Full Disclosure mailing list archives

Re: Calcuating Loss


From: Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu
Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 12:38:21 -0400

On Wed, 12 May 2004 08:56:25 PDT, "Schmidt, Michael R." said:

What we need is something that you have to log into (securely) or your DHCP is
revoked immediately.  And of course static IPs are well, static and since they
are routed, routes can be logged and therefore trackable.

All fine and good.. However... there's this whole "enforcement" thing.  For
starters, the net is multinational - how do you *force* some user in Zimbabwe
to use your scheme?

I'll leave all the privacy issues to others - there's plenty of problems *there*
as well.

If you replace a part on some new cars with a non-manufacturers part, you
void the warranty.  But when you run unsigned downloaded for free or sent
through email code on your dell, who do you call and expect to fix it when it
stops working?  The end user is the moron, we require no test to get on the
internet and yet we let more people anonymously sign on the net everyday.

You have to make a decision here - I may be willing to use an aftermarket part
and void my warranty, having made a decision that doing so was a good idea -
the aftermarket part may be vastly less expensive (I've replaced several pieces
of my car with junkyard salvage for $20 when the 3rd party part was $100 and
the original company's part was $160), or higher performance, and you decide
that it's worth voiding the warranty.

It's a totally different thing to legislate that replacing a part with a
non-vendor part is illegal - and that's what you'd have to do to make this
scheme fly.

When source code is outlawed, only outlaws will have source.... :)

Attachment: _bin
Description:


Current thread: