in the world of video games, legal means: anything you can get away with...
ok so, editing the score file with a hex editor is a bit egotistic...
but... I am really used to the world of the freelance... the 'type what you
want' world without the government interfering. well, other than say:
MS/Apple or Lotus/Twin arguing over 'look and feel' trips; it is bad enough
having huge corporations telling us what to write, but to have the
government doing it to??? gee... haven't we learned enough writing for
anything Apple or MFC?... gag, I feel like I'm in a box then. almost as
bad as BASIC. no worse, I could always jsr out with basic.
on the other hand... ummm... oh yeah, net people would say "OTOH" or
something... OTOH, stable, dependable e-commerce rules are indeed the
jurisdiction of the government. but that has been proven long ago as a
federal level type decision. I would really like stable, definable, easily
enforced rules regarding e-commerce... if the feds could find a way to
enact a simple, to the point law that we can use, it would be a gift to the
whole world.
LindaC, thinking: yeah, right...
----- Original Message -----
From: "joe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2000 2:35 PM
Subject: Re: UCITA
>
> Bruce Scheiner's Cryptogram for this month had an interesting bit about
> UCITA. Take a look at this excerpt:
>
>
> > The Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA)
> >
> >
> >
> > Virginia Gov. James S. Gilmore III signed the UCITA, and it is now law
in
> > Virginia. The Maryland legislature overwhelmingly passed the bill, and
it
> > is on its way to become law in that state.
> >
> > I put this horrible piece of legislation in the Doghouse last month, but
> > it's worth revisiting one portion of the act that particularly affects
> > computer security.
> >
> > As part of the UCITA, software manufacturers have the right to remotely
> > disable software if the users do not abide by the license agreement.
(If
> > they don't pay for the software, for example.) As a computer-security
> > professional, I think this is insane.
> >
> > What it means is that manufacturers can put a back door into their
> > products. By sending some kind of code over the Internet, they can
> > remotely turn off their products (or, presumably, certain features of
their
> > products). The naive conceit here is that only the manufacturer will
ever
> > know this disable code, and that hackers will never figure the codes out
> > and post them on the Internet.
> >
> > This is, of course, ridiculous. Such tools will be written and will be
> > disseminated.
> >
> > Once these tools are, it will be easy for malicious hackers to disable
> > peoples' computers, just for fun. This kind of hacking will make Back
> > Orifice look mild.
> >
> > Cryptography can protect against this kind of attack -- the codes could
be
> > digitally signed by the manufacturer, and the software wouldn't contain
the
> > signature key -- but in order for this to work the entire system has to
be
> > implemented perfectly. Given the industry's track record at
implementing
> > cryptography, I don't have high hopes. Putting a back door in software
> > products is just asking for trouble, no matter what kinds of controls
you
> > try to put into place.
> >
> > The UCITA is a bad law, and this is just the most egregious
> > provision. It's wandering around the legislatures of most states. I
urge
> > everyone to urge everyone involved not to pass it.
> >
> > Virginia:
> > <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6866-2000Mar14.html>
> >
> > Maryland:
> > <http://www.idg.net/idgns/2000/03/29/UCITAPassesMarylandHouse.shtml>
