Howard Schmidt, ex-White House cybersecurity advisor, thinks that developers should be held personally liable for security flaws in code they write.
Is it any surprise this man is no longer in the White House. The software lobby *cough*MS*cough* probably saw to it he was removed as soon as they learned his view.
The core of the problem is that users continue to not understand what they are doing or using. People expect things to "just work" and if it breaks they will have it fixed.
I expect people pay for software/hardware with the idea what they are using should "just work" (assuming they are following the proper operating procedures). Maybe marketters should stop spreading this idea and be more realistic if it's not true.
Many people treat their cars this way. They know how to drive them, but not how to fix them if they break down.
Some reasons for this include:
Cars have become more complicated over time, the average "shade tree mechanic" has to dig through a mess of computer and emissons junk to get to the rods and pistons.
Car manufacturers don't want consumers to know how to fix them, they want them to bring the car back to the dealership and pay $60/hr labor (plus parts from their own parts dept, rather than another source that probably has the same thing for less) to get it fixed.
Some simply don't have the time to learn a new trade. They're a little busy working full-time jobs, raising families, and having constructive hobbies they enjoy.
While I agree users need to be more educated about the operation of their computer equipment, until there are consequences for those who don't (like no internet access) I don't see how you're going to get anyone to play along. Why put forth the time and energy to be "properly trained" when you can do what you want right now just as easily. Wouldn't the average motorist be a worse driver if it wasn't illegal to drive without a valid license? People wouldn't try to operate their cars on roads by any set rules or guidence if there were no consequences for not doing so. That is exactly how computers are now.
Network development means expansion of the network. And that's exactly what universal service fees are for.
That's what I meant by providing services to rural customers - expanding networks to those regions. But that's POTS networks, not wireless coverage.
If you look through what the USF is used for it mentions Lifeline/Link-Up assistance to consmers, and they are obviously referring to "normal" phone service. A phone itself is considered almost a necessity in today's society, but not a cell phone.
Wireless customers pay the fee but don't get more towers because of it. Just like like POTS customers pay the Enhanced 911 fee even though the technology it subsidies is to help locate cell phone users dialing 911.
I do see the point the original poster made. The fee money is not directly tagged and accounted for in how the telcos use it. But the government is expecting companies recieving this money to be actively expanding/maintaining a phone network outside the subscriber hot spots, so to blatanty state all the money just goes into some fat cat's retirement fund is a little silly.
Doing it will probably mean that commercially-available code is more expensive and cause major problems for free and open source software developers.
This statement brought about an interesting thought when I read it:
What if that was the stipulation of the license for commercial software?
Only someone giving their software away for free or developing it under an Open Source licence can be non-liable for their software. After all, if you're going to charge for your software, the buyer should have some assurances it wont cause a catastrophic disaster on their system. But if it's free, you're just doing this (particular piece of software) as a hobby obviously, so your software shouldn't be held to such high standards. If your software is open source, an individual is free to go through the code and make sure there aren't any bugs before they use it, so it's their fault if you didn't verify it beforehand.
Note: I realize some may find that last statement a little harsh, and I don't agree with it personally, but it seems to fit in nicely with the OSS responsability mantra that if a bug is there and you want it fixed bad, or there's a feature you want and you're complaining, you should just code it yourself or shut up.
What would happen to the software landscape with a system like this? Would the price of software skyrocket? Would we see the bar for what kinds of software are actually sold rather than given away be raised? I think it would result in a lot for software being done under OSS, and more companies using support services for their software as a business model, rather than the software sales themselves.
That only works if everybody is being competitive. If there are only a handful of players in an industry they can all get together and collectively raise rates $2, Company A won't lose any cutomers to Company B and vice versa, because it won't gain the consumer anything. The only differnce is everyone will suddenly be paying $2 a month more in cell phone service.
Didn't you notice this happen when those upstart cell phone providers began offering per-second billing years ago? Where did that concept go?
