Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan
Computers didn't invent themselves; people created computers. And they can re-create them, as they have many times since their initial creation, to perform as required.
Don't assume that the way computers (and the internet) work now is the only way they can work; that's a fallacy akin to assuming a car can only work if it has a hand-crank on the engine.
|
I don't assume computers and an internet can't be made to be monitored--I question the ability to force existing computers into that pattern. Or the ability to push enough of them into that pattern, and "upgrade" the rest to something compliant with new "security" standards, to effectively kill unauthorized data transfers.
Where does "shut down RSS feeds" come into your idea of how data will be controlled? Where is "stop people from typing in copyrighted paragraphs to a series of blogs, which must be assembled by RSS to read the book?" (Or, more likely, "type in partial URLs to Twitter, which must be assembled with another account's other-part of the URL to get the link to the encrypted file. A third twitter account has passwords.")
If businesses are allowed to transfer data securely, individuals will also be able to do so. If there's secure data transfer, there will be unauthorized data transfers.
This could, of course, be stopped by requiring total government oversight of every data-packet on the internet. Somehow, I don't see that coming.
Quote:
|
Overestimating the intelligence or compliance of "the public" is truly a fool's game...
|
The public-in-general is not going to become hackers or particularly tech-savvy. But it takes a very small percentage who *do* understand the options to make sure that everyone else knows they exist.
Very new ebook/ereader buyers just accept "you can only read books from this store on that device." After looking around even a tiny bit, they discover "there's ways to change that"--and they may or may not discover the controversy about how legal that is or isn't. But they know that the DRM (which term they may not recognize) can be removed, if one cares to bother.
That *knowledge* is all it takes to destroy the system of a gov't-controlled internet. Because as soon as the restrictions cross the line into "too inconvenient for me," the individual user goes to find the information they know is out-there-somewhere.
And while the gov't will be very quick in trying to shut down the data-cracking equivalent of wikileaks, they've shown no interest in shutting down the thousands of "CLICK HERE INSTALL SPECIAL ANT1VIRUS PR0TECTION WHICH WE SAY YOU NEED!!!" programs that infest the internet. They're not shutting down spam, which is estimated to be about 90% of all email.
When I see a serious attempt to end spam, I'll know the gov't might actually understand enough of the technology to make a serious attempt at stopping other unauthorized traffic online.
Otherwise? The torrent sites aren't using spambots to exchange links because it's not as efficient as what they have, but it's not like they couldn't switch systems.