I have never understood online gamers whining about their right to cheat.
People are not claiming the right to cheat: I have never heard anybody complain that online chess servers don't allow them to log in and remove the other guys queen while he is taking a bathroom break. Nor have I ever heard anybody claiming that this is their right.
This is not about a right to cheat, it is about the right to hack and modify your own computer and any software that runs on it. And that is a right that people do have - no matter how sinister or anti-social their motivations for doing so.
Let us hope that gamers that want to use platforms that control them rather than lie within their control do move to consoles and proprietary gaming services - better that then have the computers of those of us who use them for real things invaded your hideous user hostile technology (ie, palladium).
How about rather than pointing a camera like this at the girl next door, you just give her one of the 802.11b units so she can secure her house, and then sit back and pick up the signal through your Pringles tube?
I mean seriously, given it's notorious lack of security, isn't mounting a _security_ camera via 802.11b suicide? Broadcasting who is in the building out over the entire neighborhood seems _slightly_ counterproductive for burgulary protection (not to speak of privacy!) It seems to me that security should be the prime concern for any such purchase, yet I find little or no mention of it in the article (the D-Link unit mentions WEP passing, but we all know how great that is...)
That picture is an alteration of Salvador Dali's painting "Crucifixion (Corpus Hypercubus)", which is of Jesus's crucifixion on a 4-dimensional cross.
It's not a four dimensional cross, it is a four dimensional cube folded out into three dimensions (like how a three dimensional cube folds out into a two dimensional cross).
Why does it matter more then if people take the wrong street and end up at the porn store at 1700 Maple Street instead of the Ford dealership at 1700 Elm Street? Or call 1-900-5551234 to a phonesex service instead of 1-800-5551234 to Ford's customer service?
Domain names are not keywords. Domain names are not keywords. Domain names are not keywords. ARG.
(I use UHT == "User Hostile Technology" instead of "DRM" because I refuse to buy into the doublespeak.)
I get troubled when I read stuff like this from well meaning people who talk about the possibility of reasonable UHT because it implies an acceptance of something that, if wish to remain free, we can never ever accept: that our hardware and software should be telling us what we can and cannot do.
UHT is evil even when you agree with what it does, and even when it serves a clear utilitarian service. Good UHT is as much contradiction in terms as good dictatorship and just like with dictatorship the intention does not matter.
As we move further into the information age, we will grow more and more dependent on our computers as part of our lives, and as part of ourselves. We use them to communicate, to speak, and to be heard, and in many ways they must be seen as extentions of ourselves into cyberspace. In that context, we must recognize the immense power that the programs we run exercise over ourselves, and the incredible danger that is posed if those programs ultimately serve not to enable us but to control us.
Just like your lawyer cannot turn you in for the good of society, and your doctor cannot kill you to save two others, programmers and programs must act primarily in the interest of you, the user, and not society. Nobody should ever be compelled to run a program that acts against them, be it "reasonable" or not!
Well, the obvious absolutist answer to how the programmer should eat is: he should get a job. Either something computer related or not, but since most programmers can't reasonably earn a living writing Free software, probably not directly related to producing software.
Now, of course, you can argue that if programmers have to work elsewhere, and do not actually get any tangible benefits from writing the software itself, there will be a lot less software written. That is almost denfinitely true, but remember that Stallman does not use proprietary software at all, and he truly believes that people who do so loose a large part of their freedom, so the amount of proprietary software that is produced simply does not matter to him. He would be happier in a world with 10 units of free software then one with 1000 units that is not free.
From a societal point of view, it can also be argued that a world where the people who are best at programming spend a good part of their time doing something they are less good at for a living is inherently inefficient. That is probably true as well, but the system of proprietary software is also inherently inefficient - it encourages redundant duplication of effort, and the locking in of knowledge. In many ways, the current success of free software seems to indicate that it is quite efficient in comparison.
For anybody who, like Stallman, believes that using free software is necessary to maintain our freedom , the question of how the programmer should make a living becomes a irrelevant. Because the it's not about the programmer, it's about the user. It is not difficult to see why not all programmers like this, but you cannot discard the principal for that.
So next the machine should start automatically making donations from my credit card to Tivo, and that would be OK, because it is in my interest that Tivo stay in business?
Keeping Tivo in business is not in my interest, it is in the interest of Tivo stock holders. Making the machines communications protocol non-proprietary and configurable so that I can turn somewhere else for the programming tables should Tivo croak is in my interest.
