Can e-Publishing Overcome Copyright Concerns?

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

One word:

China.

And if China could close up its digital borders, the U.S., say, could do it as well, and rid the country of traffic from Russia, Korea, Nigeria, etc, etc, as they wished.

The US theoretically could, though not as simply as you appear to imagine.

Take China as an example. Consider the billions of dollars being invested there by western interests, and the amount of business being done. Do you think the US would close that digital border entirely? Dream on.

"Oh", you might say. "We'll only close it to the undesirable traffic!" And you will identify and block that how, exactly, while letting the other stuff through?

Any and every country could put up its own digital borders.

And various countries have, for reasons I doubt either of us would agree with. Consider the controls imposed by some of the Islamic states.

And as I said, it might not be 100% effective, but for all practical purposes, it would do the job of isolating a country to only the traffic they permitted.

I think my larger issue is simply the nature of bureaucracies. A bureaucracy exists for the benefit of the bureaucrats. In business, you win by showing more revenue and profit and a better bottom line this year than you did last year. In government bureaucracies, you will by being able to justify a bigger budget and more staff next year.

There are all sorts of controls that might be imposed as "emergency measures" or "temporary controls". How likely are those controls to be lifted when the situation they were brought about to deal with no longer exists? Police agencies always want more power to fight crime. Think hard before you grant it, because you'll find it hard to take away again.

Botnets, phishes, spam, DDOS attacks -- yep, they're all problems. But none of them have affected me enough to have me calling for putting out the barricades, without carefully vetting what the barricades are and who controls them.
______
Dennis

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

What would you propose?

Anarchy is not a stable system. Order arises sooner of later, in one manner or another. The question is the best source for it to come from. I'm not convinced that source is government. Given some of the measures that might be involved, I'm not sure I trust any government with those powers.

If not governments... would you trust corporations, intent on serving their own interests only, and capable of bribing governments to allow them to do so?

Or would you trust the people, who have already demonstrated an aversion to control, a desire to create their own personal end-runs, a demand to have anything they want for free, and a refusal to accept the means of protecting digital property?

Fact is, corporations, and the public, have not shown the impetus to do what's needed, or what's right. And in their absence, government is the only thing left.

Unless...

...a non-profit international organization was developed to take on the task, with the sanction and support of the major world governments. That org would develop a set of security protocols (probably to be built into the IPv6 network currently being developed, or some future protocol), and all governments would be required to use them, or be excised to their own, anarchic, unstable, unprotected national web.

So, there's a proposal.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Of course, it's always hard to justify exploratory surveillance, as it's specifically intended to save lives, but by its nature usually suffers many false positives before getting a hit. And the amount of security an individual will accept often is in direct correlation to the losses they've had, or are anticipating. But the alternative... more lives lost, maybe a friend or relative (as those living in Boston, Washington and New York can attest)... usually makes it worth accepting some extra scrutiny.

How much extra scrutiny?

I live in NYC. I was here during 9/11. I recall the National Guard Armory I walked by every day on my way to work being converted into a relief headquarters. I recall hospital emergency rooms being cleared for a flood of casualties that never arrived, because everyone in the WTC towers either got out with minor injuries or didn't get out at all. I remember every telephone kiosk turning into a shrine, with votive candles and pictures of the missing with pleas for news about them. I remember fire stations festooned with flowers and memorials to all the guys who responded to the WTC fires and didn't come back. I remember National Guardsmen in full kit with loaded M16s patrolling the streets and transit stations. I remember two interviews with FBI agents, as I tried to explain that I lived a block above an area known as "Little India", complete with turbaned Sikhs, that all of the local newsstands were owned and operated by Arabs, that there was a Turkish and an Afghan restaurant within a few block of me, and no, no one around here would notice a random strange middle-eastern character, because that was half of the folks who lived here.

And we have a government which seems to be trying the use the fear spawned by 9/11 as a platform from which to implement a domestic program that has little to do with 9/11 and will serve little purpose in combating terror, but will serve to help preserve their hold on power.

Extra scrutiny? Fine, but be sure you know what ends it will be turned to and that you trust those doing it. Personally, I'm not sure I trust any administration with that sort of power.
______
Dennis

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Bob,
The analogy is colorful, but more to the point would be the information about yourself that you've already willingly given up to your ISP, your banker, your credit card company, your pizza delivery guys, your grocery store, your shopping mall, your doctor, your pharmacist, and your local Starbucks. Those guys could write the book on you, right now, to such detail that the entire world will look like glass to you. You might need to come to grips with how transparent those walls already are.

True... but as a developer I know that the weakest link is the people, not the systems. Yes, there are probably alot of systems that aren't as secure as they could be... heck, the system I work on has quite a few holes I know about. However, it is much easier to just try default passwords, blank passwords, calling people and doing social engineering, etc.

So, no matter how strong you think this security can be, the week point will still exist. I have to trust the people you list above, much more than the systems.

BTW: I don't drink coffee. Blech!

BOb

[tompe]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

I've had discussions elsewhere with members of the tin foil hat crowd, who are firmly convinced that Microsoft is in league with the NSA to leave back doors in Windows so the Feds can snoop on their machines. All I can say is "You wish you were important enough that anyone in power would bother to snoop on your machine!"