The big boys at that time bought all the upstarts, then they all began to drop the per-second billing rate plans at about the same time. Consumers who were on them were given advance notice they were being ended and were given the choice of continuing service under one of the rate plans their new provider company offered or leaving. With no providers offering new customers per-second billing they didn't have a choice unless they wanted to stop having a cell phone completely (note that number portability not being an option at this time only made it easier to keep them with the current provider).
So now, once again you can't get per second billing. It's not an issue so much because plans cost so much less per minute now than they did then. But it shows exactly how innovation in services can be easily stopped when you can have lunch with all your competitors at McDonald's and only take one booth.
We pay universal access fees to promote network development yet that money seems to go into a big black hole, or a CEO's bank account, whichever is available.
Universal service fees are used to subsidize communication services in areas where it doesn't make business sense to provide service (not enough subs to justify network building/upkeep), provide access to public schools, and subsidize phone service for the inpoverished.
I have yet to see anything about a government fee used to fund the R&D of a private business. That's supposed to paid for by a portion of the telco's own revenue from subscribers.
Revenue from current customers + potential revenue from new customers/services = incentive to develop and improve products/services.
And oddly enough, isn't Myspace being bought by a large media company. Sounds like the monster isn't going away, just eating any monsters that threaten it's domination.
...or just changing into a new beast.
Coming Soon: New account structure requiring Myspace accounts promoting bands to pay a "low" yearly fee.
Firefox (portable version prepared by John Haller) Thunderbird (also Haller's prepackage) 7-Zip (cause my flash drive is only 256MB) NetRadio (simple Shoutcast player/ripper) XMPlay (for other audio files) Miranda IM (would use GAIM, but don't want to install GTK and the autologging is so useful) BitComet (more features and half the disk size of the official BitTorrent client) WinMTR 0.8.7 (if only the Windows shell had this built in) SSH Secure Shell (there's a free-for-non-commercial-use licensed version somewhere)
Think of the storage space needed and time to strap the suit on. I want to just pour it over me and start hunting John Con--er carrying heavy loads at work.
If me and a friend walk into an apple store and buy Mac Minis, I expect that mine will be just as good as his. I doubt there is anything illegal about this since the machine isn't below the specs marked on the box. But if there are 2 mac minis available for X dollars, and one has better specs, I want the one with better specs.
Ah, but don't you see what's going to happen in a few months? Apple will clear it's own warehouses of the old units (you know they have a way of telling which is which) then they'll update the official specs.
Retailers with the older models will have to discount all their "1.4Ghz" Mac Mini's since they wont be able to gaurantee the customer is getting more than that. Then people will be paying a discounted rate and getting the current hardware rather than right now where they pay the current rate and may not get the fastest they could, so it will all even out a bit in the end.
Considering how often Dell updates stuff, think how much less inventory they would have to discount to sell if they followed this idea.
The FreeDOS boxes have always (as long as I remember) been more expensive than an equivalent box with XP.
I don't understand why this is allowed to begin with. Wouldn't this be considered Microsoft (or Dell) "dumping" their operating system if they make consumers pay more to not get it. With the computers shipping with an operating system out of the mailing box, an alternative OS has a harder time even getting a trail run on the machine. Even if someone was specifically interested in an alternative OS, they would buy the Windows-preinstalled machine because it costs less. Then, well they could reformat the drive and install SuSe, Linspire, ect. But the machine is ready to go right now...
Will they make their DVD players compatable with Blu-Ray/HD-DVD as well as their own standard, then?
There's little point in starting a separate format if studios don't release their content in it. I predict this new Chinese format will be marginalized by the fact only Chinese studios release in it.
iTunes has no subscription. Thats one staggering blow. I don't consider DRM music to ever be mine so it makes no sence trying to buy it, and certanly not for $0.99 a track. $4.99/month as yahoo has is much more reasonable.
People are all worrying iTunes may have to raise prices on tracks, but since I bought the track and have it now, that wouldn't effect me, unless I buy more. What would you do if Yahoo were forced to raise subscription rates because of the RIAA? You would have to pay the higher price or lose access to your music you originally got for the lower rate, because you were only renting it.
