Bill Humphries wrote:
1) It is easily circumvented.
2) It violates the privacy of other users.
3) It can easily generate false positives.
5) It could be exploited.
6) Who decides what is a 'suspect site'?
7) Trustworthiness of the Monitoring Organization
8) Trust vs. Pervasive Surveillance
I agree completely with 1-8. This project seems very short-sighted and
ill conceived. Fraught with social and moral repercussions well beyond
"those who are helped"... I don't care that other projects have claimed
to provide similar solutions. Emulation does not imply correctness any
more than a talking myna bird espouses Truth.
I also question that the knowledge/skill set of the O.P is not up to
task, but that's solely based on his verbiage and lackadaisical
sentences regarding CMOS, BIOS and the like.
Several people said they felt a legitimate need for this software citing
"pornography addiction."
I've emailed a few friends who are in grad programs and clinical
practice to confirm if there's an actual diagnosis of "pornography
addiction". Sorry, the term feels loaded, like something tossed about
during a congressional hearing.
I spoke with two Psych PhD. friends about this over lunch today, one
male one female. They both expressed concern over this approach;
likening it to medicating a client without proper diagnosis or therapy.
One commented that if such an observable "pornography addiction" exists,
is it likely part of a much larger sexual dysfunction that could
actually be exacerbated by this type of behavior modification. Not to
mention what it could possibly grow into once the conditions feeding the
behavior change. i.e. the electronic chastity belt is removed or breaks;
or the "addiction" takes on a different expressive form; or...
Personally I find outrageous that we continually mis-classify and over
simplify cultural problems and try to devise such technological
solutions to limit human behavior. The fact that this was honestly
posted to Full-Disclosure as a serious question demonstrates the already
flawed approach being taken.
[snip very good AA comparison]
And when, if ever, do you build trust with the person who you have said
you have harmed? It strikes me as too easy to leave the secret policeman
on forever. But now there's a third pillow in that bed, and I get the
feeling that you do not condone polyamory.
I get the feeling that this may be motivated by a religious association
with an agenda besides just specific sexual dysfunctions, then again
perhaps not. The site at www.dynamicanswers.com seems very MS/Win32
centric, so while I expect the O.P. to be well versed in win32/mfc
solutions, I do no suspect much else. Which is what this undertaking
would require. Either way, people tend to over step their bounds of
experience when providing solutions. To them I would say: Most times you
are not there 5 or 10 years later to clean up the mess you helped make;
albeit with misguided good intentions.
How does that old quote go?
That's why I made those remarks comparing your plan to the abuses of
Mao's Cultural Revolution. You privatize the intrusive, something which,
until recently, was the domain of totalitarian states.
"Privatize the intrusive" that's very excellent and succinct Bill.
Though in a way, I'd submit that The Church has had their hands in this
too (God is watching you, etc...) Though "privatize" may not exactly fit
that, they construct systems for similar goals: Control.
--
dk
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