That is not the reason I have heard from people. What people are afraid of is misuse of the power and false positives. The equivalent to getting on a no-fly list because your name is similar to another name will be very common the more government listen to people.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by tompe

That is not the reason I have heard from people. What people are afraid of is misuse of the power and false positives. The equivalent to getting on a no-fly list because your name is similar to another name will be very common the more government listen to people.

Actually, with better security systems, being put on a no-fly list because of something so random as a similar name should happen less and less.

No doubt, false-positives suck, especially when you're the false positive. On the other hand, I'd rather be caught as a false-positive than be on the plane that went down because no one caught the true positive.

But are we getting slightly here, debating terrorist security when the issue is protecting copyright concerns? Or are we just over-reacting a bit, seeing conspiracies around every corner? As Dennis pointed out, the government isn't concerned with little guys like us. They are also not so efficient as to be able to turn this extra scrutiny against us without our knowing about it. And don't forget, the government isn't a system... it's made up of people like us, doing a job.

Anyway, I don't challenge the fact that increased security/scrutiny requires increased care and oversight. Theoretically, that should only improve the efficiency and acceptance of the system. No process is worth doing, if it won't be done right.

[zelda_pinwheel]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

And don't forget, the government isn't a system... it's made up of people like us, doing a job.

so was the Third Reich, as the defendents in the Nuremberg trials were quick to point out.

[pshrynk]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Actually, with better security systems, being put on a no-fly list because of something so random as a similar name should happen less and less.

No doubt, false-positives suck, especially when you're the false positive. On the other hand, I'd rather be caught as a false-positive than be on the plane that went down because no one caught the true positive.

But are we getting slightly here, debating terrorist security when the issue is protecting copyright concerns? Or are we just over-reacting a bit, seeing conspiracies around every corner? As Dennis pointed out, the government isn't concerned with little guys like us. They are also not so efficient as to be able to turn this extra scrutiny against us without our knowing about it. And don't forget, the government isn't a system... it's made up of people like us, doing a job.

Anyway, I don't challenge the fact that increased security/scrutiny requires increased care and oversight. Theoretically, that should only improve the efficiency and acceptance of the system. No process is worth doing, if it won't be done right.

The discussion about security followed as an aside becasue the discussion went to the monitoring and control of the chaos that is the internet. In order to have laws that apply to the copyrights, you have to have metalegal control, which then leads to the process of control and the structure needed.

[Greg Anos]

[QUOTE=Steve Jordan;203696]
But are we getting slightly here, debating terrorist security when the issue is protecting copyright concerns? Or are we just over-reacting a bit, seeing conspiracies around every corner? As Dennis pointed out, the government isn't concerned with little guys like us. They are also not so efficient as to be able to turn this extra scrutiny against us without our knowing about it. And don't forget, the government isn't a system... it's made up of people like us, doing a job.
QUOTE]

The government may or may not be interested in we little guys, but I guarantee you the RIAA and MPAA Et. Al. are. Ask the Jammie Thomases of the world.

Paranoids have enemies too.....

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

I have to trust the people you list above, much more than the systems.

Considering the recent crime incidents regarding retail employees taking advantage of their knowledge of internal procedures to steal from their own companies, and using said database information to arrange robberies of local residents, I'm surprised that you'd automatically put more trust in the people than their systems.

Originally Posted by pilotbob

BTW: I don't drink coffee. Blech!

I'm a mocha frapp man, myself.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by zelda_pinwheel

so was the Third Reich, as the defendents in the Nuremberg trials were quick to point out.

Pass.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Considering the recent crime incidents regarding retail employees taking advantage of their knowledge of internal procedures to steal from their own companies, and using said database information to arrange robberies of local residents, I'm surprised that you'd automatically put more trust in the people than their systems.

No, you misunderstand me. I said that even the most secure system can be violated by a person that has access. I'm not really sure how that can be fixed.

BOb

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

No, you misunderstand me. I said that even the most secure system can be violated by a person that has access. I'm not really sure how that can be fixed.

Okay, I get you. But systems can be secured, if it is deemed worthwhile. Ask anyone in banking how easy it is to violate their systems and steal someone's money from the inside. They'll tell you they'd have better success robbing a convenience store with a toy gun.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Okay, I get you. But systems can be secured, if it is deemed worthwhile. Ask anyone in banking how easy it is to violate their systems and steal someone's money from the inside. They'll tell you they'd have better success robbing a convenience store with a toy gun.

Sure... that's true. But, you are going to be able to institute bank level security at your local Drs. office. It is just to cost prohibitive and onerous. The only way to do something like that is to federate all this type of data so it requires government levels of security. Once again, this is just going to add to the cost... also, I really don't want to give up all my privacy to have the "illusion" of security. Then again, most of your comments to me are very socialistic, or at least they seem to be IMNSHO.

BOb

[zelda_pinwheel]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

Sure... that's true. But, you are going to be able to institute bank level security at your local Drs. office. It is just to cost prohibitive and onerous. The only way to do something like that is to federate all this type of data so it requires government levels of security. Once again, this is just going to add to the cost... also, I really don't want to give up all my privacy to have the "illusion" of security. Then again, most of your comments to me are very socialistic, or at least they seem to be IMNSHO.

BOb

god hear you.

not socialist. more like fascist. authoritarian, at the very least.