Heh heh. You and me both. But the problem is with the people who aren't smarter than the compiler but "think" they are and manage to convince the management that they are. When the bad things happen it gets blamed on the language and consequently good programmers get forced into using VB.
IANAL hence I am a little confused...
Doesn't DeCSS still violate the DMCA? I don't think the DMCA has been at issue here but considering that DeCSS can be viewed as a means to circumvent copy-protection, couldn't DVDCCA still go after Bunner on those grounds? The ruling talks about copy-violation not being an issue due to the file-sizes involved (gee.. how long will that hold?) but it's the circumvention of copy protection devices (not the copying itself) that the DMCA specifically guards against if I'm not mistaken.
Regardless, doesn't the interpretation of code==free speech and the longwinded explanation of free speech not being limited even in matters of national-security kinda blow the whole DMCA off its track?
Inquiring minds want to know before hope is raised and then subsequently dashed.
Cool. A slashdot spy.
So you'll give us a heads up when evil-company-X applies for inane-patent-Y and you can make some extra dough (karma points?) on the side taking bribes from the/. community to recommend a thumbs down to said patent.:)
Hmmm... it's not difficult to set yourself up as a root CA. It really just boils down to "trust".
Verisign, Thawte, etc. are where they are because of the "trust" that corporations and individuals alike have placed in them. If Verisign (Thawte is owned by them) feels that it cannot issue developer certificates because of an inability to safely verify the authentifiy of applicant credentials, then that is their business. I don't like their decision anymore than anyone else here, but They DO have a reputation to maintain.
How would Slashdot like to get into the certificate business? Let's say that once you get to the coveted 25 Karma you gain the privilege of being able to purchase certificates from Slashdot, just as you would from Verisign and the like. If you get yourself up to 25 karma that's kind of like a sign of "communuty trust" at least within the/. crowd. Of course throw in some terms and conditions to encourage appropriate use, whatever... I highly doubt the Bin Laden's of the world have anything relevant to say on/. so you can don't have to worry about THEM getting the 25 karma.
What!?!? You mean my junk email account is part of some nefarious scheme to conquer the world?
Seriously... I remember when the complaint was issued the first time. I'm not sure how the FTC couldn't have been aware of it, but he who has the most money seems to get their way in the U.S. I've given up on any U.S. government imposed "solution" and I sure has heck don't expect the FTC to do anything in the next two days.
So really, at this point I just sit back and watch M$ inundate the consumers with inconvenience, hassles, nagging, price-gouging, privacy-invasion, competition-thrashing and generally any kind of bad behaviour they can devise. If the gov't isn't going to to anything, then let M$ be their own worst enemy and let the consumer decide. They've already scared my company into switching to something (anything) else.
At home right now, my machine runs Linux and tomorrow it'll still be running Linux. XP? Who cares.
My company is in a pretty tight situation. Changing over to Microsoft's subscription based licensing scam is expected to increase our costs by well over $200,000 per year in an industry with already razor thin margins. The verdict: No bloody way.
So we are very much looking for alternatives. Thankfully the management (so far) does not seem to be very biased nor can they afford to be with one of our major competitors already making a switch to a *nix based system.
However, we have been having real difficulty finding adequate commercial quality open source replacements. My recommendation was to take a "modular" approach: don't look for the one solution to fix everything and don't try to replace all at once.
The easiest to switch over will be the Web Servers: Heavy usage but it's over TCP/IP rather than hands on. Switching to a BSD box running Apache with our "existing" JRun enterprise server slapped on top should do the trick. Goodbye IIS!
Workstations is where it will get ugly. We want to keep our NT boxes for now and concentrate on finding software to replace Office/Outlook that will run on both NT AND an alternative open source OS to ease migration down the road when M$ finally pulls the plug on NT. Backwards compatibility with M$ document formats is also a must for both internal and external reason. So far - not much luck. Open Office is really nice, but its a replacement for MS Exchange that's gonna suck. Tried StarOffice and simply was not impressed. I should also point out that the vast majority of the employees are NOT in IT so Windows look&feel is also required to mitigate resistance.:(
One of my recommendations has been centralize everybodies personal folders on a central filesystem running Linux/BSD and using Samba to integrate it seemlessly with the rest of the NT based LAN. Coupled with tighter restrictions on who can install software on any given desktop should help to pull us away from NT.
