Bruce Guenter's Thoughts

Random musings about stuff that crosses my path.

Home
Archives
Subscribe via RSSXML Icon

My favorite blogs:

Valid XHTML 1.0!

Powered By Greymatter

Tuesday, February 28th

Oh no, the CWB is falling! The CWB is falling!


Once again, panicked politicals are crying out that the government wants to end the Canadian Wheat Board. I find it highly amusing that the front page of the CWB's web site displays the slogan "It's your choice", when in fact the CWB is a government enforced monopoly.

While I don't see it actually happening any time soon, due to the current political climante, I see two possible outcomes if the monopoly were abolished and farmers were given the choice of how to sell their own grain.

One possible outcome is that many farmers decide it is worth more to them to voluntarily stay with the marketing board that the CWB provides. In this case, the CWB will keep the economic clout it currently enjoys and will thrive based on the advantages it may bring.

The other possible outcome is that many farmers decide it is worth more to them to manage their own sales and inventory and bypass the CWB. In this case, the CWB will see a reduced role in the economy and may even be dissolved.

In either case, the value that the farmers place on how their grain is sold will make the decision, and as such their best interests will be served. In either case, enforcing the monopoly takes away value from them.

This enforced monopoly must end.
Bruce on 02.28.06 @ 06:08 PM CST [link] [No Comments]

Friday, February 24th

So called "trusted" computing


On the subject of yesterday's post about trusting the watchers, this article ("Yes, Trusted Computing Is Used For DRM") in Information Week points out an important point about why mandatory restrictions imposed by DRM are at best risky. Simply put, DRM restrictions require you to trust all the companies involved in making the DRM hardware and software to act in your best interest. How likely is that? The article talks about it from the point of view of a business, and it's a strong business case, but it also applies to hobbyists and home users just as well.
Bruce on 02.24.06 @ 10:56 AM CST [link] [No Comments]

Thursday, February 23rd

If you're not doing anything wrong...


I've heard a slogan used to advocate new invasions of privacy repeated many times. In fact, you've probably heard it too. Here's how it goes:

Sure, X is an invasion of privacy, but if you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about. A variant also says the same if you don't have anything to hide. It's all the same claim.

I've heard it used most recently to advocate putting security cameras inside your house. I've also heard it used to put cameras on many public places in London, and to build government run databases of DNA and fingerprints of people (before they are convicted or even accused of doing anything wrong), or library records, or...

The problem is, the slogan is based on a badly flawed assumption: the people invading your privacy are perfect. In particular, they need to be incorruptible. There are, in fact, many things to worry about.

What happens if the watchers are corrupted by a grudge? He think their girlfriend is cheating on them. Worse, he thinks she's with you. Or you beat him out for a promotion. Or even you beat them through a red light and now they're grumpy.

What happens if the watchers are corrupted by bias? He thinks you look suspicious and need extra attention because of your skin color, or accent, or hair style, or location, or the path you walk to work, or what kind of car you drive, or ...

What happens if the watchers are corrupted by a bribe? It's been said that everybody has their price.

What happens if the watchers are voyeuristic?

Even if you like the watchers now, the power (to conduct the surveillance) will change hands, and will land in the hands of somebody you don't like. The only possible way a surveillance system can stay uncorrupted is to have perfect surveillance on the people in the system. Some how, though, the people advocating systems like this get uncomfortable with that kind of idea.

Maybe they have something to hide.
Bruce on 02.23.06 @ 06:10 PM CST [link] [No Comments]