On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 00:57:45 BST, n3td3v said: > half the reason is because they don't need to, there are no laws in > place to say, *you need to do more* Please explain the *full* cost-benefit analysis of passing such a law, taking into account the following: 1) The fact that the Internet is multinational (examine what the US required for ITAR export control on crytography some years ago, what that export control was supposed to do, and what happened to it). 2) The fact that "the bad guys" is not a well-defined legal term. You need to either go with the "convicted felons may not own handguns" style, or "only locksmiths are allowed to have lock picking tools" style. Both are fraught with legal and technical hazards (How do you verify that the person really *is* a registered locksmith in Belgrade?) Estimate the cost per year of: a) governmental programs needed to implement this b) the costs to the companies to implement c) the *actual* cost of not implementing it (remember to allow for the fact that "the bad guys" will in all likelyhood be able to purloin or otherwise obtain pirated copies *anyhow*). Why does society care about doing this? Or is it just that you can't figure out how to use it, so you don't want others to have access to it?
Attachment:
pgpNAy7bEyFa0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/