BUT... It's the database backend that is going to be really hard to replace. Currently we use SQL Server but years of bad programming habits resulted in software that is tightly coupled to the existing system. It's gonna be hard to break that link but we're working on it. SQL Server was chosen because of its costs (free, believe it or not) but now its gonna be one of the biggest contributors to the increasing costs because of the new stupid client access licences. Does anyone know of a database system fairly compatible? Needs to handle stored procedures of course hopefully similar to Transact SQL. Heavy usage, transaction support, tight security, and all that are also requirements. Oracle was suggested by management thinks its far too expensive. And of course - it must be stable. Knock MS all you want but SQL Server has worked for us well so far.
How about everyone get tatooed from birth with a barcode on the back of each hand and across the forehead. Us old timers can get tatooed the next time we go to renew our driver's licence.
Every piece of data and credit information can then be linked to that code! Imagine the convenience. Wanna buy some groceries and put it on the visa? swipe the head. The liquor store cashier doesn't believe you're old enough to buy beer? swipe the left hand. Oops! lost your left hand playing with the buzz-saw? That's ok, swipe the right hand.
Finally, my dreams are coming closer to reality. Damn though, I shoulda patented the idea first.
Personally, I don't see what the big deal is - it's not like we're not all "numbered" anyway (SSN, SIN). An "ID card" just puts a face on it, that's all.
BTW: This is kinda relevant: A while ago the Canadian government had tried to centralize all the gov't held data on all its citizens in one central database. Huge storm of controversy erupted and the government was forced to disband the system (or so we're told). At the time the biggest concern wasn't so much "big brother" but rather that "a hacker" could break into ONE computer and get EVERYTHING on any given person (as opposed to having to break into a half dozen system to get the same data). I suspect a national ID card would somehow necessitate or precipitate just such a central repository though.
Well for one thing - the soft drink companies often own the fast food chains. Which kinda get nutty when a softdrink company (coke) signs exclusivity deals with an institution (The University of Alberta for one) but the fast food franchises in said institution are owned by their largest rival.:)
Still its odd that that MusicNet had the gumption to include such a clause like this in the first place. Could they not foresee something like this happening especially given a certain antitrust suit elsewhere? It's like giving a loaded gun to your worst enemy!
This whole discussion reminds me of that (inane?) Unicode article by Hastings Research that got flamed to death here on Slashdot some time ago. Here's the link (to the article) if you're interested in reading it again.
First of all, the obvious fact that criminals simply won't "upgrade" to the back doored crypto has been mentioned already before.
But... Let's say for argument sake that the morons actually go through with legislation like this. Then what? So the U.S. gov't gets the keys to encryption software - but it could only be for cryptographic software originating in the good ol' USA. Do you honestly think the EU is going to give the U.S access to their encrypted messages especially after the whole Echelon thing a while back?
But ok... let's say that they're really scared right now with the terrorism and all that and decide to go with it. But of course, they are going to want their own back doors too. After all, sovereign nations being sovereign nations want are going to want to exercise well... "sovereignty" of all things, over their respective minions.
So now we have international treaties to regulate these back doors and keys and stuff - after all, the U.S. is going to want access to the same back doors as the EU has and vice versa or else the whole thing would be meaningless.Terrorists don't care about borders.
But do all EU governments get a key. How about other trustworthy friends like Japan? Surely they will want keys. In Japan gets keys, how about oh... Russia? India? If India gets keys, Pakistan is going to insist too. Eventually everyone wants keys and of course its only going to be effective if everyone has the potential ability to read everyone else's encrypted mail - after all terrorism is international, right?
How do you decide who doesn't get a key then? We have to be able to prevent rogues states from acquiring the keys after all. But what about the goold guys who become bad guys because of coups and stuff? Next thing you know even the bad guys have the keys and now they can enjoy reading my grandmother's encrypted mail to her online knitting pals.
But the whole scheme still depends upon bad guys cooperating by using the back-doored encryption software but they won't because it turns out Echelon and ilk can't eavesdrop on "smoke signals" so it makes a come-back in a big way.
In an article on The Register:
"It seems that the Internet has failed in its first truly hard test as a news disseminator. The best coverage is coming from the usual TV outlets."
One thing history has proven time and time again is that nothing lasts forever. The DMCA will not last forever. The U.S., the European Union, Smurfs, none of these will last forever. There is a growing trend toward the limitations of personal freedoms, but I do not believe the human spirit can be so easily caged - time will expose the evils of acts like the DMCA and the current state of intellectual property laws. They and the regimes that cling to them will ultimately go the way of the Romans, the Nazis, and communism.
