As another poster pointed out, this is the case IN THE US. I believe this practice is illegal in the UK - there was a case during the 80's where it was deemed illegal to monitor the keystrokes of typing pool members. The reason was something to do with placing undue stress on employees (the employers would simply fire anyone who didn't maintain a minimum rate - not that they were being treated like lab-rats or anything). Can anyone else remember this?
On the crypto issue, I never understood why the US Gov. persisted restricting export. Full strength crypto has always been available outside the US, despite the government's delusions; the only thing the restrictions achieved was to hurt US companies trying to export technology.
Slashdot Mirror
They're big in Oz too. Try here The name changes are usual marketing gumf. The machines are the same deal.
Ummm - my point precisely - why does the US insist on enforcing the unenforcable? There is a paradox at work here:
US: Can't export Strong Crypto!
World - US:We don't care - already have it! Are you stupid?
US: Can't export Strong Crypto!
ad infinitum...
The only sector affected by the export restrictions is US industry!
Jean Baudrillard seems to have quite a bit to say on the subject of consumer societies and how corporations drive those societies.
As another poster pointed out, this is the case IN THE US. I believe this practice is illegal in the UK - there was a case during the 80's where it was deemed illegal to monitor the keystrokes of typing pool members. The reason was something to do with placing undue stress on employees (the employers would simply fire anyone who didn't maintain a minimum rate - not that they were being treated like lab-rats or anything). Can anyone else remember this?
On the crypto issue, I never understood why the US Gov. persisted restricting export. Full strength crypto has always been available outside the US, despite the government's delusions; the only thing the restrictions achieved was to hurt US companies trying to export technology.