His point is that if you pay for the Tivo service, you get the Tivo service and all the things that come along with it. Just like you pay for Internet service. If your ISP decides not to route port 80 traffic to you, they have that right, and you have the right to cancel your service if you don't agree with it.
Any service you are paying for covers only what data is sent from Tivo to you (as with your ISP). If Tivo uses the services to make the machine do things that are not in your interest, then they are using it to control you.
By the same token, you could argue that Linux is a freedom-taking monster. Who the hell is Linus Torvalds to tell me that I can't overwrite my boot partition with a bunch of zeros?
No, it would be equivalent to Linux (being proprietary and) requiring that a large section of my computer resources were set aside to be used for things in the interests of Linus Torvalds rather than me.
The boot partition is there to be used in my interest. Tivo takes a machine I bought and decides that space should be made inaccessible to me so it can used in their interest. The difference could not be more clear.
There's no "control" issue here. [...] It's also not using up any available disk space, because the space it's stored in is restricted to TiVo software and brand content.
And that is not a control issue? If I buy the damn machine, who the hell are Tivo to tell me which parts of the harddrive I can use for what?
It is scary to think that modern consumers have become so accustomed to giving up there freedoms to machines, that you could write the above without realising that it is a contradiction in terms. Go reread everything that Stallman has written until you undertsand why it is not OK when software decides what we do instead of vice versa.
Re:One thing I've NEVER seen here....
on
Fair IP Laws?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
We dislike software patents because we do not see software as a product. We do not pay for the software that we use, and we do not charge for the software that we write.
Patents make (some) sense when a product is involved: if you want to produce my invention as a product, then you have to share some of profits with me. If the product is a physical thing, then it is produced and sold in a market, so there is always money involved. Since our software is not sold (many of us (see other posts) don't even believe it makes sense to treat information as something that can be sold) there is never any money involved: none for us, and none to share with the patent holder.
In essence, there are two different ways of looking at software: as product that can be sold, and as community developed and Free. These two dichotic attitudes can coexist right now because for the most part there is little intersection: my computer does not run a single proprietary program, and I have no need to. I don't bother people who do sell software, and they don't bother me. But software patents break this boundary: they are legal invasions by those who view software as a product into the world of us who don't. If an algorithm that we need for that program is patented - that does not compell us to play fair with the patent holder, that restricts us completely from having anything to do with it.
Ask us what we feel about software patents if they affected only proprietary software and left free software alone, and I think most of us wouldn't really care. The business people can play there little games ad infinum for all I care.
Also, you ask for "CONSTRUCTIVE" criticism against software patents - but the person in support of patents is the one asking for proactive legislation. Why don't you give "CONSTRUCTIVE" reasons why software patents are needed? Most studies have found that they are not economically beneficial at all, and there are many examples of how software patents hold entire fields back (look at encryption - modern encryption was invented in the late 70s, yet it was nearly unused when the patents expired in the late nineties, only to have become an everyday thing today).
Re:Already approaching from the wrong direction
on
64kbps @ 40,000 ft.
·
· Score: 2
Um, 802.11b operates on frequencies that are free for use without a license because they are within the bands that are flooded with interference from microwave ovens. Obviously, those frequencies were not a problem when they were needed for something that really matters to the airlines (making sure the food tastes as little as is chemically possible).
Around here, a three year fixed price will get you 2.3 cents per kiloWatthour. One year is 8766 hours, so 300 Watts draws 2629.8 kWhs per year, or about $60. So the original poster gets a better price for electricity then I do (I live in a country with high energy taxes and no fossil fuel electricity), but I can't believe it would cost $300 anywhere.
One fifth of the $470 is VAT (ah, the wonders of socialist life...), so the actual price is $376, with the 80 bucks being the typical European writeup.
There isn't enough bandwidth in the HAM frequencies anyways. There are other bands that are completely unlicensed, though typically they are supposed to be limited to low range use (although at least here in Europe there are unlicensed walky-talky bands with typical usage over several kilometers).
If I wanted to put up pictures from my vacation, I'd use the web and HTTP protocol - everyone has it and there is no content problem with my pictures. I wouldn't ask my friends to download (and compile!) a tool and pass around PGP keys.
Don't count on it, companies have successfully sued for copyright ownership of the image of their buildings. I believe the landmark case was the rock and roll hall of fame building, so at least if you went to Cleveland (he) you probably cannot freely post your pictures.
