Sony's maliciousness

An ongoing story about Sony's Digital Rights Management (DRM) software that installs with some Sony CDs has created a fire-storm of protest. I, like many people, believe Sony has a right to control the copying of copyrighted material. There is no argument there. But the DRM software that Sony uses is never mentioned in the EULA, nor was there a method for uninstalling the software. Worst of all is the fact that the program hides some of its own files, opening up security risks.

This story was first uncovered by Mark Russinovich on Oct 31 of this year, where he does a brilliant job outlining the specific steps he used to uncover the rootkit. In a follow up article, Mark levels these specific complaints against Sony:
********************

• Sony denies that the rootkit poses a security or reliability threat despite the obvious risks of both
• Sony claims that users don't care about rootkits because they don't know what a rootkit is
• The installation provides no way to safely uninstall the software
• Without obtaining consent from the user Sony's player informs Sony every time it plays a "protected" CD

Sony has told the press that they've made a decloaking patch and uninstaller available to customers, however this still leaves the following problems:

• There is no way for customers to find the patch from Sony BMG's main web page
• The patch decloaks in an unsafe manner that can crash Windows, despite my warning to the First 4 Internet developers
• Access to the uninstaller is gated by two forms and an ActiveX control
• The uninstaller is locked to a single computer, preventing deployment in a corporation

Consumers and antivirus companies are responding:

• F-Secure independently identified the rootkit and provides information on its site
• Computer Associates has labeled the Sony software "spyware"
• A lawfirm has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of California consumers against Sony
• ALCEI-EFI, an Italian digital-rights advocacy group, has formally asked the Italian government to investigate Sony for possible Italian law violations

*********************

The security hole in this software has already led to an attack on infected computers.

Since Mark's revelations, a great many more class action lawsuits have erupted.

Sony has finally acknowledged that these CDs are not customer friendly and have offered an exchange program if you've bought one of these CDs lately. If you have bought one of the Sony's CDs, check here to see if you should and can exchange it.

Amazon.com has notified customers that bought one of Sony's infected CDs that the can return it for a full refund. (You should have received an email already, if the CD you purchased is infected.)

Please pass the word around, so that others don't leave their computers vulnerable.

More on free markets

In my post on Political quizzes, I challenged the other participants in the survey because they weren't free-market enough in their economic beliefs. I realized after reading this, that my argument didn't address the underlying philosophic reasons well enough. So let me fix that problem here.

My discussion brought up two reasons why my economics score may have been higher. First was because the other participants may have wanted the government to provide handouts for the "needy". The second reason was that the other participants may have negative images of businesses in general. Both of these have deeper philosophic issues.

As for hand-outs, while most people don't like to see others suffer unnecessarily, that isn't a necessary and sufficient reason for the government to get involved. The issue ultimately comes down to a matter of self-sacrifice.

When is it appropriate to help others in need? This answer must ultimately be tied to what you value. If you value your own life (which you must if you want to continue living), then you'll choose an ethical system that has your life as the highest standard. When you don't value your own life, the actions you pursue will ultimately bring your life to a close. Self-sacrifice, by its very definition, means you sacrifice a value that is more important to you for a value that is less important for you. Otherwise it would not be a sacrifice. With this conception of sacrifice, it would not be inappropriate to risk your own life to save someone you love, like a child or spouse, but it would be inappropriate to risk your life for a complete stranger when your spouse and child depend on you for financial support. Every action that sacrifices a higher value for a lower value, destroys your life and your capacity to enjoy it.

Welfare is just the latest incarnation of self-sacrifice, this time forced on every tax-paying individual by our government. It is a bogus idea and should be eliminated.

The second reason I suspect I had a right leaning economic score was because of my complete understanding of how and why business create wealth. Trade among two consenting participants is the grease that makes our economy go round. Production is the machine that keeps the economy fully functioning. In order for the economy to function most efficiently, the government needs to "get out of the way" (laissez-faire). Honoring the rights of individuals (life, liberty, and property) is the defining concepts that separate civilized nations from third-world nations. With rights, individuals have the right to do whatever they want to their property and interact (trade) with any person they want. Any intrusion by the government ultimately destroys the social system that free-markets builds and sustains. It destroys the wealth that entrepreneurs and businessmen create. And as such, it should be eliminated.

For a fuller argument on the moral foundation of capitalism, check out Ayn Rand's Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal.

I've got issues

Every now and then, I get into a productivity slump, where nothing seems to motivate on any project that needs to be done. For the past couple days I have been stuck in such a slump. I have several research projects that demand my attention, yet I've spent most of that time surfing the net and reading about topics with no immediate relevance to the tasks at hand.

Luckily, I tend to bounce back quickly and have a nack for completing things on time, despite my procrastinating. I guess I'm just feeling fatigued from all the work I'm doing for school and the effort it requires to raise a son. If I had time for a real vacation, I'd take it. The only problem is, I don't. This makes the few minutes have available to me seem all the more wasted when I can't motivate myself to finish my projects.

