it seems apparrent that their policy is ill-considered- requiring people to have identities online will simply commoditize identities for those intent on doing what the gov't thinks they shouldn't- a brisk trade will sprout in used or forged or stolen identities overnight. As ever, those intent on working around the rules will continue to find a way to do so... leaving everyone else with more or less a great big hoop to jump through in order to conduct their online affairs.
It's not like people are truly anonymous on the net- with the right amount of legwork, some tools, and some data to begin with, your activities online can be documented relatively easily- the distinction today is that it's a great big bother. In short, the fact that it's difficult to dig dirt on you is what keeps most people from doing it- and their solution is to require you to do their digging for them. If this were going on in the US, I imagine the ACLU would have something to say about that with regard to it's 5th amendment implications. In any case, there's not much difference (assuming some degree of competence on the part of investigators as net hunters) between the status quo and their proposed policy.
I'm actually reminded of the US policy to prohibit encryption that they can't break- a stupid plan that merely set back security development in the US.
More disturbing, perhaps, is the idea that net activity must be controlled and audited- and it's going to be disturbing in different ways to different people- and the sort of extensions this policy might see in the future. Many rules we see online are simple extensions of rules or controls already in place in 'real-space'- this is disturbing in that it is not.
Haxors and such will need to find a new MO when traipsing through unauthorized lands. Not a big deal, they'll survive, it's what they do.
Folks for whom much of the net's appeal lies in relative anonymity and freedom will be perturbed at the specter of Big Brother, in the form of low-level bureaucrats, perusing logs of their online activity.
Folks who feel they've got something to hide may need to abandon the net as a resource, or else join the ranks investing in new or forged identities.
Are you really arguing that Linux is not proceeding on it's own merits?...or crediting it's long-arrived success to the actions of the DOJ? I honestly don't think the DOJ or Judge Jackson deserves the credit- it belongs with the people who've developed it and made it what it is, rather than to the government. Our politicians may claim credit, but don't be fooled- they were cheerleaders, while other people were running with the ball.
I think you're underestimating Linux, or overestimating the degree of control MS has on the market, or both.
Keep in mind that MS hasn't changed any of it's business practices- it's still convinced that it's just playing hardball, and that this is OK.
Given this info... I'd say that this *is* a coincidence... in my opinion.
Slashdot Mirror
it seems apparrent that their policy is ill-considered- requiring people to have identities online will simply commoditize identities for those intent on doing what the gov't thinks they shouldn't- a brisk trade will sprout in used or forged or stolen identities overnight. As ever, those intent on working around the rules will continue to find a way to do so... leaving everyone else with more or less a great big hoop to jump through in order to conduct their online affairs.
It's not like people are truly anonymous on the net- with the right amount of legwork, some tools, and some data to begin with, your activities online can be documented relatively easily- the distinction today is that it's a great big bother. In short, the fact that it's difficult to dig dirt on you is what keeps most people from doing it- and their solution is to require you to do their digging for them. If this were going on in the US, I imagine the ACLU would have something to say about that with regard to it's 5th amendment implications. In any case, there's not much difference (assuming some degree of competence on the part of investigators as net hunters) between the status quo and their proposed policy.
I'm actually reminded of the US policy to prohibit encryption that they can't break- a stupid plan that merely set back security development in the US.
More disturbing, perhaps, is the idea that net activity must be controlled and audited- and it's going to be disturbing in different ways to different people- and the sort of extensions this policy might see in the future. Many rules we see online are simple extensions of rules or controls already in place in 'real-space'- this is disturbing in that it is not.
Haxors and such will need to find a new MO when traipsing through unauthorized lands. Not a big deal, they'll survive, it's what they do. Folks for whom much of the net's appeal lies in relative anonymity and freedom will be perturbed at the specter of Big Brother, in the form of low-level bureaucrats, perusing logs of their online activity.
Folks who feel they've got something to hide may need to abandon the net as a resource, or else join the ranks investing in new or forged identities.
Are you really arguing that Linux is not proceeding on it's own merits? ...or crediting it's long-arrived success to the actions of the DOJ? I honestly don't think the DOJ or Judge Jackson deserves the credit- it belongs with the people who've developed it and made it what it is, rather than to the government. Our politicians may claim credit, but don't be fooled- they were cheerleaders, while other people were running with the ball.
I think you're underestimating Linux, or overestimating the degree of control MS has on the market, or both.
Keep in mind that MS hasn't changed any of it's business practices- it's still convinced that it's just playing hardball, and that this is OK.
Given this info... I'd say that this *is* a coincidence... in my opinion.