On Wed, 20 Jun 2001 22:04:59 PDT, Eliot Lear said:
> freeware. My concern with OPES would be a modifying of data in a way that
> neither end could determine. I am not willing to protect the end points
> from themselves. Nor can I.
Hmm. at the one end, is the "end point" the *browser*, or the person who's
doing the browsing? Yes, a case can be made that you can't protect the
person (or the computer) from the browser - but we *should* be able to at
least draw a line on the floor and say "the browser and OPES can't collaborate
to do something contrary to what the source end wanted to transmit".
And for the record, I can think of *several* organizations that would be
at least very tempted to stoop to saying "our client software is non-malicious"
and not actually *lie* because some OPES agent is being malicious for the
client software. Interestingly enough, the danger here isn't the pure
software houses - it's the companies that provide both software and content
(or wish they did) that are the threat here....
> Mo's warning is quite reasonable-- there is a limit to what goo you should
> put in the middle, but I question the meaning of an end point. If we
> allow for the notion of things like web farms, can we not also allow for
> some set of standards that support such things? I think so. However, I
> can't say that's what OPES will do because the charter is too vague.
And I'm questioning the meaning at the end that isn't the web farm ;)
/Valdis
