I think the problem actually how much you trust whoever is doing the 'crypto' thingy... And given MS's great care for the consumer (remember NSA_*? forced upgrades?), and its record with fixing stuff ASAP when it's their ass on the line ("Bugs in IIS? Don't tell anyone!"), you find the community ungrateful?
And when MS officially declares Linux and GPL a 'virus', and has the power and willingness to coerce OEMs in selling whatever it wants to (no dualboot machines -- this has been proven in court, mind you), like hardware that cannot run Linux... Just connect the dots.
Crypto in every home -- ever heard of PGP and GPG? It's possible; more, it's done, here and now. People don't care for it that much, actually. The degree of security an unencrypted mail offers is pretty much the same as for snail mail. Would you use a steel locked box to send a mail to Grandma?
For what's worth, it's probably happening everywhere else... Scale and incidental public exposure are the most likely to vary, but that's about all that varies.
Give a man a hammer, he'll start seeing nails all around him... Give a goverment means to spy on it's citizens, it'll start seeing enemies all around the place...
--
And on the seventh day, God was arrested for tresspassing.
Your trust model idea sounds a lot like PGP... And it works just fine, IMO (I use it on a regular basis for professional contacts); so this should work as well. Of course, you'd still need some central database, where everyone would start from...
I fail to understand why RMS sees GPL as a panaceea. I think freedom is choice, and when the only thing I can choose is GPL (or Linux, or Windows, or Mozilla, or whatever), I have no freedom. When I can choose between closed source and open source, between BSD, GPL, public licence, Mozilla licence, between Mozilla, Netscape, Galleon, Konqueror, Internet Explorer (yes, damn it! some people actually want that, so live with it!), and so on, I have freedom. When one of them is no longer a choice, I have less freedom.
This is why I belive Linux is good for the 'masses': not because of it's technical superiority (you think Harry Homeowner gets much out of it? many barely understand that box with a TV-like thing next to it, just like many barely understand cars, for what's worth, and forcing either to get to understand the insides helps nobody), but because it's one more choice. And along with it, come many other choices one can make.
Of course, the next thing one can think of is the concept of 'informed choice', but hey, this is not a perfect world:)
Slashdot Mirror
I think the problem actually how much you trust whoever is doing the 'crypto' thingy... And given MS's great care for the consumer (remember NSA_*? forced upgrades?), and its record with fixing stuff ASAP when it's their ass on the line ("Bugs in IIS? Don't tell anyone!"), you find the community ungrateful?
And when MS officially declares Linux and GPL a 'virus', and has the power and willingness to coerce OEMs in selling whatever it wants to (no dualboot machines -- this has been proven in court, mind you), like hardware that cannot run Linux... Just connect the dots.
Crypto in every home -- ever heard of PGP and GPG? It's possible; more, it's done, here and now. People don't care for it that much, actually. The degree of security an unencrypted mail offers is pretty much the same as for snail mail. Would you use a steel locked box to send a mail to Grandma?
-silent
... or never admitted to have lost? :)
For what's worth, it's probably happening everywhere else... Scale and incidental public exposure are the most likely to vary, but that's about all that varies.
Give a man a hammer, he'll start seeing nails all around him... Give a goverment means to spy on it's citizens, it'll start seeing enemies all around the place...
--
And on the seventh day, God was arrested for tresspassing.
Your trust model idea sounds a lot like PGP... And it works just fine, IMO (I use it on a regular basis for professional contacts); so this should work as well. Of course, you'd still need some central database, where everyone would start from...
Right on.
:)
I fail to understand why RMS sees GPL as a panaceea. I think freedom is choice, and when the only thing I can choose is GPL (or Linux, or Windows, or Mozilla, or whatever), I have no freedom. When I can choose between closed source and open source, between BSD, GPL, public licence, Mozilla licence, between Mozilla, Netscape, Galleon, Konqueror, Internet Explorer (yes, damn it! some people actually want that, so live with it!), and so on, I have freedom. When one of them is no longer a choice, I have less freedom.
This is why I belive Linux is good for the 'masses': not because of it's technical superiority (you think Harry Homeowner gets much out of it? many barely understand that box with a TV-like thing next to it, just like many barely understand cars, for what's worth, and forcing either to get to understand the insides helps nobody), but because it's one more choice. And along with it, come many other choices one can make.
Of course, the next thing one can think of is the concept of 'informed choice', but hey, this is not a perfect world