Re: [Full-Disclosure] Calcuating Loss

On Wed, 12 May 2004 08:56:25 PDT, "Schmidt, Michael R." said:

> What we need is something that you have to log into (securely) or your DHCP is
> revoked immediately. And of course static IPs are well, static and since they
> are routed, routes can be logged and therefore trackable.

All fine and good.. However... there's this whole "enforcement" thing. For
starters, the net is multinational - how do you *force* some user in Zimbabwe
to use your scheme?

I'll leave all the privacy issues to others - there's plenty of problems *there*
as well.

> If you replace a part on some new cars with a non-manufacturers part, you
> void the warranty. But when you run unsigned downloaded for free or sent
> through email code on your dell, who do you call and expect to fix it when it
> stops working? The end user is the moron, we require no test to get on the
> internet and yet we let more people anonymously sign on the net everyday.

You have to make a decision here - I may be willing to use an aftermarket part
and void my warranty, having made a decision that doing so was a good idea -
the aftermarket part may be vastly less expensive (I've replaced several pieces
of my car with junkyard salvage for $20 when the 3rd party part was $100 and
the original company's part was $160), or higher performance, and you decide
that it's worth voiding the warranty.

It's a totally different thing to legislate that replacing a part with a
non-vendor part is illegal - and that's what you'd have to do to make this
scheme fly.

When source code is outlawed, only outlaws will have source.... :)

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html