I don't think your argument applies to this issue. Why would enhancing a fingerprint change a legally obtained fingerprint to one that was illegal?
Lets say police legally obtained a fingerprint and DNA evidence on a rape case. If an enhanced fingerprint leads them to a known address of the individual then I would think that you have a perfectly reasonable basis to demand a DNA sample of the suspect to see if they compare.
If the original un-enhanced evidence was illegally obtained the enhancement isn't going to change the state of it the other way either.
If you're worried about changing tape formats, why not archive a tape drive too. If you're really paranoid, archive an entire computer system.
You might also get extra security for using Open Source software on the system because then you have a chance of opening up the code and port the backup format to whatever you're currently using.
But Sony is certainly not your typical PC maker. They're backed by an enormous corportation with many lines of business other than PCs. I doubt that Sony I doubt has much fear of retribution from Microsoft.
On the other hand, a small to medium company whose primary line of business is PC systems still has plenty to fear. Specifically that their OS licensing costs might just happen to go up by their Star Office cost savings + 20% because they don't fall under the same purchase plan anymore...
Having built and bought systems for many years now, I've decided that the processor doesn't matter much for stability. If you want a stable system, you need to put thought and money into selecting a solid motherboard, chipset, and power supply.
AMD's problem is that their image is that of a "cost-saving" choice. So some system builders who use AMD go into "cost-saving" mode on all the other compenents of the system -- leading to a greater chance of instablility and a bad rep for AMD.
The DoD also must use their equipment for many years beyond the typical lifespan of a commercial software product. Look at when various peices of military equipment that's designed, rolled out, and supported for decades. Open source is perfect for this usage, as they can archive the source code for long-term maintenance.
My reaction to this story is a questiom. If evisa weren't being helped by the EFF, would they be able to afford to fully protect their rights against Visa?
I agree with you and would go a little further. Its not only their internal company environment, but the environment of market too. Unless customers are deciding to purchase one product over another due to its security features, software isn't going to get more secure.
Look at airbags in cars, the government doesn't mandate side impact airbags, but some manufacturers put them in anyway because it's a selling point that some of the customers care about.
Now, I'm sure someone is going to point out that maybe we should have gov't enforced minimum security standards. However, I'm skeptical that government would be capable of doing it sanely right now.
If Microsoft's products are so good, why do they disclaim liability on it?
Because the customers don't want to pay the added cost of reliability beyond what they need. If you want absolutely, positively bulletproof software, you're going to have to pay a higher development cost (mostly in testing, but in extra liability insurance for the company too). For safety-critical applications, customers are willing (or should be willing anyway) to pay for the additional cost , but it's ridiculous to pay for it when you don't need to. Do some googling on the cost of the space shuttle software for instance...
So if I swap mice with room next door bluetooth magically senses the swap and starts using the correct mouse? Since it goes through walls, what if the computer in the presentation room next door is closer. What then?
Having said that though, what kinds of people are that?
IBM must see a market for this type of custome who could use this niche service. Think about all the genetics data out there where you have to perform operations on massive gene databases. This would be perfect for a startup which could now put resources into hiring a small group of experts, getting the searches up and running, and not having to put a bunch of cash into setting up and supporting the actual computing cluster.
Gee, most industries are forced to find ways to reduce costs and change their products (and product packaging and delivery) when the market changes.
But that's ok, I have a better suggestion, just pass laws passing the enforcement costs of maintaining a slowly outdating business model onto the customers. Maybe you could get some help from the buggywhip manufacturers and pass some laws to require the inclusion of buggywhips with all modern automobiles while you're at it.
The corollary to this advice would be to hire a lawyer to write an NDA and hire an competent, independent cryptographer under that NDA to advise you about the novelty of your encryption approach. This will give you an idea of its worth pursuing the patent. I would think that you should explore not only the encryption algorithm, but the physical key-management apparatus that you're envisioning.
It really depends on how you look at it. I'm sure you can find abuses, but there are also major benefits to this type of funding.
For many projects, the technology developed is at a risk-level that most private companies wouldn't touch otherwise. In many cases, because of the funding source, the gov't also retains a right to use it for themselves. This is arguably the best way for the government to spin off discoveries from basic research in public labs to private companies. The discoveries pay off for the government. Society receives the benefits of the discoveries, and in the long term the IP becomes public. It's not perfect, but I don't think the practice should be abolished.
Another side benefit is that the technology funding results in a product or range of products needed by the government becoming available at a cheaper cost. The commercial companies produce the project more efficiently than the goverment could produce a good for itself (or hire a company to produce it for gov't use).
35mm is just starting to get competition from digital, but I suspect that it will be a long time before medium or large format photography will have any digital equivalent.
Spending money on security does not reduce the number of incidents or the probability or extent of loss stemming from those incidents. But allocating more budget and resources to security does not increase an organization's ability to detect loss.
I don't see how this is a useful conclusion unless you differentiate how the money is spent. It's like saying, "We keep buying our executives gold-plated wastebaskets, so why isn't our share price going up?"
It's too bad that more of the public is clueless on measures such as this. Maybe if we portray the CBDTPA as an Government mandated tax for the entertainment industry on many common electronic goods. The DRM hardware cost is borne by anyone who uses computer or consumer electronics, but all it really protects is the entertainment industry. Contrast that to many other government regulations, which impose costs on businesses, but generally to help protect the public.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think your argument applies to this issue. Why would enhancing a fingerprint change a legally obtained fingerprint to one that was illegal?
Lets say police legally obtained a fingerprint and DNA evidence on a rape case. If an enhanced fingerprint leads them to a known address of the individual then I would think that you have a perfectly reasonable basis to demand a DNA sample of the suspect to see if they compare.