Arrrg! Life is not easy. Good thing its worth it.

Political quizzes

Today, a buddy of mine asked me and some of his friends to fill out a political quiz. I had some serious problems with how some questions were worded, since I didn't agree with either of the options being afforded with too me. Sometimes I would say I disagree with a statement, not because I agreed with the alternative they provided but because I disagreed that the question was valid.

At any rate, what was interesting about Tom's analysis of the results was that he considered me to be an anarchist, despite that fact that two other people (himself included) had scores closer to anarchists than myself. What really distinguished me from the rest of the test takers was my views on economic issues. I was through and through a capitalist. My economic freedom score was more than twice as high as the next highest score. And this among people who are generally libertarian in beliefs.

Perhaps it was just the odd wording of the questions that confused them or caused them to answer contra to their professed beliefs, but I can't help but give them enough respect and grant that they really answered the questions based on their beliefs. But I still find their results odd. While I have a great deal of respect for those that took the quiz, I believe they'd do well to reconsider some of their answers.

How can you advocate less government involvement in social affairs yet demand the opposite in economic affairs? Don't they see that rights of individuals in a social context should extend to rights in economic matters? If you have a right to do what you want morally, why can't you keep the money you rightfully earn to spend it on whatever moral behaviors you prefer, as long as you don't violate the rights of others. By asking the government to provide a safety net, they most by extension force good people to fork over their rightfully earned money.

Responsibility for living belongs to the person doing the living. It requires lots of effort and thinking on our parts, but that is part of the joy of staying alive. When we fail in our efforts, we better hope we have good friends and close family that can help us back on our feet again. Given how generous most Americans are, that usually isn't an issue. Private charities have long helped sustain the down and out. Neighborhood associations used to support those unfortunate few who lost their jobs or had sudden illnesses. What happened to those associations? Starting with Roosevelt's "New Deal", the government pretended to take over. This had the sad side affect of destroying the support structure that once existed. What once was a voluntary, nice to do thing, has now become a mandatory or go to jail thing. What a perversion of justice!

If its not a disagreement with taxation per se, but businesses in general, then I highly suggest they start their own business and see exactly what it means to be stopped and regulated at every turn because some bureaucrat demands it. Businesses (which are owned by individuals trying to make money) should be given the same freedoms as individuals in general.

Is not a businessman also acting in a social context, so shouldn't he likewise be treated with the same political respect? If an entrepreneur creates a highly successful company, does he not have right to run it how he likes? Why (and how) do these guys think the government can now control and regulate the good things his company creates? If their product is dangerous, his customers will learn about it and stop buying from him. If he sells his products frauduently, then of course the business should be punished. But whatever happened to buyer-beware? I don't need a nanny state telling me what is "okay" to buy. I don't need a nanny state demanding honesty from a company I invest in. If I can't determine it on my own, I shouldn't invest in the first place.

Update to this blog

Unintelligent design

It's good to hear that reasonable people have ousted this ridiculous curriculum. "Intelligent design" is anything but intelligent. I've read through some of the arguments for this supposed science. All I can say is that it is not science. Call it religion, call it pseudo-science, call it whatever you want, but is most definitely not science. And as such, it has no place in a science class.

For a theory to be scientific, not only must there be evidence in support of it, but if contradictory evidence is found, you must reject, or at least modify the existing theory. This is how physics, chemistry, cellular biology, psychology, and all other sciences work. Theories, by their very nature, must be falsifiable. In other words, a theory is not legit unless it is possible (however unlikely) to prove that it is not true given the right information.

Intelligent design theory completely ignores this rule, because there is no way to prove that no intelligent beings designed our universe. If there was no intelligent being, how could we know? Can we be sure the universe would appear differently? How many different universes can you compare it too to prove it? The answer is obviously, we can't know and can't prove it.

Unfortunately, there appears no easy way put this bastardization of science to rest except for continued efforts by citizens such as the ones mentioned above. Don't give them an inch. Or else this Onion parody will be closer than you think.

Intelligent design is NOT science. It is religion masked in scientific jargon, nothing more.

EU's approach to taxation

I recently read an article that confirmed just how evil the European Union really is. There was particular quote that could have come directly out of Atlas Shrugged...

"The real issue is the right mix of policies needed to reach our common objectives in the EU," Kovacs recently explained in Zurich, pledging to maintain "the unique European social model and EU's overall approach to sustainable development".

The right mix of policies? In other words, let's see just how much we can skin the public before they object strongly enough to kick us out of office. To Kovac, there is no such thing as rights except the governments right to interfere with your life. This is such a perversion of liberty and the concept of rights, that it is evil right to the core.

Why can't people see through this fraud?