Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : How high will Microsoft fly? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Russ who wrote (44964)	5/19/2000 1:42:00 AM
From: JC Jaros	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

YOu're saying that M$ doesn't have the right to innovate Kerberos, Russ? What kind of Communist propaganda are you promoting here? --- You know, if Microsoft's competitors are such hapless losers as to let the source code to stuff just sit around unprotected by lawyers and branding agencies, it serves them right. Microsoft innovated it 'fair and square' <g> --- I'm actually surprised that you don't find more MSFT shareholders handing out flowers at the airports. --- It's going to end up costing taxpayers on the order of a Billion dollars to deprogram these people. -JCJ

To: Russ who wrote (44964)	5/19/2000 8:32:00 AM
From: Frederick Smart	Respond to of 74651

Security: The Law of The Jungle.... Russ: Thanks for responding to Duke in this debate. See my comments below: >>5. What measures has Microsoft taken to ensure that its Kerberos specification is only distributed to persons who are capable of entering into a binding contract in jurisdictions where such an agreement would be enforceable?>> Duke: ---this is sort of like the Rapist claiming that the victim deserved it because no one would be so stupid as to go out walking alone on a dark night. Russ: There have been several court rulings on trade secrets and the amount of protection the holders must put on them for them to be considered a trade secret. Posting a document on the Web for anonymous download means they have not taken adequate precautions, and the "trade secrets" are not legally trade secrets. If your argument is that the MS Kerberos spec is a trade secret because MS says it is, and the laws be damned, well, that works in the Republic of Microsoft, and maybe on these boards, but the law is quite clear on the subject. Me: Microsoft's power is only based on the power "we" give it: in the form of our money, time, trust, etc. Microsoft - or anyone else for that matter - can create uniquely differentiated channels of either openly or selectively communicating information/data in ways where "they" control the allocation of money, time, trust between and among parties in the greater Republic - or community, depending on how you think they are operating - of Microsoft. Personally, Micrsoft's actions have been definitely less to do with building community - where trust and truth and time become the true currency defining and supporting connectivity/communication/cooperation/collaboration - and more to do with establishing political rules of a republic -where self-designed rules, restrictions, limitations and labels are used to enstill political control through the use of money and force which enstills fear which is a subversive form of power. No, I'm not going off here. I'm just observing the stark, radical difference between the forces of openness, truth and transparency which are driving the net and the forces of power and control that want to cap, control, limit, lable and define the net. Microsoft and the U.S. Govt. in bed together would make a formidable force for an era of virtual control of the net through the mechanisms of hidden agendas. This is why the open source movement is growing so rapidly. The sanctity of virtual freedom is not possible when individuals are using tools and services which are controlled by a company that "sees" the world differently - from the old power/control/fear perspective. >>7. Why wouldn't prospective purchasers of Windows 2000 need to know the contents of Microsoft's Kerberos specification in order to make informed judgments regarding interoperability in connection with their purchasing decisions?>> Duke: ---Because, stupid, its a Code! You don't pass out the Key to others to see if they like it. (although, I will give you that that's what Linux does :))) Russ: Do you know anything at all about security? The only encryption algorithm I know of where the algorithm is not publicly available is the Skipjack cipher (invented by the NSA, and implemented in the Clipper chip), and it's not used. Any cipher that is used is well documented and well analyzed, and that includes DES, Triple-DES, Blowfish, RC-5, Twofish, Mars, etc as well as all authentication standards. Proprietary security protocols are inherently untrustworthy and are not used by anyone with any knowledge of security. Kerberos is well known, works well, and is believed secure, but any unpublished extensions could introduce security holes. It's just not done by anyone who cares about security. Me: Duke is definitely expressing the closed, fear-based mindset. You can't beat this over Duke's head. If he "got it" then he would realize that openly sharing specifications and codes and information and data is the ONLY way which grows the overall truth/integrity/justice pie. And as we all know, Rules of Law are meaningless. For all it takes is for ONE person to get away with murder or a serial injustice to flout destroy the entire fabric of the Rule of Law. Even the seemingly "let's move on" example of Clinton committing perjury is an example where ONE person can effectively nullify the entire Rule of Law simply because of the rank/position he is in. I firmly believe that the only thing we all have to work in defense of these realities is our personal missions to build trust back into the world. Just writing these thoughts out is a simple expression of this belief. We really have nothing to fear except for the energy-taking fights we all create for ourselves. We become fighters only to the extent that we are trying to win at someone else's expense. The DOJ case is a brawl which only the govt. can win. I understand the position Microsoft is in and I agree that our Federal govt. should not use this case to advance it's power at the expense of our privacy and security, etc. The only "way out" is for Microsoft to take the higher road with the open source community. This is perhaps impossible given their fundamental position and mindset which is closed, proprietary, etc. So we are all really witnessing a natural arbitrage between two forces. I'm confident there will eventually be a right outcome. Peace. GO!!

To: Russ who wrote (44964)	5/19/2000 1:07:00 PM
From: The Duke of URL©	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Russ: I appreciate your informative comments. It is obvious to me, for one, that you have had extensive experience in the cryptographic arena. Because of the guidance of your post, I hopped on Slashdot for a look. It would be unkind to say, but there are those that might think that the Slashdot forum is nothing more that a BBS for hackers of code. You are, of course, familiar with the DMCA, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998. The act tries to seek a balance between legitimate uses of encrypted code and unauthorized and anti-commercial ones. In light of the recent stream of malicious virus attacks, the Act, I would think you will agree, seems timely indeed. Under that act and specifically section 1201(g) of that Act, it seems to be MSFT's contention that the guys from slash dot stole the code. Slashdot's attorneys thrust, as is yours, is that since the code was in public purview, MSFT has lost it Trade Secrets protection. "Trade Secrets" is not the main issue. Trade Secrets is only an important consideration in determining whether the code was illegally obtained, under 1201(g) of the Act. Is this sort of along the lines you were thinking? Duke