Liberalism may have followed your definition at one point, but by your definition, the Democratic Party is not a liberal party.
You are correct, it isn't. The American Democtatic party has some very unliberal policies. This is not a secret to anybody except Americans who apparently thought it was more convenient to misunderstand the term "liberal" instead of accepting it.
The political philosophy that you have described is libertarianism, not liberalism.
Absolutely not. Libertarianism is a liberal political ideal in some areas, but it goes far beyond liberalism in it's absolutist attitudes regarding things like private property.
I can't believe such blatent misinformation got modded up. This phony perception of liberalism being equivalent to socialism is a common misconception among Americans, but I thought that at least some people around here knew better.
Liberalism has a meaning. It is a political philosophy that puts individual liberty and freedom as the natural and desired state of human beings, and dictates that burden of proof must always fall on any person or law that infringes on individual liberty in any way (that is, speed limits are ok even though the limit freedom, as long as we can show that they do great good to make up for it.)
Liberalism should be contrasted to a conservative political philosophy, which means that the burden of proof always falls on people and laws that change the current situation. That is if there is currently a law that infringes on peoples freedom, the liberal will say, "Show me why we need this law, or I will get rid of it," while the conservative says, "Show me why we would be better off without this law, or it stays."
It makes my skin crawl every time I hear an American attacking liberals as wanting less freedom and more laws. If somebody wants that then they are BY DEFENITION not liberal, regardless of what they, the media, their opponents, or anybody else says. Nor does liberalism have anything to do with socialism, which is a political system (not really a philosophy) that tries to even out social injustices. There are people who combine the two under the argument that people without money are having their basic freedoms infringed by the economic system, but that is neither universally held nor in any way inherent to being a liberal.
If you think that, all things equal, people should be as free to do whatever they want as is possible, then you are liberal. It doesn't matter if you find that hard to swallow because you are American and don't like the people who call themselves liberals around you, or whether you despise Al Gore, or whatever. Get over it, and learn the meaning of term before you attack it.
The DRM systems have not been "cracked wide open". They have only been cracked to an extent that you have to go through an explicit effort to circumvent them, a greater effort than the average Joe will expend (this is unlike mp3 which has no DRM at all, so that the avg Joe can copy freely).
Absolutely not true. All the systems I listed have been broken to the point where a simple point and click application that any Joe could use could be made. The only thing keeping these out of Joe's hands are regulations like the DMCA, which are inherently futile because if they could keep people from copying 100kB applications, then the spread of 60 MB mp3 albums would not be a problem.
Also, the presence of DRM helps honest people (which does not include the slashdot faithful, judging from the posts on this story) stay honest. That is to say, if one has to take explicit action to circumvent DRM, he will realize that it is illegal, and will be less likely to do it.
Do you realize how low you have sunk when you welcome your shackles on the grounds that they will help keep you honest? It is high time that together with your beloved shackles we implement telescreens, neighbor informants, and all those other lovely things that "help keep honest people honest." It is unbelievable that in this day and age some people have not learned a thing about the meaning of liberty.
Face facts. In the near future all commercial intellectual property will be protected by DRM systems, and widespread pirating will be drastically curtailed. Only "expert" pirates (read "crooks") will be doing any pirating; this will limit pirating only to Slashdot whiners that 1) are too poor to by intellectual property, and 2) think nothing about stealing, and in fact think that they have a "right" to steal.
Such systems will be implemented, but they will continue to be cracked, and the enemy will have to upgrade their arsenal - making the user hostility more obvious, the systems more obstrusive, and the "false positives" keeping people from doing what they want to do with data more common. The tighter they clamp their fist, the more insulted, angered, disillusioned users will slip through their fingers and become "crooks" (Oh, how much rather I'll be a crook to you then somebody willing to sell out his species to bondage of corporations and machines!) or simply stop bothering with that which the enemy spews out all together.
Slashdot Mirror
I have never understood online gamers whining about their right to cheat.
People are not claiming the right to cheat: I have never heard anybody complain that online chess servers don't allow them to log in and remove the other guys queen while he is taking a bathroom break. Nor have I ever heard anybody claiming that this is their right.
This is not about a right to cheat, it is about the right to hack and modify your own computer and any software that runs on it. And that is a right that people do have - no matter how sinister or anti-social their motivations for doing so.