Why is it that everyone thinks they are due some kind of money any time something doesn't work exactly right.
The case involved unstable compression features in MS DOS 6.0, which were corrected by a $9.95 update, MS DOS 6.2. Plaintiffs wanted Microsoft to offer the updates for free...
So you think people should have to pay for bug fixes? That doesn't make much incentive for companies to write bug-free software to start with. "Hey, they'll hate this bug. More money for us when we sell the fix."
They aren't asking for some stupid punitive damages, all they wanted is the unstable software fixed at no cost to them.
There are a billion products on the planet and it just seems silly that every company should be responcable for every possiable use.
Why do so many people say that they have to eat something when watching a 2 to 3 hour movie?
The real question is why do people think they have to pay the theater's outragous prices for candy?
Yeah, they have that stupid sign on the box office counter "No Outside Food or Drinks". They don't have any right to search you for the stuff before you go in, either.
There's a Wal-Mart and a Target less than two blocks for my city's mainstream theater*. They both sell lots of the usual treats one gets at the theaters, in boxes identical to the ones the theater sells, for prices typically a quarter what the theater charges. I just make a quick stop and tuck it in my pocket before going in.
*yes, we only have one main theater, the result of a trade between two national chains and one company closing their location and the other closing all but one theater of the locations they had. This includes a 2 screen cineplex that played older releases with tickets to all shows $1.25/ea. We do have an independant art house type theater which offers a welcome relief from the "films" being shown on the other end of town.
Now, IANAL, but how much more descriptive can you be? They're practically handing them a printout with what illegal files had been being shared, are they not? What else is necessary?
If someone wanted to press charges against an individual for flashing them, the police wouldn't take the report if the person didn't specify when and where the acts occured, even if the victim had a long list of different dance moves the guy did in the buff.
I had a company that continued to harass me on my cell phone for a few weeks. They repeatedly left messages that I needed to call them back (at an 800-number) about "important business that concerned me" they didn't say who they were on any of the messages.
When I called them back, they continued to dodge questions about who they were. It bothered me because when I called and mentioned having gotten a voicemail message they always wanted to know my phone number first thing. It reminded me of all those spam mails with the unsubscribe links that do nothing except verify your email address is a working one. I finally relented because they refused to give me any info about the why they were calling until I divulged it (in all fairness, they might have been a clearinghouse type call center were they honestly didn't know which client wanted to reach me until they looked me up).
They apparently were trying to reach someone I'd never heard of about a "package" of some sort and had my number listed for him. The first few times I called them I was polite, but after that the calls didn't stop. They claimed on calls I did pick up on they hadn't heard anyone there and that the line had gone dead. They would hang up on me if I got angry, not transfer me to supervisors when I requested it and generally were pricks.
I mostly got angry because I was told several time I was being taken off their list only to have the calls continue. When I mentioned this many times I was told they had no record of having spoke to me before and some of the people I talked to, "supervisors" included, said I should just "stop answering the calls" like I should willingly accept my phone ringing all the time and multiple voicemail messages from them because they couldn't get their act together. It took threats of "talking to my lawyer" about the fact they continued to call me on a cell phone line after I asked them to stop too multiple people before the calls did, in fact, stop.
I am pleased to say that my fears were not realized and I was not added to some shady calling list.
That doesn't mean their calls aren't unwanted... Just not illegal.
So the survey was worthless because it didn't even ask the right question! They should have asked if the individual had recived any calls that should have not happned becuase they were on the Do Not Call list.
"Did you get any unwanted calls lately?"
"Well yeah, the Gas company called to tell me I'm over 60 days past due. My boss called me to come in on my day off. My mother in law called and berated me while I was trying to watch the game last Sunday, and I'm ten minutes late for work right now and YOU called!"
Please allow I, C3PO, to be the first to welcome our new Mexican medical overlords. I'm sure I can be of great assitance to you as besides Spanish I am fluent in over six million forms of communication.
