frank_adrian314159]

If young persons decide to avoid engineering or science completely when a perceived immoral government taints those fields, there's even more fallout...

Dude, the reason that young people are leaving science and engineering isn't because evil government security taints it - it's because there aren't any jobs!!! These days, I'd go into a field where there's more security - like acting...

It's starting to happen

[Anonymous Coward]

get ready people.
There is a battle for true freedom being waged right here in America. It's gonna get worse, way worse, before it gets better.
Start preparing yourselves, because in 5 years we'll be fighting for our freedoms in ways that haven't been done for hundreds of years.
Those of you who think I'm crazy, wake up! Your government is not the good guys, no matter what Rush and Orielly tell you.
No spin zone my ass.

be prepared for civil (actually revolutionary) war, hope it doesn't come to that.

Re:It's starting to happen

[LibertineR]

You mean freedom to be stupid? Are you still eating your Y2K disaster rations? Sheesh dude, get a grip.

Thanks Google!

[FsG]

Thanks to this google link, you don't need to register: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/11/business/11PRIV. html?ex=1047963600&en=b851b67c98e9787e&ei=5062&par tner=GOOGLE

The Ultimate Sellout

[Anonymous Coward]

Not Mitch Kapor, but Slashdot. You thought Visual Studio ads were bad? Now Slashdot is accepting advertising from the BSA!

The iframe going to google's ad syndicator has the ads. See here

"Boss Stealing Software?
Bust your boss. Report illegal software use."

"Is Your Boss A Weasel?
Stealing software? Report software piracy."

Thanks in advance?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought TIA meant Thanks In Advance.

T&A?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a tech company, the only T&A you're gonna find are from the pear-shaped programmers.

TIA Is Overloaded Too Much

[istartedi]

When I read this, I momentarily thought he left because he had a Transient Ischemic Attack.

Can anybody else think of overloads for this acronym? TIA for contributions. :)

groove not central to TIA...

[bigpat]

why would it be a big deal if they are using the software for collaboration. I'm sure they are using email, telephones and pencils too... If Groove is actually acting as a subcontractor and doing TIA research then I could understand being upset, since TIA is very very very unamerican.

What's next... people boycotting boxcutters?

Re:groove not central to TIA...

[SuiteSisterMary]

Don't forget, America is the country where restaurants no longer sell french fries, but freedom fries.

I QUIT MY JOB TOO

[Anonymous Coward]

My boss smelled like cheese. Wheres my front page story?

Re:I QUIT MY JOB TOO

[Anonymous Coward]

But yo mama stil suckin my dick fo' the rent bitch! Bk be hirin.

Re:Maybe he's leaving after seeing the new MS Offi

[LibertineR]

Does Groove run on Linux? I didnt think so. I think the guy knows his company is screwed, and is looking for a good(bringing him praise from the zealots)reason to back away.

That explains it...

[jerkychew]

I did a consulting gig recently where I had to network a small conference room. The meeting was to train a group of people how to use Groove to collaborate with each other. I thought it odd at the time that all the people there were government personnel, but now it makes some sense, I guess.

Re:*blinks* Does anybody else see it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it is. :)

Re:Consistency-Bad pun.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well it is a shame that he lost his Groove thang, in the process.

IT WAS AN ANONYMOUS COWARD

[Anonymous Coward]

It just means that as a follow up there will be 5 or 6 posts scarfing up easy karma by pointing out the reg free link.

Hey, dumbass, the grandparent posted as AC. So you can quit bitching about karma whoring now.

Important Stuff:

• Please try to keep posts off topic.
• Try to post new threads with repetitious garbage rather than reply to existing comments.
• Do not read other people's messages, or even the article, before posting your own to increase your chance of repeating others. After all, the editors love duplication!
• Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about, in all CAPS, then leave the body of your message empty.
• Messages critical of the editors or not in agreement with Slashdot Group-think will be moderated down. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page. This way we can claim we don't censor.)

Mitch Kapor's current work...

[jacoplane]

...is of course Chandler, from the Open Source Applications Foundation.

This was featured earlier on Slashdot: Mitch Kapor's Outlook-Killer

NO THX, I LIKE THE GROOVE BETWEEN MY GF'S LABIA.