Let us hope that gamers that want to use platforms that control them rather than lie within their control do move to consoles and proprietary gaming services - better that then have the computers of those of us who use them for real things invaded your hideous user hostile technology (ie, palladium).
How about rather than pointing a camera like this at the girl next door, you just give her one of the 802.11b units so she can secure her house, and then sit back and pick up the signal through your Pringles tube?
I mean seriously, given it's notorious lack of security, isn't mounting a _security_ camera via 802.11b suicide? Broadcasting who is in the building out over the entire neighborhood seems _slightly_ counterproductive for burgulary protection (not to speak of privacy!) It seems to me that security should be the prime concern for any such purchase, yet I find little or no mention of it in the article (the D-Link unit mentions WEP passing, but we all know how great that is...)
You didn't say the magic words:
"I'll be modded down for this."
(btw, I'll be modded down for pointing this out.)
IFF that caption accurately represents the Hollywood interpretation of Arthur C. Clark's masterpiece the movie will not be worth seeing.
Hardly "IFF" - you have sufficiency, but clearly not necessity (I'm sure Hollywood can find endless ways of making the movie not worth seeing.)
That picture is an alteration of Salvador Dali's painting "Crucifixion (Corpus Hypercubus)", which is of Jesus's crucifixion on a 4-dimensional cross.
It's not a four dimensional cross, it is a four dimensional cube folded out into three dimensions (like how a three dimensional cube folds out into a two dimensional cross).
Why does it matter more then if people take the wrong street and end up at the porn store at 1700 Maple Street instead of the Ford dealership at 1700 Elm Street? Or call 1-900-5551234 to a phonesex service instead of 1-800-5551234 to Ford's customer service?
Domain names are not keywords. Domain names are not keywords. Domain names are not keywords. ARG.
(I use UHT == "User Hostile Technology" instead of "DRM" because I refuse to buy into the doublespeak.)
I get troubled when I read stuff like this from well meaning people who talk about the possibility of reasonable UHT because it implies an acceptance of something that, if wish to remain free, we can never ever accept: that our hardware and software should be telling us what we can and cannot do.
UHT is evil even when you agree with what it does, and even when it serves a clear utilitarian service. Good UHT is as much contradiction in terms as good dictatorship and just like with dictatorship the intention does not matter.
As we move further into the information age, we will grow more and more dependent on our computers as part of our lives, and as part of ourselves. We use them to communicate, to speak, and to be heard, and in many ways they must be seen as extentions of ourselves into cyberspace. In that context, we must recognize the immense power that the programs we run exercise over ourselves, and the incredible danger that is posed if those programs ultimately serve not to enable us but to control us.
Just like your lawyer cannot turn you in for the good of society, and your doctor cannot kill you to save two others, programmers and programs must act primarily in the interest of you, the user, and not society. Nobody should ever be compelled to run a program that acts against them, be it "reasonable" or not!
No programmers means no free software, after all.
And programmers only writing proprietary software means no software for people who will not use proprietary software either.
Well, the obvious absolutist answer to how the programmer should eat is: he should get a job. Either something computer related or not, but since most programmers can't reasonably earn a living writing Free software, probably not directly related to producing software.
Now, of course, you can argue that if programmers have to work elsewhere, and do not actually get any tangible benefits from writing the software itself, there will be a lot less software written. That is almost denfinitely true, but remember that Stallman does not use proprietary software at all, and he truly believes that people who do so loose a large part of their freedom, so the amount of proprietary software that is produced simply does not matter to him. He would be happier in a world with 10 units of free software then one with 1000 units that is not free.
From a societal point of view, it can also be argued that a world where the people who are best at programming spend a good part of their time doing something they are less good at for a living is inherently inefficient. That is probably true as well, but the system of proprietary software is also inherently inefficient - it encourages redundant duplication of effort, and the locking in of knowledge. In many ways, the current success of free software seems to indicate that it is quite efficient in comparison.
For anybody who, like Stallman, believes that using free software is necessary to maintain our freedom , the question of how the programmer should make a living becomes a irrelevant. Because the it's not about the programmer, it's about the user. It is not difficult to see why not all programmers like this, but you cannot discard the principal for that.
So next the machine should start automatically making donations from my credit card to Tivo, and that would be OK, because it is in my interest that Tivo stay in business?