Slashdot Mirror
Howard Schmidt, ex-White House cybersecurity advisor, thinks that developers should be held personally liable for security flaws in code they write.
Is it any surprise this man is no longer in the White House. The software lobby *cough*MS*cough* probably saw to it he was removed as soon as they learned his view.
Just record it with my VCR for free.
I expect people pay for software/hardware with the idea what they are using should "just work" (assuming they are following the proper operating procedures). Maybe marketters should stop spreading this idea and be more realistic if it's not true.
Many people treat their cars this way. They know how to drive them, but not how to fix them if they break down.
Some reasons for this include:
While I agree users need to be more educated about the operation of their computer equipment, until there are consequences for those who don't (like no internet access) I don't see how you're going to get anyone to play along. Why put forth the time and energy to be "properly trained" when you can do what you want right now just as easily. Wouldn't the average motorist be a worse driver if it wasn't illegal to drive without a valid license? People wouldn't try to operate their cars on roads by any set rules or guidence if there were no consequences for not doing so. That is exactly how computers are now.
While being driven to meetings, Pfizer's CEO says, 'I don't look out the window. I use my BlackBerry and answer my email.'
Wow, for once I'm glad some rich executive has his own driver.
Yeah, I used to have Putty. But SSH Secure Shell has more features, and SSH connectivity is all I needed (while PuTTY does Telnet, ect).
Network development means expansion of the network. And that's exactly what universal service fees are for.
That's what I meant by providing services to rural customers - expanding networks to those regions. But that's POTS networks, not wireless coverage.
If you look through what the USF is used for it mentions Lifeline/Link-Up assistance to consmers, and they are obviously referring to "normal" phone service. A phone itself is considered almost a necessity in today's society, but not a cell phone.
Wireless customers pay the fee but don't get more towers because of it. Just like like POTS customers pay the Enhanced 911 fee even though the technology it subsidies is to help locate cell phone users dialing 911.
I do see the point the original poster made. The fee money is not directly tagged and accounted for in how the telcos use it. But the government is expecting companies recieving this money to be actively expanding/maintaining a phone network outside the subscriber hot spots, so to blatanty state all the money just goes into some fat cat's retirement fund is a little silly.
Doing it will probably mean that commercially-available code is more expensive and cause major problems for free and open source software developers.
This statement brought about an interesting thought when I read it:
What if that was the stipulation of the license for commercial software?
Only someone giving their software away for free or developing it under an Open Source licence can be non-liable for their software. After all, if you're going to charge for your software, the buyer should have some assurances it wont cause a catastrophic disaster on their system. But if it's free, you're just doing this (particular piece of software) as a hobby obviously, so your software shouldn't be held to such high standards. If your software is open source, an individual is free to go through the code and make sure there aren't any bugs before they use it, so it's their fault if you didn't verify it beforehand.
Note: I realize some may find that last statement a little harsh, and I don't agree with it personally, but it seems to fit in nicely with the OSS responsability mantra that if a bug is there and you want it fixed bad, or there's a feature you want and you're complaining, you should just code it yourself or shut up.
What would happen to the software landscape with a system like this? Would the price of software skyrocket? Would we see the bar for what kinds of software are actually sold rather than given away be raised? I think it would result in a lot for software being done under OSS, and more companies using support services for their software as a business model, rather than the software sales themselves.
That only works if everybody is being competitive. If there are only a handful of players in an industry they can all get together and collectively raise rates $2, Company A won't lose any cutomers to Company B and vice versa, because it won't gain the consumer anything. The only differnce is everyone will suddenly be paying $2 a month more in cell phone service.
Didn't you notice this happen when those upstart cell phone providers began offering per-second billing years ago? Where did that concept go?
The big boys at that time bought all the upstarts, then they all began to drop the per-second billing rate plans at about the same time. Consumers who were on them were given advance notice they were being ended and were given the choice of continuing service under one of the rate plans their new provider company offered or leaving. With no providers offering new customers per-second billing they didn't have a choice unless they wanted to stop having a cell phone completely (note that number portability not being an option at this time only made it easier to keep them with the current provider).
