There is no security anywhere. The best, and ultimately, only security is for each citizen to keep security in his mind at all times and question anything that seems out of place.
Correct on both points. There is no security anywhere, because the only security would be for everyone to think about it all the time. And that just won't happen.
It's complacency that burned us once and as much as we want to go back to our complacent little sheep lifestyles, that is no longer an option!
Oh, but you will. You'll be more vigilant for a day, a week, a month, a year - some amount of time depending on just how horrified you are by the latest tragedy. And then it will fade, and it will be business as usual.
Re:Everything has a good and a bad side...
on
Blaming Encryption
·
· Score: 1
Yep, which is why I'm surprised that steak knives, cars, hammers, shovels, nail guns, saber saws, toothpicks, forks and computers haven't been banned from American homes yet. *sigh*
Nah, those things are normal - they won't get banned. Using a computer for anything beyond booting Windows and running basic applications is weird - it's done by those hacker types who are stealing all the music, keeping secrets from the government, trading kiddie porn and organising terrorist attacks, but there's no need for normal people to do any of that stuff.
So, why not ban it? Nobody will mind. Except terrorists, criminals and weirdos (who should probably count as criminals anyway - can we legislate for that?)
If running linux and "free" software ever actually became illegal and people were arrested for it, then I would hazard a guess the American claim to be a "Free" nation went down the drain, too.
Why? Using marijuana became illegal and people were arrested for it, but still America claims to be a free nation. Those who choose that lifestyle are now deemed to be criminals. Why do you believe your lifestyle of running Linux cannot similarly be outlawed?
It only seems natural that developers have this right because they always have done.
Those who produce soft drinks, for example, do not have the right to demand that their customers accept conditions in order to use their product. It's not just that they don't want to, or that consumers wouldn't buy if they did - consumers wouldn't care any more about a clause banning the use of the drink in a taste test whose results will be published than users care about licenses which forbid published performance tests. But they can't - you aren't required to agree to the vender's rules to use the product.
Time was, employers had the right to offer whatever terms they wanted, and potential employees could agree or not take the job. Now we have minimum wages, employment rights, unfair dismissal tribunals, sexual and racial discrimination and harrassment laws (pick a subset appropriate for your country), and so on. So employers too no longer have the right to say "If you want my job, it's on my terms".
There are many other cases where there are laws or precedents removing the right to say "My way or nothing!" or where slashdotters would like there to be. Music vendors controlling how their music can be played, TV channels preventing timeshifting or advert skipping, DVDs which won't allow the trailers to be skipped over when played. In all these cases your argument applies - it's their stuff, and the consumer always has the choice of not agreeing. But in all of these cases, most people agree the vendor should not have the right to impose these conditions on the consumer.
So why do we think venders of software should be able to say "My way or nothing!" and get legal backup for it? Nobody else is entitled to pull this kind of "It's my ball and if you won't do as I say you can't play with it" nonsense.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no security anywhere. The best, and ultimately, only security is for each citizen to keep security in his mind at all times and question anything that seems out of place.
Correct on both points. There is no security anywhere, because the only security would be for everyone to think about it all the time. And that just won't happen.
It's complacency that burned us once and as much as we want to go back to our complacent little sheep lifestyles, that is no longer an option!
Oh, but you will. You'll be more vigilant for a day, a week, a month, a year - some amount of time depending on just how horrified you are by the latest tragedy. And then it will fade, and it will be business as usual.
Yep, which is why I'm surprised that steak knives, cars, hammers, shovels, nail guns, saber saws, toothpicks, forks and computers haven't been banned from American homes yet. *sigh*
Nah, those things are normal - they won't get banned. Using a computer for anything beyond booting Windows and running basic applications is weird - it's done by those hacker types who are stealing all the music, keeping secrets from the government, trading kiddie porn and organising terrorist attacks, but there's no need for normal people to do any of that stuff.
So, why not ban it? Nobody will mind. Except terrorists, criminals and weirdos (who should probably count as criminals anyway - can we legislate for that?)
Heck, it'd be like some idiot running an old version of Sendmail blaming the sendmail author(s) on his box getting hacked.
I don't know offhand what is to blame for the sendmail author(s), but I'm fairly sure it's not somebody's box being hacked.
If running linux and "free" software ever actually became illegal and people were arrested for it, then I would hazard a guess the American claim to be a "Free" nation went down the drain, too.
Why? Using marijuana became illegal and people were arrested for it, but still America claims to be a free nation. Those who choose that lifestyle are now deemed to be criminals. Why do you believe your lifestyle of running Linux cannot similarly be outlawed?
Yes, but...
It only seems natural that developers have this right because they always have done.
Those who produce soft drinks, for example, do not have the right to demand that their customers accept conditions in order to use their product. It's not just that they don't want to, or that consumers wouldn't buy if they did - consumers wouldn't care any more about a clause banning the use of the drink in a taste test whose results will be published than users care about licenses which forbid published performance tests. But they can't - you aren't required to agree to the vender's rules to use the product.
Time was, employers had the right to offer whatever terms they wanted, and potential employees could agree or not take the job. Now we have minimum wages, employment rights, unfair dismissal tribunals, sexual and racial discrimination and harrassment laws (pick a subset appropriate for your country), and so on. So employers too no longer have the right to say "If you want my job, it's on my terms".
There are many other cases where there are laws or precedents removing the right to say "My way or nothing!" or where slashdotters would like there to be. Music vendors controlling how their music can be played, TV channels preventing timeshifting or advert skipping, DVDs which won't allow the trailers to be skipped over when played. In all these cases your argument applies - it's their stuff, and the consumer always has the choice of not agreeing. But in all of these cases, most people agree the vendor should not have the right to impose these conditions on the consumer.
So why do we think venders of software should be able to say "My way or nothing!" and get legal backup for it? Nobody else is entitled to pull this kind of "It's my ball and if you won't do as I say you can't play with it" nonsense.