Message-ID: <4228DD69.6030000@pwarchitects.com>
From: dk at pwarchitects.com (dk)
Subject: Bios programming...

Bill Humphries wrote:

> 1) It is easily circumvented.
> 2) It violates the privacy of other users.
> 3) It can easily generate false positives.
> 5) It could be exploited.
> 6) Who decides what is a 'suspect site'?
> 7) Trustworthiness of the Monitoring Organization
> 8) Trust vs. Pervasive Surveillance

I agree completely with 1-8. This project seems very short-sighted and 
ill conceived. Fraught with social and moral repercussions well beyond 
"those who are helped"... I don't care that other projects have claimed 
to provide similar solutions. Emulation does not imply correctness any 
more than a talking myna bird espouses Truth.
I also question that the knowledge/skill set of the O.P is not up to 
task, but that's solely based on his verbiage and lackadaisical 
sentences regarding CMOS, BIOS and the like.

> Several people said they felt a legitimate need for this software citing 
> "pornography addiction."
> 
> I've emailed a few friends who are in grad programs and clinical 
> practice to confirm if there's an actual diagnosis of "pornography 
> addiction". Sorry, the term feels loaded, like something tossed about 
> during a congressional hearing.

I spoke with two Psych PhD. friends about this over lunch today, one 
male one female. They both expressed concern over this approach; 
likening it to medicating a client without proper diagnosis or therapy. 
One commented that if such an observable "pornography addiction" exists, 
is it likely part of a much larger sexual dysfunction that could 
actually be exacerbated by this type of behavior modification. Not to 
mention what it could possibly grow into once the conditions feeding the 
behavior change. i.e. the electronic chastity belt is removed or breaks; 
or the "addiction" takes on a different expressive form; or...

Personally I find outrageous that we continually mis-classify and over 
simplify cultural problems and try to devise such technological 
solutions to limit human behavior. The fact that this was honestly 
posted to Full-Disclosure as a serious question demonstrates the already 
flawed approach being taken.

[snip very good AA comparison]

> And when, if ever, do you build trust with the person who you have said 
> you have harmed? It strikes me as too easy to leave the secret policeman 
> on forever. But now there's a third pillow in that bed, and I get the 
> feeling that you do not condone polyamory.

I get the feeling that this may be motivated by a religious association 
with an agenda besides just specific sexual dysfunctions, then again 
perhaps not. The site at www.dynamicanswers.com seems very MS/Win32 
centric, so while I expect the O.P. to be well versed in win32/mfc 
solutions, I do no suspect much else. Which is what this undertaking 
would require. Either way, people tend to over step their bounds of 
experience when providing solutions. To them I would say: Most times you 
are not there 5 or 10 years later to clean up the mess you helped make; 
albeit with misguided good intentions.

How does that old quote go?

> That's why I made those remarks comparing your plan to the abuses of 
> Mao's Cultural Revolution. You privatize the intrusive, something which, 
> until recently, was the domain of totalitarian states.

"Privatize the intrusive" that's very excellent and succinct Bill. 
Though in a way, I'd submit that The Church has had their hands in this 
too (God is watching you, etc...) Though "privatize" may not exactly fit 
that, they construct systems for similar goals: Control.


-- 
dk

Powered by blists - more mailing lists