Who will come riding to our rescue like Luke Skywalker on a Bantha? Probably the third world. With globalization (it's inevitable) the third world is going to only get more militant and more anti-western considering the disadvantages placed upon them by the current international treaties concerning patents and copyrights - they have the most to lose because their ability to progress is being severely hampered by the inability to use the technologies they need due to licensing costs, patents, etc. etc. Look at the South Africa's recent response to pharmaceutical patents relating to AIDs drugs! The same is going to happen with information technology and given the third world's population and untapped resources, the west will be powerless to stop them. We will have to relax the laws to accomodate them or be ground into the dust. Personally, I look forward to that day. The future leaders won't the EU or the U.S. - Don't be surprised if its countries like South Africa, India, Iran, or China where the current state of affairs is not in their best interests.
Sometimes the hardest thing to do is take a stand for something you believe in. Street protests are not enough. A previous poster mentioned we need learn to abandon our self-interests and to stand behind "leaders" such as the EFF. That's not enough either.
If we truly want to affect change we must begin with ourselves. Break the habits! In this case it means making a firm resolution to NOT purchase, use, disseminate, or in any way involve oneself with the products/services created by the corporations who are the primary backers of legislation like the DMCA.
Too many of us, myself included, bitch and moan about M$, the RIAA, MPAA, etc, etc.. but we still use M$ Products at home or work, we still buy CD's put out by RIAA artists, and we still pay to see movies/DVDs put out by MPAA companies.
Corporations care about one thing: the bottom dollar. If we want change then that is where they need to be hurt. Protest - yes. Support the EFF - yes. BUT, also refuse to work with MS products (there are plenty of UNIX jobs out there, and you can always use Linux at home). Stop listing to music from RIAA artists (that means not buying, not giving or accepting as gifts, and even not "pirating" it), and stop seeing/renting/pruchasing movies put out MPAA companies. Don't even give these things away if you already have them. Garbage them altogether and if anyone asks for god's sake tell them why!
Hopefully you will feel "discomfort" at losing the things you've taken for granted. Good. Discomfort creates awareness. Hopefully people close to you will notice and will ask giving you opportunity to explain and spread the word (don't preach though, action is the best example).
As a last resort, we can all move en-masse to a derelict gun platform in the middle of the North Sea and create our own state.;)
Slashdot Mirror
Oh come on people. Be original. Think outside your little world of strictly horizontal and vertical lines. C-snakes-and-ladders anyone?
Heh heh. You and me both. But the problem is with the people who aren't smarter than the compiler but "think" they are and manage to convince the management that they are. When the bad things happen it gets blamed on the language and consequently good programmers get forced into using VB.
IANAL hence I am a little confused...
Doesn't DeCSS still violate the DMCA? I don't think the DMCA has been at issue here but considering that DeCSS can be viewed as a means to circumvent copy-protection, couldn't DVDCCA still go after Bunner on those grounds? The ruling talks about copy-violation not being an issue due to the file-sizes involved (gee.. how long will that hold?) but it's the circumvention of copy protection devices (not the copying itself) that the DMCA specifically guards against if I'm not mistaken.
Regardless, doesn't the interpretation of code==free speech and the longwinded explanation of free speech not being limited even in matters of national-security kinda blow the whole DMCA off its track?
Inquiring minds want to know before hope is raised and then subsequently dashed.
They're just implementing the Windows API "interface" which is neither copyrightable nor patentable, I believe. So they should be safe.
Cool. A slashdot spy. /. community to recommend a thumbs down to said patent. :)
So you'll give us a heads up when evil-company-X applies for inane-patent-Y and you can make some extra dough (karma points?) on the side taking bribes from the
Hmmm... it's not difficult to set yourself up as a root CA. It really just boils down to "trust".
/. crowd. Of course throw in some terms and conditions to encourage appropriate use, whatever... I highly doubt the Bin Laden's of the world have anything relevant to say on /. so you can don't have to worry about THEM getting the 25 karma.
Verisign, Thawte, etc. are where they are because of the "trust" that corporations and individuals alike have placed in them. If Verisign (Thawte is owned by them) feels that it cannot issue developer certificates because of an inability to safely verify the authentifiy of applicant credentials, then that is their business. I don't like their decision anymore than anyone else here, but They DO have a reputation to maintain.
How would Slashdot like to get into the certificate business? Let's say that once you get to the coveted 25 Karma you gain the privilege of being able to purchase certificates from Slashdot, just as you would from Verisign and the like. If you get yourself up to 25 karma that's kind of like a sign of "communuty trust" at least within the
What!?!? You mean my junk email account is part of some nefarious scheme to conquer the world?
