That seemed like a well thought out piece that takes a very reasonable stance. The only thing I would strongly disagree with is the implied need for mandatory Governmental back doors in encryption software. If those back doors are there, they will be found and exploited by entities other than the US govermnent. Currently "trusted" crytographic systems will no longer be able to be trusted to secure information from those engaged in industrial espionage or other criminal activities.
I clearly remember Janet Reno's comments regarding a series of Denial-of-service attacks on major websites that took place about a year ago. She basically said that the FBI would do all in their power to insure that the internet was a safe place to do business. I thought, "Does this mean the FBI is going to start fixing bugs in software and holes in protocols?" I realize that, in the case of DOS attacks, the FBI has a chance of catching the people responsible and stopping the attacks. However, the security of encryption algorithms used to secure intellectual property should stand on its own. One of the best ways to ensure the security of encryption and copyright protection software is to allow individuals who find holes in this security to publish their results, and to encourage research in these areas. The DMCA restricts this type of research and therefore perpetuates security problems. I know that members of the l0pht have explained this to our Congressional bodies. I assume that most of our legislators are very intelligent, and I cannot understand how something like the DMCA was passed. In the short term, the DMCA helps corporations sell products and provides a false sense of security to the purchasers of such software. It hurts customers and vendors, and in the long run it hurts the quality of copyrighted software available to consumers. If people cannot publicly publish research regarding software designed to secure intellectual property, then intellectual property will never be secure. Corporations often would rather hide holes in their software from customers, rather than fix the root problems that cause them. They do not want their image tarnished, nor do they wish to expend the resources needed to fix the problems. If I was trying to sell ebooks using Adobe's software, I would like to know that it is trivial for amoral individuals that don't care about copyright laws to steal my intellectual property. The only way I could know this, if I were a nontechnical author, is through published research and demonstrations of software designed to defeat this technology.
And after open source kills the useless software vending industry, and all the useless clueless management everywhere, mankind can begin to solve each and every computing problem once and for all. And, companies will have all that money to spend on R&D, price-cutting, or customer service. Suddenly, industries as a whole can compete based on the merits of their actual products, rather than the merits of their software. The IT bean counters and managers will be totally out-of-context and will either have to learn to do something useful or start picking up welfare checks. I agree. The bean-counters and middle managers will never stand for it.
Slashdot Mirror
That seemed like a well thought out piece that takes a very reasonable stance. The only thing I would strongly disagree with is the implied need for mandatory Governmental back doors in encryption software. If those back doors are there, they will be found and exploited by entities other than the US govermnent. Currently "trusted" crytographic systems will no longer be able to be trusted to secure information from those engaged in industrial espionage or other criminal activities.
Isn't this what Gnorba, Bonobo, and Evolution are for?
Must be some incredible compression LOL :)
I clearly remember Janet Reno's comments regarding a series of Denial-of-service attacks on major websites that took place about a year ago. She basically said that the FBI would do all in their power to insure that the internet was a safe place to do business. I thought, "Does this mean the FBI is going to start fixing bugs in software and holes in protocols?" I realize that, in the case of DOS attacks, the FBI has a chance of catching the people responsible and stopping the attacks. However, the security of encryption algorithms used to secure intellectual property should stand on its own. One of the best ways to ensure the security of encryption and copyright protection software is to allow individuals who find holes in this security to publish their results, and to encourage research in these areas. The DMCA restricts this type of research and therefore perpetuates security problems. I know that members of the l0pht have explained this to our Congressional bodies. I assume that most of our legislators are very intelligent, and I cannot understand how something like the DMCA was passed. In the short term, the DMCA helps corporations sell products and provides a false sense of security to the purchasers of such software. It hurts customers and vendors, and in the long run it hurts the quality of copyrighted software available to consumers. If people cannot publicly publish research regarding software designed to secure intellectual property, then intellectual property will never be secure. Corporations often would rather hide holes in their software from customers, rather than fix the root problems that cause them. They do not want their image tarnished, nor do they wish to expend the resources needed to fix the problems. If I was trying to sell ebooks using Adobe's software, I would like to know that it is trivial for amoral individuals that don't care about copyright laws to steal my intellectual property. The only way I could know this, if I were a nontechnical author, is through published research and demonstrations of software designed to defeat this technology.
Or, when all the huge software companies crumble, it will cause the global economy to collapse, and martial law will be declared and we will all die.
And after open source kills the useless software vending industry, and all the useless clueless management everywhere, mankind can begin to solve each and every computing problem once and for all. And, companies will have all that money to spend on R&D, price-cutting, or customer service. Suddenly, industries as a whole can compete based on the merits of their actual products, rather than the merits of their software. The IT bean counters and managers will be totally out-of-context and will either have to learn to do something useful or start picking up welfare checks. I agree. The bean-counters and middle managers will never stand for it.