On Fri, Jul 05, 2002 at 10:05:31PM +0300, Stéphane Rollandin wrote:
> 
> >The way the Black Hats (and really, truly, they are out there, though
> >fotunately not completely in control yet) will try to have this work
> >is:-
> >hardware _must_ be compliant with DRM stuff.
> >somebody gets to 'certify' software as 'trusted'.
> >nobody is allowed a certificate for a compiler except 'authorised'
> >software houses.
> >
> >End result - you won't be able to make your own software. And it's all
> >for your own protection. Just like '1984'. Or the soviet union in it's
> >wettest dreams.
> 
> 
> yes, this is dwelling in the realm of dreams and nightmares... I don't see 
> how possibly such a control may come to exist. seems to me like a new "war 
> against ...", and all those wars failed.

They failed, but not without cost to their victims.  I expect that no
matter what, there will always be pockets of resistance.  Witness
Falun Gong's recent hacking into Chinese communications satellites.
However, even though the Chinese government has failed to "win", many
practitioners of a peaceful art have been compelled to join a
resistance movement, at great risk and cost to their personal/family
lives.

> do you play go ? it's a deep and profound stategic game, and there's a very 
> basic principle that a new player learn quickly: if you want all the 
> territory, you will loose. I think this is pretty general.

I agree that many analogies can be drawn between the world and the go
board.  However, I think that this one is rather tenuous.  I would
rather not have to sacrifice time with my wife and friends in order to
establish two eyes in a corner of the board.  I would rather not spend
my time learning how to exploit DRM security holes instead of
Squeaking.  However, if there is no resistance, it is akin to letting
black play three stones to white's one; in a game like that, black
_can_ get all of the territory.

Wouldn't it be nice to not have to choose between submitting to control
and making personal sacrifices in the name of resistance?  Unfortunately,
it _may_ prove to be impossible to avoid this choice.

Joshua


> 
> 
> Stef
>