Friday, August 30, 2002
Regarding California's Digital Software Security Act, Red Hat chief Michael Tiemann said, "Government and monopolists want to take away our right to write software and use computers as we want to use them. Open source is the true spirit of democracy, and we must preserve it." There is a weird war waging between Microsoft’s henchmen and geektivists, even as far away as Peru. Wired reported last month, the US Ambassador John Hamilton, backed by Microsoft, is encouraging the Peruvian government to kill legislation that would switch government computers to open-source
In his June letter, Hamilton said that while the United States doesn't oppose the development of open-source software, it prefers to support a free market where the quality of the product can determine the issue.
He added that by excluding proprietary software companies like Microsoft, Peru would be hurting an industry that "has the potential to create 15,000" jobs in the local economy.
The “free-market” argument used in this context is suspect. Does the public sector have the right to use tax dollars to subsidize propriety software? Given that the US government has created a tangled mass of licencing restrictions and copyright extensions, promotion of open-sourcing might counteract some of the damage already done by technophobes like Senator Hollings. Of course, two wrongs don’t make a right. I’m on the fence whether I believe intellectual property law should take an all-or-nothing approach.
Nevertheless, libertarians often forget that big business can be bad – when it involves limousine lobbyists and corporate welfare. One reason our think tanks do not further investigate into this matter is; they are restricted to bite the hand that feeds them. You’re never going to find a libertarian non-profit critique Microsoft because they’re on our board of directors (and here I link again to the excellent commentary on K5)
Another thing, it’s my understanding that open-source software is inherently more secure due to peer review. Open-source circumvents “security through obscurity.” There is a must-read feature on Slashdot about the problem with it. The term refers to propriety software manufacturers silencing developers who later find bugs, by threatening a lawsuit or prosecution if the developer should even reveal that the software is breakable. The manufacturer expects no one smart enough to break the code will come along, at least until the software is obsolete.
Security through obscurity is always a bad idea. In this case, the manufacturer assumed that nobody as smart as that particular programmer would come along for a while, and thus their customers would be secure if this one programmer could be dealt with. However, they did not consider that someone else might have already broken the spreadsheet code without telling the manufacturer, and might already be using the technique to eavesdrop on some rich corporation's secrets
But back to the DSSA initiative, a sound idea comes from "free software evangelist" Bruce Perens. Understaning open-source will not only save tax-payers buckets of money, but will discriminate against the most popular kinds of software, Perens strikes a middle ground in suggesting a "set of principles that delineate the exact parts of the state's IT infrastructure that must remain open. Once those critical areas are protected, state and local government agencies would be free to buy whatever software best serves their needs."
The main argument the ambassador made, and the one that seems to outrage critics such as Perens the most, is that governments should not be locked in to any one IT purchasing scheme.
Ironically, Perens says that's exactly what the Microsoft-backed alliance's proposed principles would achieve. That's because, while the group says it supports what it calls "software standards," it also maintains that those standards need not be open or available for anyone to use free of charge. Instead, Microsoft's allies say that the term should refer to royalty-generating products as long as they are offered to all customers at the same fair and reasonable price (determined by the provider).
Thursday, August 29, 2002
Alan Reynolds writes today's Daily Commentary at the Cato Institute.
The president's economic gabfest at Waco, like similar events in the past, was an insult to the economic profession. As a wise teacher once remarked, "If economics is that simple, why do we pay professors to teach it to our kids?"
Thursday, August 29, 2002
The editor of Jane's dispells all rumors there are links between al-Queda and Sadam Hussein, in Spiked. It's a great article, check out the rest of the site too.
Thursday, August 29, 2002 AP reports the police in Delaware are compiling a list of future suspects listing names, addressed, and photographs of people they believe may eventually commit crimes. Many of these people presently have clean slates.
Wednesday, August 28, 2002
H4x3rs revamped the RIAA website this morning, posting links to free MP3 downloads, rewriting items to say "R. Kelly Brings Videos to Young People," among other things. The site is down now, but you can see mirrors on the Fark forum.
Wednesday, August 28, 2002
When I saw the title, "United States: Mind Reading Security System Planned" on Index, I thought it would lead to The Onion. No, The Washington Times reports NASA's adapting technology to read brain-waves and heart rate patterns. Did I miss the memo? Why is no one discussing this?
"We're getting closer to reading minds than you might suppose," says Robert Park, a physics professor at the University of Maryland and spokesman for the American Physical Society. "It does make me uncomfortable. That's the limit of privacy invasion. You can't go further than that."
Wednesday, August 28, 2002
A domain name is not a tattoo. It may be changed. We've procured a new, clever, original, short, catchy, domain name; but in the meantime this endevor may still be refered to as Protocol
Tuesday, August 27, 2002
It's a sad day in Brussels. Paul van Buitenen has stepped down from his position as an auditor of the EU. In 1999, he went public with detailed accounts of the corruption within the EU. This resulted in the resignation of the entire European Commission.
Tuesday, August 27, 2002
Erik from Info Anarchy has a good article up comparing the War on Drugs to the "war on sharing."
In that respect file sharing is similar to masturbation at the end of the 19th century. It is a guilty pleasure that most, if not all, regular users of the Internet enjoy from time to time, but society increasingly treats it like an illness, so fewer and fewer people are ready to admit that they do it. Watch the forums: In almost every related discussion you will find more and more people who argue that kids who share files are little thieves and should be severely punished. Unless those who question copyright are ready to stand up for their beliefs, this pro-copyright view will become the mainstream, just like anti-masturbation views dominated society for decades. It's sad to see that even people like Lessig feel the need to pledge allegiance to the copyright system regularly, as if any other position would be morally equivalent to an endorsement of legalized cannibalism.
Tuesday, August 27, 2002 Raymond Kurzweil's review of S1mone is espeically interesting as he has personally experienced creating a virtual reality female alter-ego. Be sure to check out "Ramona's" biography (Link via InstaPundit)
Tuesday, August 27, 2002 Dennison is seeking ideas on what to do with the domain he's secured, www.clonechrist.com.
Right now
I get the feeling that all of eastern Europes internet traffic is going
through the 14.4 modem of some water-logged computer beneath the
charles bridge. Either that, or the guy sitting next to me isn't the only one
downloading full screan porn movies at this internet cafe.