So now, once again you can't get per second billing. It's not an issue so much because plans cost so much less per minute now than they did then. But it shows exactly how innovation in services can be easily stopped when you can have lunch with all your competitors at McDonald's and only take one booth.
We pay universal access fees to promote network development yet that money seems to go into a big black hole, or a CEO's bank account, whichever is available.
No you don't.
Universal service fees are used to subsidize communication services in areas where it doesn't make business sense to provide service (not enough subs to justify network building/upkeep), provide access to public schools, and subsidize phone service for the inpoverished.
I have yet to see anything about a government fee used to fund the R&D of a private business. That's supposed to paid for by a portion of the telco's own revenue from subscribers.
Revenue from current customers + potential revenue from new customers/services = incentive to develop and improve products/services.
Coming Soon: New account structure requiring Myspace accounts promoting bands to pay a "low" yearly fee.
On my drive I have:
Firefox (portable version prepared by John Haller)
Thunderbird (also Haller's prepackage)
7-Zip (cause my flash drive is only 256MB)
NetRadio (simple Shoutcast player/ripper)
XMPlay (for other audio files)
Miranda IM (would use GAIM, but don't want to install GTK and the autologging is so useful)
BitComet (more features and half the disk size of the official BitTorrent client)
WinMTR 0.8.7 (if only the Windows shell had this built in)
SSH Secure Shell (there's a free-for-non-commercial-use licensed version somewhere)
Does the liquid metal version come out?
Think of the storage space needed and time to strap the suit on. I want to just pour it over me and start hunting John Con--er carrying heavy loads at work.
As my mod points expired yesterday and I love the Tron joke.
If me and a friend walk into an apple store and buy Mac Minis, I expect that mine will be just as good as his. I doubt there is anything illegal about this since the machine isn't below the specs marked on the box. But if there are 2 mac minis available for X dollars, and one has better specs, I want the one with better specs.
Ah, but don't you see what's going to happen in a few months? Apple will clear it's own warehouses of the old units (you know they have a way of telling which is which) then they'll update the official specs.
Retailers with the older models will have to discount all their "1.4Ghz" Mac Mini's since they wont be able to gaurantee the customer is getting more than that. Then people will be paying a discounted rate and getting the current hardware rather than right now where they pay the current rate and may not get the fastest they could, so it will all even out a bit in the end.
Considering how often Dell updates stuff, think how much less inventory they would have to discount to sell if they followed this idea.
The FreeDOS boxes have always (as long as I remember) been more expensive than an equivalent box with XP.
I don't understand why this is allowed to begin with. Wouldn't this be considered Microsoft (or Dell) "dumping" their operating system if they make consumers pay more to not get it. With the computers shipping with an operating system out of the mailing box, an alternative OS has a harder time even getting a trail run on the machine. Even if someone was specifically interested in an alternative OS, they would buy the Windows-preinstalled machine because it costs less. Then, well they could reformat the drive and install SuSe, Linspire, ect. But the machine is ready to go right now...
Will they make their DVD players compatable with Blu-Ray/HD-DVD as well as their own standard, then?
There's little point in starting a separate format if studios don't release their content in it. I predict this new Chinese format will be marginalized by the fact only Chinese studios release in it.
iTunes has no subscription. Thats one staggering blow. I don't consider DRM music to ever be mine so it makes no sence trying to buy it, and certanly not for $0.99 a track. $4.99/month as yahoo has is much more reasonable.
People are all worrying iTunes may have to raise prices on tracks, but since I bought the track and have it now, that wouldn't effect me, unless I buy more. What would you do if Yahoo were forced to raise subscription rates because of the RIAA? You would have to pay the higher price or lose access to your music you originally got for the lower rate, because you were only renting it.
Why is it that everyone thinks they are due some kind of money any time something doesn't work exactly right.
The case involved unstable compression features in MS DOS 6.0, which were corrected by a $9.95 update, MS DOS 6.2. Plaintiffs wanted Microsoft to offer the updates for free...