Keeping Tivo in business is not in my interest, it is in the interest of Tivo stock holders. Making the machines communications protocol non-proprietary and configurable so that I can turn somewhere else for the programming tables should Tivo croak is in my interest.
His point is that if you pay for the Tivo service, you get the Tivo service and all the things that come along with it. Just like you pay for Internet service. If your ISP decides not to route port 80 traffic to you, they have that right, and you have the right to cancel your service if you don't agree with it.
Any service you are paying for covers only what data is sent from Tivo to you (as with your ISP). If Tivo uses the services to make the machine do things that are not in your interest, then they are using it to control you.
By the same token, you could argue that Linux is a freedom-taking monster. Who the hell is Linus Torvalds to tell me that I can't overwrite my boot partition with a bunch of zeros?
No, it would be equivalent to Linux (being proprietary and) requiring that a large section of my computer resources were set aside to be used for things in the interests of Linus Torvalds rather than me.
The boot partition is there to be used in my interest. Tivo takes a machine I bought and decides that space should be made inaccessible to me so it can used in their interest. The difference could not be more clear.
There's no "control" issue here. [...] It's also not using up any available disk space, because the space it's stored in is restricted to TiVo software and brand content.
And that is not a control issue? If I buy the damn machine, who the hell are Tivo to tell me which parts of the harddrive I can use for what?
It is scary to think that modern consumers have become so accustomed to giving up there freedoms to machines, that you could write the above without realising that it is a contradiction in terms. Go reread everything that Stallman has written until you undertsand why it is not OK when software decides what we do instead of vice versa.
We dislike software patents because we do not see software as a product. We do not pay for the software that we use, and we do not charge for the software that we write.
Patents make (some) sense when a product is involved: if you want to produce my invention as a product, then you have to share some of profits with me. If the product is a physical thing, then it is produced and sold in a market, so there is always money involved. Since our software is not sold (many of us (see other posts) don't even believe it makes sense to treat information as something that can be sold) there is never any money involved: none for us, and none to share with the patent holder.
In essence, there are two different ways of looking at software: as product that can be sold, and as community developed and Free. These two dichotic attitudes can coexist right now because for the most part there is little intersection: my computer does not run a single proprietary program, and I have no need to. I don't bother people who do sell software, and they don't bother me. But software patents break this boundary: they are legal invasions by those who view software as a product into the world of us who don't. If an algorithm that we need for that program is patented - that does not compell us to play fair with the patent holder, that restricts us completely from having anything to do with it.
Ask us what we feel about software patents if they affected only proprietary software and left free software alone, and I think most of us wouldn't really care. The business people can play there little games ad infinum for all I care.
Also, you ask for "CONSTRUCTIVE" criticism against software patents - but the person in support of patents is the one asking for proactive legislation. Why don't you give "CONSTRUCTIVE" reasons why software patents are needed? Most studies have found that they are not economically beneficial at all, and there are many examples of how software patents hold entire fields back (look at encryption - modern encryption was invented in the late 70s, yet it was nearly unused when the patents expired in the late nineties, only to have become an everyday thing today).
Um, 802.11b operates on frequencies that are free for use without a license because they are within the bands that are flooded with interference from microwave ovens. Obviously, those frequencies were not a problem when they were needed for something that really matters to the airlines (making sure the food tastes as little as is chemically possible).
Around here, a three year fixed price will get you 2.3 cents per kiloWatthour. One year is 8766 hours, so 300 Watts draws 2629.8 kWhs per year, or about $60. So the original poster gets a better price for electricity then I do (I live in a country with high energy taxes and no fossil fuel electricity), but I can't believe it would cost $300 anywhere.
One fifth of the $470 is VAT (ah, the wonders of socialist life...), so the actual price is $376, with the 80 bucks being the typical European writeup.
There isn't enough bandwidth in the HAM frequencies anyways. There are other bands that are completely unlicensed, though typically they are supposed to be limited to low range use (although at least here in Europe there are unlicensed walky-talky bands with typical usage over several kilometers).
If I wanted to put up pictures from my vacation, I'd use the web and HTTP protocol - everyone has it and there is no content problem with my pictures. I wouldn't ask my friends to download (and compile!) a tool and pass around PGP keys.
Don't count on it, companies have successfully sued for copyright ownership of the image of their buildings. I believe the landmark case was the rock and roll hall of fame building, so at least if you went to Cleveland (he) you probably cannot freely post your pictures.