If the original un-enhanced evidence was illegally obtained the enhancement isn't going to change the state of it the other way either.
And I thought drive-in movie theatres were dying off!
If you're worried about changing tape formats, why not archive a tape drive too. If you're really paranoid, archive an entire computer system.
You might also get extra security for using Open Source software on the system because then you have a chance of opening up the code and port the backup format to whatever you're currently using.
Obviously you haven't successfully completed step 3 yet. Step 2 goes as follows:
Step 2: ???
But Sony is certainly not your typical PC maker. They're backed by an enormous corportation with many lines of business other than PCs. I doubt that Sony I doubt has much fear of retribution from Microsoft.
On the other hand, a small to medium company whose primary line of business is PC systems still has plenty to fear. Specifically that their OS licensing costs might just happen to go up by their Star Office cost savings + 20% because they don't fall under the same purchase plan anymore...
Remember to re-post this comment next week when the story is repeated.
Having built and bought systems for many years now, I've decided that the processor doesn't matter much for stability. If you want a stable system, you need to put thought and money into selecting a solid motherboard, chipset, and power supply.
AMD's problem is that their image is that of a "cost-saving" choice. So some system builders who use AMD go into "cost-saving" mode on all the other compenents of the system -- leading to a greater chance of instablility and a bad rep for AMD.
The DoD also must use their equipment for many years beyond the typical lifespan of a commercial software product. Look at when various peices of military equipment that's designed, rolled out, and supported for decades. Open source is perfect for this usage, as they can archive the source code for long-term maintenance.
I beleive the work you are looking for is charisma.
My reaction to this story is a questiom. If evisa weren't being helped by the EFF, would they be able to afford to fully protect their rights against Visa?
I agree with you and would go a little further. Its not only their internal company environment, but the environment of market too. Unless customers are deciding to purchase one product over another due to its security features, software isn't going to get more secure.
Look at airbags in cars, the government doesn't mandate side impact airbags, but some manufacturers put them in anyway because it's a selling point that some of the customers care about.
Now, I'm sure someone is going to point out that maybe we should have gov't enforced minimum security standards. However, I'm skeptical that government would be capable of doing it sanely right now.
If Microsoft's products are so good, why do they disclaim liability on it?
Because the customers don't want to pay the added cost of reliability beyond what they need. If you want absolutely, positively bulletproof software, you're going to have to pay a higher development cost (mostly in testing, but in extra liability insurance for the company too). For safety-critical applications, customers are willing (or should be willing anyway) to pay for the additional cost , but it's ridiculous to pay for it when you don't need to. Do some googling on the cost of the space shuttle software for instance...
What you didn't see was the last line...
"If you can read this text, you may have already violated the DMCA."
So what does this have to do with Kevin Bacon?
So if I swap mice with room next door bluetooth magically senses the swap and starts using the correct mouse? Since it goes through walls, what if the computer in the presentation room next door is closer. What then?
Having said that though, what kinds of people are that?
IBM must see a market for this type of custome who could use this niche service. Think about all the genetics data out there where you have to perform operations on massive gene databases. This would be perfect for a startup which could now put resources into hiring a small group of experts, getting the searches up and running, and not having to put a bunch of cash into setting up and supporting the actual computing cluster.
No, I'm empirically testing some NP theories...
As some of my tax references are fond of saying: "Your personal time is worth nothing to the US government" (in terms of tax writeoffs)
But that's ok, I have a better suggestion, just pass laws passing the enforcement costs of maintaining a slowly outdating business model onto the customers. Maybe you could get some help from the buggywhip manufacturers and pass some laws to require the inclusion of buggywhips with all modern automobiles while you're at it.
Hit the snooze until you find a laptop that takes batteries in standard form factors. Heck, many PDA's now have built-in or custom fitted batteries.
The corollary to this advice would be to hire a lawyer to write an NDA and hire an competent, independent cryptographer under that NDA to advise you about the novelty of your encryption approach. This will give you an idea of its worth pursuing the patent. I would think that you should explore not only the encryption algorithm, but the physical key-management apparatus that you're envisioning.
It really depends on how you look at it. I'm sure you can find abuses, but there are also major benefits to this type of funding.
For many projects, the technology developed is at a risk-level that most private companies wouldn't touch otherwise. In many cases, because of the funding source, the gov't also retains a right to use it for themselves. This is arguably the best way for the government to spin off discoveries from basic research in public labs to private companies. The discoveries pay off for the government. Society receives the benefits of the discoveries, and in the long term the IP becomes public. It's not perfect, but I don't think the practice should be abolished.
Another side benefit is that the technology funding results in a product or range of products needed by the government becoming available at a cheaper cost. The commercial companies produce the project more efficiently than the goverment could produce a good for itself (or hire a company to produce it for gov't use).
35mm is just starting to get competition from digital, but I suspect that it will be a long time before medium or large format photography will have any digital equivalent.
Spending money on security does not reduce the number of incidents or the probability or extent of loss stemming from those incidents. But allocating more budget and resources to security does not increase an organization's ability to detect loss.
I don't see how this is a useful conclusion unless you differentiate how the money is spent. It's like saying, "We keep buying our executives gold-plated wastebaskets, so why isn't our share price going up?"
It's too bad that more of the public is clueless on measures such as this. Maybe if we portray the CBDTPA as an Government mandated tax for the entertainment industry on many common electronic goods. The DRM hardware cost is borne by anyone who uses computer or consumer electronics, but all it really protects is the entertainment industry. Contrast that to many other government regulations, which impose costs on businesses, but generally to help protect the public.