Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!gatech!prism!gt1020a
From: gt1020a@prism.gatech.EDU (Ken Yousten)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Georgia Tech's Restriction on Internet Access
Message-ID: <24002@hydra.gatech.EDU>
Date: 10 Mar 91 20:34:02 GMT
References: <23808@hydra.gatech.EDU> <23963@hydra.gatech.EDU>
 <23988@hydra.gatech.EDU> <1991Mar10.175557.4595@bradley.bradley.edu>
Distribution: na
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology
Lines: 25

In article <1991Mar10.175557.4595@bradley.bradley.edu> pwh@bradley.bradley.edu 
 (Pete Hartman) writes:
>There's a point of difference.  The potential cost to the net at large is
>much greater (at least it seems to be to me) if someone gets out of hand
>than it is if someone succeeds in stealing/damaging library books.  Just
>look at the projected costs from the Internet Worm (of course a fair amount
>of the blame rests on the holes in the system, but my point is the cost,
>not the means).  Not only that, but being new technology, it's a more
>interesting place to vandalize than the local library.

But we have not been given any reason to think that the "trusted host" scheme
will actually address the problems we are being told that it is a reaction
to.  Your example of the Internet worm is particularly meaningless.  A
trusted host there would not have stopped it, the only purpose served by
bringing it up here is to explain the hysteria.  Instituting more security
measures in a knee-jerk fashion, without thinking about how they will 
accomplish desired ends is foolish.

I am not objecting so much to the trusted host idea itself, just the 
way it is being "explained" to us.  It's hard to object to the idea, when
you are not given any straight information on it.
--
  o   Ken Yousten               "Oh my god...you're from the 60's! Back!"
o   o arpa: gt1020a@prism.gatech.edu
 o o  uucp: ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!gt1020a