Message-ID: <011a01c52f75$8bc3a0e0$0a01a8c0@anchorsign.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 22:57:14 -0800
From: "Thor (Hammer of God)" <thor@...merofgod.com>
To: <gillettdavid@...a.edu>, <jericho@...rition.org>,
	"Jason Coombs" <jasonc@...ence.org>
Cc: <isn@....org>, <sberinato@....com>,
	"Full-Disclosure" <full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk>,
	<bugtraq@...urityfocus.com>
Subject: Re: [ISN] How To Save The Internet


So I take it those weren't "Crunch Berries" in your cereal this morning?  A
bit over the top, man...  Comments in-line:

> David Gillett wrote:
>> are the various rights of the owner
>> of the CPU, the *operator* of the
>> CPU, and the owner of the *data*,
>> each of whom may have a more or
>> less legitimate say in what code
>> actually gets executed.
>
> Nonsense. Absurd, ridiculous nonsense.
>
> There is only one party who has any say over what code gets executed by a
> CPU: the owner of that physical property.
>
> Everyone else can go fly a kite.
>
> Take your intellectual property fantasies and your heady legal concerns to
> law school, they have no place in security technology.

The reason we have security technology *in the first place* is because the
masses DO NOT have any say in what code gets executed by the CPU's they own
in real life.  While I may conceptually agree that we *should* have the
exclusive control (but I'm still out on that- I'll have to give it more
thought) that is not the way it plays out every day.  If this were the case,
many reading this message would not have the jobs they have now.


Intellectual property is not a fantasy- you're making it sound like your
stance is that since I own a CPU, I can run whatever code I want regardless
of whether I own the right to that code or not- and that just scratches the
surface of the implications you make here...   I normally try to understand
your mindsets as I respect your points of view (though they are often
contrary to my own) but this one is kind of out of left field.   You are
(seemingly) dismissing a host of copyrights, privacy rights, etc that may
be present based strictly on the ownership of the CPU.  If I take your point
incorrectly, please don't "smash my head with it," but rather try to
articulate it in a more civilized manner that promotes the intelligent
exchange of ideas.

> Give me a computer that is defensible, so that *my* intellectual property
> and *my* personal legal liability exposure (both civil and criminal) can
> be defended, and stop trying to give me the ability to control other
> people's computers and impose my intellectual property “rights” on them by
> force.
>
> The more you try to stuff Intellectual Property down people's throats as
> though it is “Property” that grants its “owner” rights equivalent to
> rights of > real property ownership, the closer you push us to a complete
> abandonment of all IP protections.

If this came from someone else, I would not hesitate to say that they were
totally full of shit.  You were clearly set off by Gillett, but you can't
possibly be suggesting that physical possession or ownership of some
asset/object obviates the rights that others may have to that property
(directly or indirectly) or that it absolves you from responsibility in the 
manner in which you choose to use that
property, can you?  You're a smart man, and I have to assume that I'm
missing something-- I'd appreciate it if you would take a moment to
elaborate on this particular point.

> Intellectual property only has value as long as I cooperate with your
> belief in its value.

No, sir.  IP has value as long as everyone else believes in its value.  More
specifically, IP has value as long as a judicial body exists to uphold laws
drafted by a legislative body whose determinations are accepted by everyone
else whether they really "believe" in the specific value or not, but who do
so because they trust in the operation of the overall system.  Much like how
we all trust the operation of the code we run on our systems.

> Tangible property has value because I can smash your head in with it,
> whether you believe in its value or not. Get a clue, please. You're a
> danger to our collective future as a civilization.

Come on, Jason... Totally uncalled for, and a completely unworthy response
for a man of your intellect.   The real danger to our future as a
civilization is when men and women who are in a position to share their
gift of logic and perception opt out in favor of belligerence.

T

>
> Regards,
>
> Jason Coombs
> jasonc@...ence.org
>
>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists