At 07:38 AM 7/4/02 +0200, Anonymous wrote: >James Donald writes: >> However it is a system and set of institutions that can validate >> that properly authorized code is running, and thus with a >> relatively minor change can ensure that ONLY properly authorized >> code may be run -- (Hey, we will protect you from all viruses, and >> all poorly written code, and all code that facilitates anti social >> behavior.) > >Okay, you are afraid that only "properly authorized" code will run. >Let's talk about one area: programming languages. > >What about compilers? Development systems? No doubt you'll claim these >will be restricted. They'll be like assault weapons. Use a compiler, >go to jail. This despite the fact that they are necessary tools for >technological progress today.
If you have a need ---you are working for an IRS-registered business--- then you will be allowed to use a compiler for work. Much like gun business---Joe Machinist can make guns at work, but not at home. Joe Chemist, working for a pharmaceutical or explosive maker, has the same problem. After all, 'bad' thoughts/programs can do more widespread damage... will no one think of the children? >And what about interpreted languages? Python, Ruby? What about Perl? >Seriously: will they ban Perl? Half the web depends on it! How can >they keep people from running Perl? Sure, you can own a copy, and run it on your standalone computer. You just can't run it publicly. You can build your own car too, but not drive it on the public roads without State *permission*. >Or do you think that only "properly authorized" Perl scripts will run? >That will never work. Perl is tweaked all the time; the whole point >of using it is so that you can adapt your site functionality quickly >and easily. The script will have to present a State certificate upon request if running on a public site. Your license and registration, please? At random checkpoints. >The whole idea of outlawing programming languages and allowing people >to only run software on an approved list is utterly ridiculous. Never stopped congress or their armed implementors.. >Custom software is widely used throughout the world for all kinds of >mission critical activities. Business would never allow the government >to forbid custom software. Businesses will have 'legitimate' uses for compilers and State-certified programmers (a biz won't be able to hire non-certified coders, and the state will take away your certification if you misbehave). Misbehave and your assets are taken, maybe you'll be charged with something. >People point to guns. Computer languages aren't anything like guns. >You can ban handguns and it doesn't hurt anyone's business except a >few gun sellers. Banning custom computer software will drive a stake >through the heart of business innovation and competition. Nations register xerox machines. They confiscate radio receivers. They can close down the media. They require location tech in cell phones. They require CALEA in telco switches. They bust machinists who make guns as a hobby. Sure, bits can be copied and stored a lot easier. Deploying them isn't so easy. Look at the pedo-image busts. >It's time for cypherpunks to remove their paranoia-colored glasses. >One apocalyptic prediction after another has been proven false. Right, and habeus corpus can't be ignored in this country. Ask a hundred thou japs about their time in Nevada. >Even post 9/11 the government floated one timid trial balloon about >possibly restricting crypto, and it was shot down in a hail of criticism >from all directions. > >If they can't even ban crypto, you think they'll be able to ban Perl? >People who believe this are utterly disconnected from reality. Perl the tool, no. Deployed Perl applications, sure. >To the extent that people fear the TCPA and DRM because they think it will >take us down a path to the mythical state where only approved software >runs, they need to think again. It can't be done. Software is infinitely >malleable, and it is this property that makes it so crucially important >in business today. The government can no more ban unapproved software >than it could require companies to forego the use of computers entirely. But software runs on physical machines owned by meat machines. Both kinds of machines are easily coerced. ------ "When I was your age we didn't have Tim May! We had to be paranoid on our own! And we were grateful!" --Alan Olsen
