A Secure, Separate Internet? Why Not Just Use Strong Cryptography?

According to ZDNet, the Clinton administration is proposing creating “a secure zone in cyberspace” that would achieve said security by eliminating anonymity in this secure space. As National Security Council coordinator Richard Clarke summed it up, “In this zone, privacy and security could be achieved, as long as there is no anonymity.”

Uh huh. Create this separate space and then slowly require that certain transactions pass through it — say financial transactions for example — and just sit back and wait for this no anonymity zone to grow.

I’m not an expert in this, but it seems that if security is what is needed, getting rid of all the restrictions on export of strong cryptography would go a long way to helping companies do business anywhere in the world securely and privately (but also anonymously, which will drive the government nuts.)

Microsoft’s Arrogance

According to the introduction on its site, Bugtraq “is a full disclosure moderated mailing list for the *detailed* discussion and announcement of computer security vulnerabilities…” Microsoft, with its typical myopic arrogance, fired of an e-mail warning after one of Microsoft’s announcements of yet another bug in their softare was reposted to the Bugtraq list.

According to the list moderator,

It seems Microsoft was not very amused at my posting of their advisory to the list the other day. As the copyright holders of the work they have told me in no uncertain terms that I do not have their permission to redistribute a text version of their web page bulletins via the mailing list or the securityfocus.com web site, and that doing so would be considered an act of copyright violation.

There you have it. So until Microsoft changes their policy or changes their email bulletins back to the old format you won’t see them on the list. Of curse [sic] the vulnerabilities and their information will continue to be announced.

Just when I think Microsoft couldn’t possibly get more petty or arrogant, they go and prove me wrong. It is inconceivable to me why such a large corporation would treat its customers in such a shabby manner.

Dungeons & Dragons Movie Getting Ripped By Reviewers

This CNN review is actually one of the more favorable reviews of the Dungeons & Dragons movie, which says the film is “like “Star Wars” with the flavor chewed out of it.”

Paul Tatara adds,

It’s so poorly executed, you start to feel like you’re watching the world’s most expensive script run-through. Director Courtney Solomon just sticks it up on the screen and hopes for the best. He seems incapable of building tension from scene to scene, and he’s an extremely poor judge of comic relief.

Borderline inept, “Dungeons & Dragons” is one of the worst movies of the year. If it had only been released a few weeks later, it could have been one of the worst movies of next year.

Ouch. Tatara doesn’t mention it, but several reviews also noted that Marlon Wayans’ wisecracking, bumbling thief character comes off as the sort of stereotypical marginal role that black actors were relegated to in years past in Hollywood.

Let the Firefighters Have Their Christmas Tree

Separation of church and state is certainly a bedrock principle for maintaining a liberal society, but once you get lawyers and anti-religious extremists involved, the principle sometimes gets twisted into absurd shapes.

In Eugene, Oregon, for example, the city has forbidden firefighters from putting up Christmas trees in city-owned fire stations on the grounds that it constitutes a violation of the separation of church and state. What nonsense. Even firefighter Matt Steinberg, who tells Fox that he is Jewish, understand what is really going on here,

I just shook my head and thought it was too bad that it had come down to that. What we’re really striving for is blandness. It’s not like people are running around being particularly religious all the time.

We’ve gone as a nation from rightly ensuring that our government doesn’t tell us how to worship to persecuting people who want to put a cross or Star of David or, god forbid, a Christmas tree in their workplace. This reminds me of the sort of absurd extremes that groups like the American Atheists used to go to with their regular claims that “In God We Trust” on coins violated the First Amendment.

Moreover, these bizarre edicts will over time tend to erode support among Americans for the principle of separation of church and state. A few weeks ago another case made the news when crosses were removed from a World War II memorial in a national park because various groups had threatened to sue on First Amendment grounds. This sort of nonsense does nothing to protect religious freedom in the United States, but adds to the growing perception among some religious people that the separation doctrine is largely a club used by liberal and left wing groups to rid public life of religious expression altogether.

Does Google’s Anti-Banner Ad Creed Make Sense?

In an article for Business Week (Will Google’s Purity Pay Off?), Kalpana Mohan reports on Google.Com‘s future financial outlook. Google does accept paid text advertisements — and makes about a penny a search from various revenue sources — but is adamant that it will not accept banner advertisements.

But as Mohan points out by not accepting banner ads, it’s unclear how Google will ever achieve the sorts of profits that its investors are certain to begin demanding at some point. And banner ads are a lot less intrusive than some of the other schemes for making money off of search engines, such as selling high level placement in keyword searches (paying money, for example, so that this site comes up first if anyone searches on “Carnell.”)

As a heavy user of Google, I’d much prefer they sell banner ads and (hopefully) become profitable rather than end up having shareholders demand they do something more intrusive like sell search placements or turn into another one of those horrendous looking portals.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals' Commercial Gets Shot Down By CBS

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals recently got some bad news — CBS rejected an advertisement it wanted to run during the Superbowl. CBS said it doesn’t accept issue ads for the Superbowl. The commercial, which consists of cows singing an anti-leather song (I’m not making this up), is available in several different formats on PETA’s web site.

The weird thing is, what in the world is PETA doing trying to buy a $2.5 million, 30 second TV spot? As Americans for Medical Progress wrote in its recent newsletter,

PETA’s willingness to spend $2.5 million for a one-time
30 second television spot may come as a shock to some of
its donors. Most of PETA’s reported $17 million a year
budget is financed through individuals giving small
contributions in the $5 – $50 range. It is not likely
that many of these donors thought their money would
go to finance a commercial with singing cows.

Indeed.