I said nt.
Liberalism may have followed your definition at one point, but by your definition, the Democratic Party is not a liberal party.
You are correct, it isn't. The American Democtatic party has some very unliberal policies. This is not a secret to anybody except Americans who apparently thought it was more convenient to misunderstand the term "liberal" instead of accepting it.
The political philosophy that you have described is libertarianism, not liberalism.
Absolutely not. Libertarianism is a liberal political ideal in some areas, but it goes far beyond liberalism in it's absolutist attitudes regarding things like private property.
I can't believe such blatent misinformation got modded up. This phony perception of liberalism being equivalent to socialism is a common misconception among Americans, but I thought that at least some people around here knew better.
Liberalism has a meaning. It is a political philosophy that puts individual liberty and freedom as the natural and desired state of human beings, and dictates that burden of proof must always fall on any person or law that infringes on individual liberty in any way (that is, speed limits are ok even though the limit freedom, as long as we can show that they do great good to make up for it.)
Liberalism should be contrasted to a conservative political philosophy, which means that the burden of proof always falls on people and laws that change the current situation. That is if there is currently a law that infringes on peoples freedom, the liberal will say, "Show me why we need this law, or I will get rid of it," while the conservative says, "Show me why we would be better off without this law, or it stays."
It makes my skin crawl every time I hear an American attacking liberals as wanting less freedom and more laws. If somebody wants that then they are BY DEFENITION not liberal, regardless of what they, the media, their opponents, or anybody else says. Nor does liberalism have anything to do with socialism, which is a political system (not really a philosophy) that tries to even out social injustices. There are people who combine the two under the argument that people without money are having their basic freedoms infringed by the economic system, but that is neither universally held nor in any way inherent to being a liberal.
If you think that, all things equal, people should be as free to do whatever they want as is possible, then you are liberal. It doesn't matter if you find that hard to swallow because you are American and don't like the people who call themselves liberals around you, or whether you despise Al Gore, or whatever. Get over it, and learn the meaning of term before you attack it.
javac is written in java. IBMs "jikes" is a java compiler in C, which is why it is so much faster.
I haven't read physics since highschool, but IIRC Watts measures power which is energy / time. So 300 Watts running for 2 hours 10 minutes would draw:
300 W * (130 * 60 s) = 2,340,000 Joules
to gain that many Joules in 10 minutes would take
2,340,000 J / 600 s = 3,900 Watts
which isn't quite 4,500, but not far enough off to make the numbers ridiculous.
Any physics majors willing to correct me?
The DRM systems have not been "cracked wide open". They have only been cracked to an extent that you have to go through an explicit effort to circumvent them, a greater effort than the average Joe will expend (this is unlike mp3 which has no DRM at all, so that the avg Joe can copy freely).
Absolutely not true. All the systems I listed have been broken to the point where a simple point and click application that any Joe could use could be made. The only thing keeping these out of Joe's hands are regulations like the DMCA, which are inherently futile because if they could keep people from copying 100kB applications, then the spread of 60 MB mp3 albums would not be a problem.
Also, the presence of DRM helps honest people (which does not include the slashdot faithful, judging from the posts on this story) stay honest. That is to say, if one has to take explicit action to circumvent DRM, he will realize that it is illegal, and will be less likely to do it.
Do you realize how low you have sunk when you welcome your shackles on the grounds that they will help keep you honest? It is high time that together with your beloved shackles we implement telescreens, neighbor informants, and all those other lovely things that "help keep honest people honest." It is unbelievable that in this day and age some people have not learned a thing about the meaning of liberty.
Face facts. In the near future all commercial intellectual property will be protected by DRM systems, and widespread pirating will be drastically curtailed. Only "expert" pirates (read "crooks") will be doing any pirating; this will limit pirating only to Slashdot whiners that 1) are too poor to by intellectual property, and 2) think nothing about stealing, and in fact think that they have a "right" to steal.
Such systems will be implemented, but they will continue to be cracked, and the enemy will have to upgrade their arsenal - making the user hostility more obvious, the systems more obstrusive, and the "false positives" keeping people from doing what they want to do with data more common. The tighter they clamp their fist, the more insulted, angered, disillusioned users will slip through their fingers and become "crooks" (Oh, how much rather I'll be a crook to you then somebody willing to sell out his species to bondage of corporations and machines!) or simply stop bothering with that which the enemy spews out all together.