Archive of UserLand's first discussion group, started October 5, 1998.

Re: Security holes, Law, and Control

Author:Ernest Argetsinger
Posted:5/11/2000; 10:28:23 AM
Topic:Security holes, Law, and Control
Msg #:17208 (In response to 17193)
Prev/Next:17207 / 17209

Thanks for the great response, Paul.

I just want to make a couple comments, because I think I'm coming across -- or you're interpreting me :-) -- as too extreme.

Paul Snively wrote:

It's one thing to take a philosophical position that I can politely disagree with ("legal solutions are generally preferable to technical solutions" would be how I would characterize your position; please feel free to correct me).

My position is that neither a legal solution (procedural control) nor a technical solution (functional control) is always by itself sufficient. Some problems will best be addressed by one solution method over the other; some will need both. [The law] serves a purpose that can be complementary to technology. Shouldn't we also use the law to protect ourselves? If we only use technology, we truly *are* thinking inside the box.

You give a great tool list for privacy protecting tools, but every single one of those technical solutions is fallible and vulnerable. The little guy is competing against The Man, and The Man will find a way to snoop, if he really wants to. I brought up privacy intrusion as an example of server-scripted actions whose purpose is to harvest data from the client or take actions as the client of which the client is unaware. I had an incomplete understanding of this security hole. I did not initially recognize the danger from rich email, or rich data (such as a discussion group posting) accessed through a web browser.

I've modified my original position and see that there's need for more technical checks and balances. I still believe that in this case, technical solutions will only get us halfway home.



There are responses to this message:

This page was archived on 6/13/2001; 4:55:10 PM.

© Copyright 1998-2001 UserLand Software, Inc.