[Anonymous Coward]

hehe, no problem

[Anonymous Coward]

I really don't like groove myself as it is cumbersome and slow. The collaboritive methods brought to the table are (as usual) really only good as an "out of the box" system that you obviously have to give up certain desired functionality and features. However, I really don't like the idea of shared files being duplicated everywhere for the obvious reasons of security as well as those of redundant storage and bandwidth usage. The security aspect in case you are wondering goes like this: Imagine country A sharing information with Country B. However, perhaps you do not want said information (the actual hard copy or all the data) to be actually stored there. Therefore they must pull it from a web page or similar type of asynchronous pull. Sure it can be cached and if the argument simply ends there then that would mean that obviously we should never worry about any liberties or freedoms since obviously the cops already limit our choices. Sometimes limiting as much as is possible when referring to vulnerabilities and risks is what can move a system from high risk to low risk. Ok, I admit... I just get annoyed having to synch with every other Groove client and that has colored the views on the rest of their sytem but oh well.

Re:*blinks* Does anybody else see it?

[rela]

fnord No irony here fnord

Well, no. specifically...

[SolemnDragon]

I'm paralleling the moral dilemma of 'leaving one's job because one's otherwise harmless and useful shared whiteboards and calendars have been snapped up by the government as a handy tool for a goal which one doesn't agree with' ...to ... well, 'the moral dilemma of having one's hardware technologies and one's physics work appropriated as part of a government project with goals that one doesn't agree with.'

The point here is not the measure of the potential threat, it's the matter of taking action as a matter of principle. It's a valid statement that the two are not morally 'equivalent'- but it IS true (at least in my view) that the two actions are morally parallel in that they do both make a public statement against an actively directed specific use by the government of a specific technology.

When the TIA creeps are sharing your desktop, then you at least have one person who will have said, hey, i worked on this, and this was NOT what we had in mind.

You're right. Practically anything written out there in softwareland could be used to erode rights, could be used to persecute individuals- the question isn't can a hammer be used to break heads? but more importantly, When the company you design hammers for starts selling them to the guys using them to break heads, are you still going to be there designing hammers for them?

Remember, folks, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

Re:Well, no. specifically...

[xyzzy]

Far be it for me to tell people where to draw their own moral boundaries. If Mitch felt he had to do that, no problem there.

However, if you place your cutpoint too far to one side, you are going to have an awfully hard time getting up in the morning. Someone further down in the posting thread asked a good question: What if TIA decides to start using his whizzy new open-source PIM? Does he pack up and leave that too? You can say "I worked on this, and this is NOT what I had in mind" without washing your hands of the whole thing every time it doesn't go the way you envisioned.

And, a lot of people out there work on things where the DON'T (or might not) know all the plausable uses of their product. I work for a Large East-Coast Telephone Company (tm). It would not surprise me if we provided phone lines to TIA employees. Should I quit?

Re:EFF?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes they are. All american men are extremely fat also. We're also stupid. Not just stupid, but really fucking stupid. Did I mention lazy? I might have. I'm not sure what I've typed so far, because I can't read. I think that's because I'm a stupid American. And rude, boy are we rude. Not French rude, but we're trying. And we're arrogant, but that's only because we're better than the rest of you.

PGP

[Anonymous Coward]

6.5.8 was the last source release. Zimmerman has vouched for 7.0.3 See http://www.pgpi.org/files/PRZquitsNAI.txt

Kapor founded Lotus but not Groove

[reedsturtevant]

Ray Ozzie, ex-Loti and founder of Iris Associates, founded Groove.

Phone lines? Probably not, good point

[SolemnDragon]

I'll admit that you have a good point there. But i think that in this case, since he's a very high profile individual with a lot of people watching his moves, there would've been quite a fuss in the general slashdot society (i could be wrong, of course) if he'd stuck with it. SHould he leave his other work? Don't know. Maybe, maybe not. Depends on what happens now. THere are worse things than building a reputation for sticking to yer guns... maybe he'll go work in other areas, who knows. (my crystal ball is in the shop.)

Should you leave yours? probably not. Phone lines are pretty generic, and there are a lot of other people whom you're helping by working to get phone connection up and running 24/7. If you were developing a wiretapping device, AND the government were purchasing it en masse to use on citizens, AND if your particular company were determined to help out the TIA in every possible way, AND you felt very strongly about this... AND you had taken a public stand on the issue in the past... maybe so. Integrity issues and all. But you did give me stuff to think about. (nonsarcastic.) Thanks. I respect what he did because i know that i'd have to really think about it before i left MY job...

Mitchell Kapor's Bio ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... from http://www.kapor.com/homepages/mkapor/Bio299.html

For the past 15 years, Mr. Kapor has been an investor in high-technology start-up companies (through Kapor Enterprises, Inc.) and advisor to entrepreneurs. He was a founding investor of several successful start-up companies, including UUNET Technology and Real Networks. He is a director of Real Networks (RNWK), Allaire Corporation (ALLR), and Groove Networks, a new startup founded by Ray Ozzie, the developer of Lotus Notes.


