Ben already broke that one down for us

Post #23,759 by drewk 1/10/02 11:37:22 AM Reply	Ben already broke that one down for us What was the alphabet soup for that one, SCCCA IIRC? We have to fight the terrorists as if there were no rules and preserve our open society as if there were no terrorists. -- [link\|http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/05/opinion/BIO-FRIEDMAN.html\|Thomas Friedman]
Post #23,846 by ben_tilly 1/10/02 11:10:51 PM Reply	That was copyright protection, not security But I doubt that security would be handled more wisely. Cheers, Ben
Post #23,884 by drewk 1/11/02 9:11:17 AM Reply	But don't they intend to "secure" copyright protection? That's the crux of the laws for copyright: prohibiting circumvention of the copyright "controls". So the copyright issue is argued as though it were one of security. They know that if were "only" about money they couldn't act so self-righteous. We have to fight the terrorists as if there were no rules and preserve our open society as if there were no terrorists. -- [link\|http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/05/opinion/BIO-FRIEDMAN.html\|Thomas Friedman]
Post #23,924 by ben_tilly 1/11/02 1:13:12 PM Reply	The language makes differing goals easy to confuse The purpose of security is generally to prevent people from using computers and computing resources in ways that are not authorized by the owners/administrators of said computers. The purpose of copyright is to restrict people from using documents in ways not authorized by the author or current copyright owner of said document. The significant difference is the question of whether the owner of a machine is allowed to use the machine and data on that machine as they intended. The goal of the SSSCA was to answer this in the negative. My objections were to the fact that the SSSCA prevented people from choosing how they wanted to work with their own computers. Cheers, Ben

Welcome to IWETHEY!