So you think people should have to pay for bug fixes? That doesn't make much incentive for companies to write bug-free software to start with. "Hey, they'll hate this bug. More money for us when we sell the fix."
They aren't asking for some stupid punitive damages, all they wanted is the unstable software fixed at no cost to them.
There are a billion products on the planet and it just seems silly that every company should be responcable for every possiable use.
I'll remember that next time I get in my car.
"Expensive Popcorn / Sweets / Drinks"
Why do so many people say that they have to eat something when watching a 2 to 3 hour movie?
The real question is why do people think they have to pay the theater's outragous prices for candy?
Yeah, they have that stupid sign on the box office counter "No Outside Food or Drinks". They don't have any right to search you for the stuff before you go in, either.
There's a Wal-Mart and a Target less than two blocks for my city's mainstream theater*. They both sell lots of the usual treats one gets at the theaters, in boxes identical to the ones the theater sells, for prices typically a quarter what the theater charges. I just make a quick stop and tuck it in my pocket before going in.
*yes, we only have one main theater, the result of a trade between two national chains and one company closing their location and the other closing all but one theater of the locations they had. This includes a 2 screen cineplex that played older releases with tickets to all shows $1.25/ea. We do have an independant art house type theater which offers a welcome relief from the "films" being shown on the other end of town.
Wow, thanks Slashdot.
Can I press "5" on my keypad to order tickets with my credit card now?
Where's the open-source sound recording program to replace the Windows sound recording program?
How about Audacity?
Now, IANAL, but how much more descriptive can you be? They're practically handing them a printout with what illegal files had been being shared, are they not? What else is necessary?
If someone wanted to press charges against an individual for flashing them, the police wouldn't take the report if the person didn't specify when and where the acts occured, even if the victim had a long list of different dance moves the guy did in the buff.
I had a company that continued to harass me on my cell phone for a few weeks. They repeatedly left messages that I needed to call them back (at an 800-number) about "important business that concerned me" they didn't say who they were on any of the messages.
When I called them back, they continued to dodge questions about who they were. It bothered me because when I called and mentioned having gotten a voicemail message they always wanted to know my phone number first thing. It reminded me of all those spam mails with the unsubscribe links that do nothing except verify your email address is a working one. I finally relented because they refused to give me any info about the why they were calling until I divulged it (in all fairness, they might have been a clearinghouse type call center were they honestly didn't know which client wanted to reach me until they looked me up).
They apparently were trying to reach someone I'd never heard of about a "package" of some sort and had my number listed for him. The first few times I called them I was polite, but after that the calls didn't stop. They claimed on calls I did pick up on they hadn't heard anyone there and that the line had gone dead. They would hang up on me if I got angry, not transfer me to supervisors when I requested it and generally were pricks.
I mostly got angry because I was told several time I was being taken off their list only to have the calls continue. When I mentioned this many times I was told they had no record of having spoke to me before and some of the people I talked to, "supervisors" included, said I should just "stop answering the calls" like I should willingly accept my phone ringing all the time and multiple voicemail messages from them because they couldn't get their act together. It took threats of "talking to my lawyer" about the fact they continued to call me on a cell phone line after I asked them to stop too multiple people before the calls did, in fact, stop.
I am pleased to say that my fears were not realized and I was not added to some shady calling list.
That doesn't mean their calls aren't unwanted... Just not illegal.
So the survey was worthless because it didn't even ask the right question! They should have asked if the individual had recived any calls that should have not happned becuase they were on the Do Not Call list.
"Did you get any unwanted calls lately?"
"Well yeah, the Gas company called to tell me I'm over 60 days past due. My boss called me to come in on my day off. My mother in law called and berated me while I was trying to watch the game last Sunday, and I'm ten minutes late for work right now and YOU called!"
Please allow I, C3PO, to be the first to welcome our new Mexican medical overlords. I'm sure I can be of great assitance to you as besides Spanish I am fluent in over six million forms of communication.