Being a director of Real networks that got into so many privacy issues, I am not sure what he has done to prevent?

login: john_poindexter pass: john_poindexter

[azoidx]

appropriate, considering the topic

Re:Maybe he's leaving after seeing the new MS Offi

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft is one of the major Groove investors. Groove technology is heavily based on MS tech. So consider this: is Groove a skunkworks for MS? Will the "issues" prompting this guy's departure make its way onto the MS platform, not necessarily as Groove products, but bundled with the OS?

There is no ethical dilemma

[dmoen]

If I may paraphrase your argument, you're saying it is unethical to contribute to free/open source software, because it benefits everybody, including people who work for the TIA.

I think that's silly. What other products, other than operating system software, does the TIA use? Are the makers of all those other products also committing an ethical breach?

I believe that contributing to free/open source software is ethically good. Making the world a better place is a good thing. Generosity is a good thing. If your main concern in distributing free software that you write is: how can I manipulate the licence terms to hurt those people that I don't like, then your ethical system is in serious need of debugging.

There is a good pragmatic reason why the Free Software and Open Source rules forbid us to put restrictions into our licences forbidding our enemies from using our software. If we did that, then a software distribution containing software from thousands of different authors (like Red Hat) would have a combined enemies list that would probably prohibit just about everybody from using the software. But beyond that, I also think such restrictions are unethical.

Doug Moen.

Re:There is no ethical dilemma

[RocketScientist]

Am I saying it's unethical or unwise to release software under the GPL? Nope, but I'm saying contributors need to consider how they feel about their software being used for both good and bad purposes, and perhaps weigh in their minds whether that software is going to do more harm than good.

Ethics are the responsibility of the indivdual contributor (Ethics are always an individual responsibility), and the GPL gives you the capability to make very powerful unrevokable decisions that should be carefully considered beforehand.

Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of us are either apathetic or whores ...

Everyone smart enough to participate in a project like this understands that if a true fascist government ever took over these kinds systems would be used by them to squash any opposition. It helps prevent terrorism, and it makes an oppressive government which can not be effectively opposed possible. It goes against everything US stood for in its past ... now there are people who will embrace such a system despite its dangers, but to think most will not do it for purely selfish reasons is naive.

I agree with it in principle!

[mabhatter654]

After all, most of the "communist Dictators" get their software from US companies.

The govt may pass laws to monitor everything electronic, but it's still a free society--if enough techs refuse to work on such projects then maybe they won't happen...or at least be so screwed up they won't work.

Maybe CmdrTaco could devote a part of the YRO dept to blacklisting programmers that work on projects that are against our civil rights! Then the Open source groups could refuse patches from them, employers could refuse employment, girls could refuse to date them, etc.

Re:Maybe he's leaving after seeing the new MS Offi

[810649]

Office is not groupware. Just a suite of applications strapped together.

Find yourself...

[xmedar]

...another moist groove?

Re:Maybe he's leaving after seeing the new MS Offi

[LibertineR]

Oh wow! I'll alert the media.

Maybe it's being poisoned

[mattr]

I was enthusiastic about Groove and even recently was checking back with it to propose some projects with it. Now I won't.

I don't know how it is now, though it didn't at least in the beginning seem to be built for very large groups of collaborators (something which I myself am interested in). You couldn't use it to say, assemble thousands of pieces of information, I think.

But if you say compiled a weakened encryption algorithm into it and promoted its use by seeding it or maybe making it part of an OS, maybe even having it report back to homebase occasionally on how it is used, then yes it could be a very strong big brotherish tool, good for all kinds of law enforcement things. Think of distributed keyboard loggers.

So, my questions:
1) How can we know it ISN'T poisoned in one of these ways. Kapor has been around the block a few hundred times and I doubt he would quickly quit something so quickly.

2) How can all other collaboration software binaries be tested for poisoning if indeed the strategy has become to just poison every groupware tool around there.

3) Being paranoid as we should when we are talking about private communications and the government, we should assume that a lack of clear and detailed response from both Kapor and his equals the existence of a gag order.

4) TO CONTINUE #2 above, how can we safeguard ourselves against similarly poisoned rpms in distro cdroms/ftpsites? Should easier to use sandboxes be developed to guard against this kind of problem?

I LIKE IT TOO!

[Anonymous Coward]

the obvious question no on asks

[NetBoy]

The obvious question no one seems to ask
is *how* Groove software will be used in
TIA.

If DOD uses linux, linux is still open source
and auditable. It's not going to collaborate
automatically with DOD/TIA/DOJ.

If DOD/DOJ/TIA uses Groove, will it be
the copies in the Pentagon or the copies in
**your** office?

Sure, you can be sure they WILL NOT SHARE the
results. Poindexter says so.