News and commentary from the cross-platform scripting community.
|
||
|
Mail Starting 10/3/97 | |
Privacy is the reason we want encryption, but privacy is not a right explicitly guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution (probably because it was simply taken for granted--or at least, our Founding Fathers did not anticipate the potential uses and misuses that would become possible with computers and telecommunications).
From: mmcavoy@ix.netcom.com (Michael McAvoy);
Sent at 10/3/97; 12:02:31 PM;
Encryption, Privacy & 1st AmendmentWe do, however, have an explicitly guaranteed right to freedom of speech. The right to communicate whatever message we choose to communicate. To pass and enforce a law that would criminalize the use of unauthorized encryption is, in essence, to make certain types of communication illegal. There is nothing in the First Amendment to imply that "speech" must be intelligible to the authorities.
In other words, we really do not need to have encryption protected because there is already an implied protection. While the First Amendment is usually interpreted as protecting the contents of a message rather than its formatting, there is nothing in its language to restrict it to such a meaning. What we DO need is a widespread public awareness that encrypted speech is still speech, even if there is a deeper level of meaning concealed within it.
As you pointed out, I fear that many of the proponents of strong encryption are allowing the arguments to become too technical and remote from the "average" person's concerns. These points may be valid, but in a general public discussion they miss the real point: the FBI's director and many of our elected officials are trying to make certain cases of "speech" illegal.
Attempting to restrict a Constitutionally-guaranteed freedom "for our own good" (i.e. to keep encryption out of the hands of terrorists, etc.) is totally bogus. Criminal types have historically been more likely to use cyphers than codes. If it has been prearranged that "Deliver one dozen roses next Thursday" really means "I've got the ammonium nitrate; now proceeding to phase two", then not only is this a true "unbreakable encryption", but the message will certainly be transmitted in clear speech in order to avoid calling attention to itself.
I loved the ad, too! When I saw the print ad in the Wall Street Journal on Wednesday, my immediate response was, "all right, Apple is trying to make a come back." I thought the ad was great, but perhaps a little too nostalgic. Regardless, it got people's attention, and it clearly has Steve Jobs' fingerprints on it.
From: vicky@vickyh.com (Vicky Hastings);
Sent at 10/3/97; 10:57:30 AM;
Re:I Liked The AdThe amazing part is, that although I am a Microsoft and Intel fan all the way and have been for years, this ad truly spoke to me. I taped it up on the door of my office. I talk to people about it. But I won't go buy an Apple computer because of it. Wintel is just fine for me.
What Microsoft is declaring by refusing to support JFCs is an open market! Someone could step in and develop a way to support JFCs in Windows - there is already a guaranteed market of developers! I mean, Microsoft doesn't support Photoshop plugins at the OS level, but that doesn't stop Adobe from developing Photoshop plugin APIs, right? On the Mac side, when Apple didn't natively support PPP, it didn't stop the development of FreePPP (and GearBox). Cannot 32bit windows accept OS level extensions like QuickTime? Couldn't JFC support be implemented as such a runtime (or otherwise) library?
From: rsucgang@bcm.tmc.edu (Richard Sucgang);
Sent at 10/3/97; 12:46:52 PM;
Java Lobby vs MicrosoftI was there at Seybold. Thanks for pointing out to Microsoft and Netscape reps that they appear hell-bent on starting another religious war in which only us, the ultimate customer, loses.
From: pwt@aimr.org (Paul Turner);
Sent at 10/3/97; 1:30:45 PM;
Re:I Liked The AdI have to admit I am now more confused than ever about Java, and for that reason will not bother to implement anything in Java in my web site until the dust settles.
I was extremely impressed with Amelio's willingness to be there. He probably is/was a good manager; just a lousy visionary/marketer.
Congratulations next week on three years of DaveNet. It's one of the things I enjoy most about the web! How's that to start your morning off right!
From: colligan@macromedia.com (Bud Colligan);
Sent at 10/3/97; 10:19:56 AM;
Re:I Liked The AdI was at the Apple press lunch yesterday, and they were bubbling over about in-house technology that they've never promoted properly. Top of their list was AppleScript...
From: editor@somepub.com (Mr. X);
Sent at 10/3/97; 9:47:45 AM;
Apple --Your cross-platform decision seems smarter than ever.
I too liked the look and philosophy of the full page Apple ad in the New York Times earlier this week when I first saw it. However, the "think different" theme sure rings hollow considering the closure of the Apple Library and the firing of its professional staff. The library could have been kept open for another year for the price of that one NYT ad. Does "thinking different" mean crippling Apple R&D support services, insufficient information for informed decision-making and no repository for the company's historical printed information? I can't figure it out. Can you?
From: bboehm@netcom.com (Robert S. Boehm);
Sent at 10/3/97; 9:52:29 AM;
I Liked The Ad too...Dave!
From: pcurtain@teleport.com (Patrick Curtain);
Sent at 10/3/97; 9:46:13 AM;
Re:I Liked The AdThanks for a great message. You capture a lot of what I felt about the ads as well. I'm different, I think different, I chose things like the Newton because it IS different and powerful and opens up possibilities for a different world. Ditto the Mac.
If Apple opens this up and makes it their internal story, as well as their marketing message, then we have something!
Keep it up!