- #2. were the surveillance methods used by the fbi effective? mcdonald’s monopoly game how to
- #2. were the surveillance methods used by the fbi effective? mcdonald’s monopoly game movie
It's not that regulators don't understand information technology, because it should be possible to be a non-expert and still make a good law! M.P.s and Congressmen and so on are elected to represent districts and people, not disciplines and issues.
#2. were the surveillance methods used by the fbi effective? mcdonald’s monopoly game how to
] And now you have three problems, because now you have to stop the users who figure out how to render the file in the clear from sharing it with other users, and now you've got four! problems, because now you have to stop the users who figure out how to extract secrets from unlocking programs from telling other users how to do it too, and now you've got five! problems, because now you have to stop users who figure out how to extract secrets from unlocking programs from telling other users what the secrets were!įrom there he goes on to put together a fantastic analogy of how a confusion over analogies, rather than (perhaps) outright cluelessness (or evilness) explains why bad copyright laws keep getting passed: You also, now, have to stop the user from saving the file while it's in the clear, and you have to stop the user from figuring out where the unlocking program stores its keys, because if the user finds the keys, she'll just decrypt the file and throw away that stupid player app.
] But as they say on the Internet, "now you have two problems".
For example, you could encrypt the file, and then require the user to run a program that only unlocked the file under certain circumstances. After all, it was well and good to talk about selling someone the 24 hour right to a video, or the right to move music onto an iPod, but not the right to move music from the iPod onto another device, but how the Hell could you do that once you'd given them the file? In order to do that, to make this work, you needed to figure out how to stop computers from running certain programs and inspecting certain files and processes. ] But none of this would be possible unless we could control how people use their computers and the files we transfer to them. You could sell movies for one price in one country, and another price in another, and so on, and so on the fantasies of those days were a little like a boring science fiction adaptation of the Old Testament book of Numbers, a kind of tedious enumeration of every permutation of things people do with information and the ways we could charge them for it.
#2. were the surveillance methods used by the fbi effective? mcdonald’s monopoly game movie
You could buy a book for a day, you could sell the right to watch the movie for one Euro, and then you could rent out the pause button at one penny per second. Now, information technology makes things efficient, so imagine the markets that an information economy would have. They assumed it meant an economy where we bought and sold information.
We were about to have an information economy, whatever the hell that was. That's because computers that can run any program screw up the kind of gatekeeper control some industries are used to, and create a litany of problems for those industries:īy 1996, it became clear to everyone in the halls of power that there was something important about to happen. The idea behind all these attempts to "crack down" on copyright infringement online, with things like DRM, rootkits, three strikes laws, SOPA and more, are really simply all forms of attacks on general purpose computing. The crux of his argument is pretty straightforward. or if you're a speed reader, you can check out the fantastic transcript put together by Joshua Wise, which I'll be quoting from: You can watch the 55 minute presentation below. I don't think I've ever had so many people all recommend I watch the same thing as the number of folks who pointed me to Cory Doctorow's brilliant talk at the Chaos Communication Congress in Berlin last week.