On 3/1/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">strk</b> <<a href="mailto:strk@keybit.net">strk@keybit.net</a>> wrote:<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
It is sad that "open" software developers are working on data "protection"<br>rather then data "sharing". Many times, when there are not big<br>"pushes" toward protecting things people inherit the policy that
<br>software developers put into their tools.<br><br>Software tools do can change the relations amongst human beings.</blockquote><div><br>
I have to disagree here! There is no inherent conflict between
open source code and digital rights management (DRM). If for example
I'm working with confidential data (like cancer or aids data) then I
do need to make it protected data - its confidential and should
stay that way but I need a way for distributed analysts to be able to
share that data in a secure way. I could write my own security code and
modify say GeoServer to implement my scheme, but I'm not really good at
security after all I'm a geographer. Then my data leaks on to the
internet - news at 11 open source software allows major privacy breach!
This sort of thing then sets back the uptake of open source mapping
code, even though I could have leaked the data faster using proprietary
code. <br>
<br>
So I think there are definite advantages to providing good GeoDRM and
security code. I "know" all data wants to be free but to be honest I'd
rather my medical records stayed confidential but that my doctors had
access to high quality secure open source code to analyse them.<br>
<br>
Ian<br>
</div></div><br>-- <br><br>Ian Turton<br><a href="http://www.geotools.org">http://www.geotools.org</a><br><a href="http://pennspace.blogspot.com/">http://pennspace.blogspot.com/</a>