Aug 21, 2001

SDMI Code-Breaker Speaks Freely
'On Wednesday evening, Felten took the stage in front of a crowded auditorium in the lower level of the J.W. Marriott hotel, took a deep breath, and launched into a discussion of his co-authored paper, "Reading Between the Lines: Lessons from the SDMI Challenge."'

TechNet 'cast, including PDF of the paper.

Aug 21, 2001

Web bug swarm grows 500 percent
Privacy from Companies
'In the last three years, Web bug use has grown nearly 500 percent, according to Cyveillance, an Internet technology and analysis company. The flood can be traced to the number of secondary pages carrying the tags, including personal Web pages linked to large community sites and Internet service providers, the report found.'

'The research highlights a growing conflict between policies and practices at many Web businesses, a potential cause for consumer backlash. It also validates efforts by privacy advocates to combat the rising use of such surveillance.'

That second paragraph reminds me of something I've been thinking lately. A lot of people... heck, most everybody... find it very easy to ignore the issues the cyber-civil-rights bunch raise, even people who work in the computer industry, chalking the whole thing up to a Chicken Little mentality. However, I'm hard pressed to come up with a prediction that either hasn't already come true, or is currently in the process of coming true. A pity we aren't all endowed with a bit more imagination... the one thing that absolutely will not happen is everything staying the same, yet it's the one thing we can really believe will happen... and our actions are affected by that, to our detriment.

Aug 21, 2001

Monitoring of Judiciary Computers Is Backed
'A special committee of federal judges has recommended the wide-scale monitoring of all the computers used in the judicial branch, over the objections of judges who regard the practice as a privacy violation.'

An update on a previous story.

Aug 13, 2001

Software Double Bind
'The law of which Mr. Sklyarov ran afoul makes it illegal to manufacture or distribute a device designed to bypass technology that protects copyright material. His offense was to develop software that can disable the safeguards that are supposed to prevent electronic books from being distributed en masse over the Internet.'

'The law also makes it illegal for individuals to use such a program -- even to make a back-up copy of a book or movie or song for themselves, the type of copies traditionally allowed under copyright law. That is where the double bind comes in. Actually making such copies for personal use is not illegal. But it is against the law to break through the copy-protection measure to make the legal copies.'

Here's my favorite part of the article:

'Marybeth Peters, the chief of the United States Copyright Office, said that the exception was still meaningful, even without a market for anti- circumvention devices, because it allowed individuals to figure out for themselves how to go around a technological control measure.'

'"Many of the people I know can come up with a program to do it themselves, without being in the business of doing it," Ms. Peters said.'

Ms. Peters, if "many of the people you know" can come up with a program to do it themselves, you must be on awfully good terms with an awful lot of crackers and I sarcastically question whether somebody on such good terms with crackers belongs in the position of chief of the United States Copyright Office.

But speaking as a computer person (and I'd like to think a fairly good one) and not an ultra-high-level (i.e., "ultra-disconnected") administrator, while it is in theory within my capability to crack these protection measures, it would take me a very long time to do so, probably at least a year. A non-computer professional hasn't got a chance in hell of breaking these measures, unless they happen to stumble across a bug in the protection, which hardly counts.

Most known protection measures are weak, but that's a relative measurement. They're weak in the sense that hundreds or thousands of people can break them, and distribute the crack to billions. They are not considered weak because millions can break them.

Ms. Peters' suggestion that the measure is reasonable can only be interpreted as saying that only crackers have the right to fair use, which effectively denies that right to everybody else.


Aug 11, 2001

A Warhol Worm: An Internet plague in 15 minutes!
' simply changing the infection pattern, it is possible for a malicious programmer to build a "Warhol Worm", able to attack all vulnerable machines, worldwide, in 15 minutes. A reactive, human defense would fail before such an onslaught. It is an important exercise to realize just how vulnerable we are.'

Believable. Very believable.


<- Future Posts Past Posts ->


Site Links


All Posts