Re:Microsoft furious at $2,000 bounty for open source Kinect...
by nitrogen on Saturday November 06, 2010 @12:05AM
(#1875953)
Apologies for the poor formatting. I forgot that I have to use \n\n instead of just \n to get new paragraphs, and ran into maxvisit so I couldn't change it before the editing window closed.
Re:Microsoft furious at $2,000 bounty for open source Kinect...
by tptacek on Saturday November 06, 2010 @01:24AM
(#1876197)
Microsoft doesn't have to and won't rely on its own internal engineers if it decides to care enough about Kinect to stop this kind of thing.
Re:Microsoft furious at $2,000 bounty for open source Kinect...
by nitrogen on Saturday November 06, 2010 @03:54AM
(#1876440)
That's why I added the final clause of item 4, "and using the law to make it so is unethical." I don't blame you if you didn't make it that far with the botched formatting. It's also worth noting that I'm commenting on how I believe things should be, not how they are. "Might makes right" currently has hackers ~= Microsoft, but Microsoft+lawyers+lobbyists >> hackers.
1. No doubt there are incredibly intelligent, motivated people working for Microsoft, but talent requires an appropriate environment to reach its potential. 2. The mistake is often made of assuming that the "good guys" are the only ones with smart people on their side. This mistake is most frequently seen in discussions of national security and nuclear technology. 3. All it takes to defeat a non-service-based DRM scheme is one vulnerability. If the Kinect has to continually stream motion data to Microsoft servers for processing (kind of like Android speech recognition), then Microsoft can keep changing the protocol and encryption. If Microsoft's 100 talented engineers leave just one gap, and one talented hacker finds it, then hackers "win." 4. "Might makes right" should absolutely apply to what talented hackers do with products they own. I value individual property rights above corporate business model preservation. It is the duty of the giant and powerful corporations to ensure their business models aren't vulnerable to the whims of talented hackers, and using the law to make it so is unethical.