On Wed, Apr 21 at 15:04, Stefan Monnier penned: > > Now think about the other route: the one based on the law instead of > technology: the legal document can simply describe what she's > allowed to do, and that will automatically cover all imaginable ways > to circumvent any technological means you could imagine. And if she > does break the contract, you can sue her. Don't know about you, but > to me, it sounds a lot more useful.
Except that most technical people would probably rather hammer a nail through their forehead than go through the pain of suing someone and dealing with the legal system, the paper work, the time involved ... So looking for a technical solution, even one that requires an enormous amount of development time, makes sense. Maybe the development time is actually a bonus, if you're interested in that sort of tinkering already. All of that being said - this entire thread is really a question of security, and security is a process and an approach, not an end result. There is no such thing as a 100% secure system that is also useful, in the same way that there is no such thing as a 100% secure PDF that is also useful. So the real goal is to make the document "secure enough" for one's purposes, while also making the document "usable enough" for those purposes. I think there have been a lot of good ideas on this thread for managing that trade-off. -- monique -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100421193947.go30...@mail.bounceswoosh.org
