Slashdot Log In
A Conversation with Cory Doctorow and Hal Stern
Posted by
Zonk
on Sat May 19, 2007 06:33 AM
from the less-magic-kingdom-more-cathedral-and-bazaar dept.
from the less-magic-kingdom-more-cathedral-and-bazaar dept.
ChelleChelle writes "In a rare meeting, popular sci-fi writer and co-editor of the blog Boing Boing Cory Doctorow and Sun VP Hal Stern consider the open source approach. The resulting interview deals with the pros and cons of going open source, as well as the issues of security and privacy. From the article: 'It seems to me that one of the big problems with the filters you've just identified is who gets to set policy in the machine. As a science fiction writer, I am offended by sci-fi movies where it turns out that the rocket ship has a self-destruct button, it has been pressed by accident, and now the whole thing is going to explode. ... By the same token, I often wonder whether trusted computing architectures that allow remote parties to enforce policy on your hardware are a good idea. Although we can imagine beneficent examples of this, this is what spyware is, by definition, right? Spyware is remote parties setting policies on your computer against your wishes. Is it ever a good idea?'"
Related Stories
[+]
Why Make a Sequel of the Napster Wars? 280 comments
6 writes "Cory Doctorow has an interesting article over at Information Week about Hollywood's strategy of suing sites such as YouTube. Says Doctorow: 'It's been eight years since Sean Fanning created Napster in his college dorm room. Eight years later, there isn't a single authorized music service that can compete with the original Napster. Record sales are down every year, and digital music sales aren't filling in the crater. The record industry has contracted to four companies, and it may soon be three if EMI can get regulatory permission to put itself on the block. The sue-'em-all-and-let-God-sort-'em-out plan was a flop in the box office, a flop in home video, and a flop overseas. So why is Hollywood shooting a remake?'"
[+]
Your Rights Online: Science Fiction Writers Write DMCA Takedowns 197 comments
TheGreatGraySkwid writes "With an ironic lack of forward thinking, the Science Fiction Writers of America (or, more specifically, their Vice President Andrew Burt) have issued scattershot DMCA takedown notices against numerous items on the document-sharing site Scribd, many of which were not infringing on SFWA copyrights in any way. It appears that a simple keyword search for prominent science fiction names (like 'Asimov' and 'Silverburg') was used to determine which documents were to be singled out. Included in the documents was Cory Doctorow's 'Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom,' which was released under the Creative Commons license and is freely available at any number of places. Doctorow is up in arms over at BoingBoing, with several other Science Fiction notables speaking up in the comments."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
A Conversation with Cory Doctorow and Hal Stern
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 41 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Scifi FOSS Punditry? (Score:2)
(http://cheeseburgerbrown.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday November 06, @02:10PM)
Cory's shirt (Score:1)
(http://warnack.com/)
Re:Cory's shirt (Score:4, Informative)
(http://perldude.de/)
Cory Doctorow (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/)
Re:Cory Doctorow (Score:4, Insightful)
I sometimes wonder if Cory and Xeni Jardin have hit on some sort of self-satirical performance art, and we're just not in on the joke.
Don't lend Trusted computing legitimacy (Score:4, Insightful)
What will help computer security are good security practices.
At my house, everyone logs in to a Linux powered Domain, LDAP coated in SSL for Authorization, Kerberos for Authentication. Traffic (especially Wifi) encapsulated with IPSec. SE Linux policies in place. Directory service authorized Radius Server with MySQL server Accounting, and cataloged MAC Addresses in OpenLDAP. These are good security policies. Everyone should have some variation of this.
If I were on a space ship, I damned well better be able to secure my systems against unauthorized access. But DRM and TCPA do not make this happen.
Re:Don't lend Trusted computing legitimacy (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Friday August 24, @10:02PM)
Good security practice starts with a question: "What am I protecting?". If it isn't particularly valuable, you don't spend a lot of money(or time) securing it.
I can not let you do this Dave... (Score:2)
That was an imposter! (Score:2)
(Last Journal: Tuesday October 02, @09:54AM)
Somebody had to do it (Score:2, Funny)
On the bright side, Cory is using an analogy that might spark some brain cells in the semi-joe sixpack crowd.
Not Trusted Computing (Score:2)
Rather, it provides a way for people to prove what policies they are enforcing on their own machines. And thereby that will allow someone to say, I won't give you this data unless you are running a certain policy (that will protect my data). Today, that wouldn't really work because they couldn't tell what policies you were running. But with Trusted Computing, it will be possible. You will be able to prove your policies and they can decide whether to give you the data depending on what your policies are.
It may seem like a subtle distinction, and in a way there's not that much difference. But saying that third parties can enforce policy on your machine evokes many images that just would not happen with the real Trusted Computing. It suggests that your machine could be made to spy on you or do some other bad thing and there's nothing you can do about it. But that's not true. You always have a choice with Trusted Computing to tell the other guy to stuff it, you just won't take his damn data if he wants to put so many restrictions on it. Just like today you don't have to shop at Apple music store if you don't like DRM, you can download music from independent bands who make it freely available in MP3 format.
The whole point of Trusted Computing is to keep things completely voluntary. It aims to replace legal restrictions (that you have no choice about) with technological ones (that you can always choose not to use). It adds choices and options without taking any away. It lets people who are honest prove that they are honest: when they agree to the policies in return for taking the data it lets them prove what policies they are truly following.
Honest people have nothing to fear from Trusted Computing. In fact they will gain many advantages by letting them prove their honesty and gain others' trust. The only people who will be hampered by Trusted Computing are those who would aim to falsely agree to observe copyright restrictions and then violate them once they get their hands on the data. Unfortunately, judging by the negative reception to Trusted Computing, such people make up a substantial fraction of the online community.
it is a good idea... (Score:2)
If you actually own all the remote machines. For example your workers do their job at home.
M$ doesn't own my machine.