On Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 04:01:08PM -0800, Ed Gerck wrote:
>
> Thus, what mildly bothers me is that when choosing between privacy and
> security we seem (of all groups) to prefer security. We need to accept
> that the privacy of source code is protected by intellectual property rights
> which the owner chose to claim (trade secret) *before* the end-user decided
> to use the software. Security of others, even in the good name of free speech,
> cannot in my view justify an invasion in the privacy of one. Those that prefer
> securit over privacy deserve none, would perhaps Ben Franklin say today.
>
This is an absolutist view of intellectual property ethics that
says your shrink wrap rubber stamp non-negotiated software license
trumps my right to inquire as to what software I install on my machine
does and does not do. Your trade secret is what your software does to
me.
I'm of a different persuasion as to the balancing of social
interests here - I think my right to understand what my machine is
doing and when is a pretty fundemental fair use right and something
that must not be essentially eliminated by mandatory non-negotiated
shrink wrap licenses. And I think the social harm that can and will be
caused by anti-user features hidden in essentially trojan mass market
software and protected from public view by assertions of trade secrecy
or other intellectual property claims is far greater than the damage to
the privacy of someone's source (which isn't at issue in any reverse
engineering since the source is not available almost by definition).
I'm afraid however that my view has not prevailed in recent
legislation...
--
Dave Emery N1PRE, [EMAIL PROTECTED] DIE Consulting, Weston, Mass.
PGP fingerprint = 2047/4D7B08D1 DE 6E E1 CC 1F 1D 96 E2 5D 27 BD B0 24 88 C3 18