Seriously... I remember when the complaint was issued the first time. I'm not sure how the FTC couldn't have been aware of it, but he who has the most money seems to get their way in the U.S. I've given up on any U.S. government imposed "solution" and I sure has heck don't expect the FTC to do anything in the next two days.
So really, at this point I just sit back and watch M$ inundate the consumers with inconvenience, hassles, nagging, price-gouging, privacy-invasion, competition-thrashing and generally any kind of bad behaviour they can devise. If the gov't isn't going to to anything, then let M$ be their own worst enemy and let the consumer decide. They've already scared my company into switching to something (anything) else.
At home right now, my machine runs Linux and tomorrow it'll still be running Linux. XP? Who cares.
I'm just afraid of waking up... somebody might have patented THAT!
This is a very timely discussion!
:(
My company is in a pretty tight situation. Changing over to Microsoft's subscription based licensing scam is expected to increase our costs by well over $200,000 per year in an industry with already razor thin margins. The verdict: No bloody way.
So we are very much looking for alternatives. Thankfully the management (so far) does not seem to be very biased nor can they afford to be with one of our major competitors already making a switch to a *nix based system.
However, we have been having real difficulty finding adequate commercial quality open source replacements. My recommendation was to take a "modular" approach: don't look for the one solution to fix everything and don't try to replace all at once.
The easiest to switch over will be the Web Servers: Heavy usage but it's over TCP/IP rather than hands on. Switching to a BSD box running Apache with our "existing" JRun enterprise server slapped on top should do the trick. Goodbye IIS!
Workstations is where it will get ugly. We want to keep our NT boxes for now and concentrate on finding software to replace Office/Outlook that will run on both NT AND an alternative open source OS to ease migration down the road when M$ finally pulls the plug on NT. Backwards compatibility with M$ document formats is also a must for both internal and external reason. So far - not much luck. Open Office is really nice, but its a replacement for MS Exchange that's gonna suck. Tried StarOffice and simply was not impressed. I should also point out that the vast majority of the employees are NOT in IT so Windows look&feel is also required to mitigate resistance.
One of my recommendations has been centralize everybodies personal folders on a central filesystem running Linux/BSD and using Samba to integrate it seemlessly with the rest of the NT based LAN. Coupled with tighter restrictions on who can install software on any given desktop should help to pull us away from NT.
BUT... It's the database backend that is going to be really hard to replace. Currently we use SQL Server but years of bad programming habits resulted in software that is tightly coupled to the existing system. It's gonna be hard to break that link but we're working on it. SQL Server was chosen because of its costs (free, believe it or not) but now its gonna be one of the biggest contributors to the increasing costs because of the new stupid client access licences. Does anyone know of a database system fairly compatible? Needs to handle stored procedures of course hopefully similar to Transact SQL. Heavy usage, transaction support, tight security, and all that are also requirements. Oracle was suggested by management thinks its far too expensive. And of course - it must be stable. Knock MS all you want but SQL Server has worked for us well so far.
Id card? How archaic.
How about everyone get tatooed from birth with a barcode on the back of each hand and across the forehead. Us old timers can get tatooed the next time we go to renew our driver's licence.
Every piece of data and credit information can then be linked to that code! Imagine the convenience. Wanna buy some groceries and put it on the visa? swipe the head. The liquor store cashier doesn't believe you're old enough to buy beer? swipe the left hand. Oops! lost your left hand playing with the buzz-saw? That's ok, swipe the right hand.
Finally, my dreams are coming closer to reality. Damn though, I shoulda patented the idea first.
Personally, I don't see what the big deal is - it's not like we're not all "numbered" anyway (SSN, SIN). An "ID card" just puts a face on it, that's all.
BTW: This is kinda relevant: A while ago the Canadian government had tried to centralize all the gov't held data on all its citizens in one central database. Huge storm of controversy erupted and the government was forced to disband the system (or so we're told). At the time the biggest concern wasn't so much "big brother" but rather that "a hacker" could break into ONE computer and get EVERYTHING on any given person (as opposed to having to break into a half dozen system to get the same data). I suspect a national ID card would somehow necessitate or precipitate just such a central repository though.
Well for one thing - the soft drink companies often own the fast food chains. Which kinda get nutty when a softdrink company (coke) signs exclusivity deals with an institution (The University of Alberta for one) but the fast food franchises in said institution are owned by their largest rival. :)
Still its odd that that MusicNet had the gumption to include such a clause like this in the first place. Could they not foresee something like this happening especially given a certain antitrust suit elsewhere? It's like giving a loaded gun to your worst enemy!
This whole discussion reminds me of that (inane?) Unicode article by Hastings Research that got flamed to death here on Slashdot some time ago. Here's the link (to the article) if you're interested in reading it again.
This is the height of stupidity.
First of all, the obvious fact that criminals simply won't "upgrade" to the back doored crypto has been mentioned already before.
But... Let's say for argument sake that the morons actually go through with legislation like this. Then what? So the U.S. gov't gets the keys to encryption software - but it could only be for cryptographic software originating in the good ol' USA. Do you honestly think the EU is going to give the U.S access to their encrypted messages especially after the whole Echelon thing a while back?
But ok... let's say that they're really scared right now with the terrorism and all that and decide to go with it. But of course, they are going to want their own back doors too. After all, sovereign nations being sovereign nations want are going to want to exercise well... "sovereignty" of all things, over their respective minions.
So now we have international treaties to regulate these back doors and keys and stuff - after all, the U.S. is going to want access to the same back doors as the EU has and vice versa or else the whole thing would be meaningless.Terrorists don't care about borders.
But do all EU governments get a key. How about other trustworthy friends like Japan? Surely they will want keys. In Japan gets keys, how about oh... Russia? India? If India gets keys, Pakistan is going to insist too. Eventually everyone wants keys and of course its only going to be effective if everyone has the potential ability to read everyone else's encrypted mail - after all terrorism is international, right?
How do you decide who doesn't get a key then? We have to be able to prevent rogues states from acquiring the keys after all. But what about the goold guys who become bad guys because of coups and stuff? Next thing you know even the bad guys have the keys and now they can enjoy reading my grandmother's encrypted mail to her online knitting pals.
But the whole scheme still depends upon bad guys cooperating by using the back-doored encryption software but they won't because it turns out Echelon and ilk can't eavesdrop on "smoke signals" so it makes a come-back in a big way.
In an article on The Register: "It seems that the Internet has failed in its first truly hard test as a news disseminator. The best coverage is coming from the usual TV outlets."
One thing history has proven time and time again is that nothing lasts forever. The DMCA will not last forever. The U.S., the European Union, Smurfs, none of these will last forever. There is a growing trend toward the limitations of personal freedoms, but I do not believe the human spirit can be so easily caged - time will expose the evils of acts like the DMCA and the current state of intellectual property laws. They and the regimes that cling to them will ultimately go the way of the Romans, the Nazis, and communism.
Who will come riding to our rescue like Luke Skywalker on a Bantha? Probably the third world. With globalization (it's inevitable) the third world is going to only get more militant and more anti-western considering the disadvantages placed upon them by the current international treaties concerning patents and copyrights - they have the most to lose because their ability to progress is being severely hampered by the inability to use the technologies they need due to licensing costs, patents, etc. etc. Look at the South Africa's recent response to pharmaceutical patents relating to AIDs drugs! The same is going to happen with information technology and given the third world's population and untapped resources, the west will be powerless to stop them. We will have to relax the laws to accomodate them or be ground into the dust. Personally, I look forward to that day. The future leaders won't the EU or the U.S. - Don't be surprised if its countries like South Africa, India, Iran, or China where the current state of affairs is not in their best interests.
Sometimes the hardest thing to do is take a stand for something you believe in. Street protests are not enough. A previous poster mentioned we need learn to abandon our self-interests and to stand behind "leaders" such as the EFF. That's not enough either.
;)
If we truly want to affect change we must begin with ourselves. Break the habits! In this case it means making a firm resolution to NOT purchase, use, disseminate, or in any way involve oneself with the products/services created by the corporations who are the primary backers of legislation like the DMCA.
Too many of us, myself included, bitch and moan about M$, the RIAA, MPAA, etc, etc.. but we still use M$ Products at home or work, we still buy CD's put out by RIAA artists, and we still pay to see movies/DVDs put out by MPAA companies.
Corporations care about one thing: the bottom dollar. If we want change then that is where they need to be hurt. Protest - yes. Support the EFF - yes. BUT, also refuse to work with MS products (there are plenty of UNIX jobs out there, and you can always use Linux at home). Stop listing to music from RIAA artists (that means not buying, not giving or accepting as gifts, and even not "pirating" it), and stop seeing/renting/pruchasing movies put out MPAA companies. Don't even give these things away if you already have them. Garbage them altogether and if anyone asks for god's sake tell them why!
Hopefully you will feel "discomfort" at losing the things you've taken for granted. Good. Discomfort creates awareness. Hopefully people close to you will notice and will ask giving you opportunity to explain and spread the word (don't preach though, action is the best example).
As a last resort, we can all move en-masse to a derelict gun platform in the middle of the North Sea and create our own state.