Citizen.wired.net

Lawrence Lessig was the first (AFIK) to point out the unholy collusion between government and business for bulding the digital surveillance state. Here Robert Scoble makes a bit more plain just where the pressure for such architectures is coming from and why there is almost no chance of stopping them.

What do you think your corporate IT department says to Microsoft when they come calling? I can just imagine it goes something like this:
1) "We want the ability to know what our employees are doing with our computers."
2) "We want to know who they sent email to (even if it's on a Hotmail site)."
3) "We want to know what files they send via Instant Messaging."
4) "We want to know what Web sites they both looked at and published to."
5) "We want to be able to search any employees' hard drive for any piece of information and get it fast."

[Scobelizer]
Business has legitimate productivity, competitive, and liability motivations for wanting this kind of info. Our litigious society has made BigBiz liable for virtually anything the employees do, whether the business knows about it or not. BigBiz simply has too many employees. They can't know them all, they sure can't trust them all, yet the courts hold them accountable for the actions of each. This kind of response is only natural.
I'd like to blame the lawyers, but that misses the point. Lawyers don't file suits if they can't find plaintiffs. I'd like to blame the courts but typically these things get jury trials. I'd like to blame the goverment, but we voted for them. Who does that leave?

See also: TCPA / Palladium FAQ | Blunt Force Trauma | Blunt Force Trauma | Blunt Force Trauma | E- BUSINESS ADVISOR Magazine: business strategy, IT, architect, | E- BUSINESS ADVISOR Magazine: business strategy, IT, architect, | E- BUSINESS ADVISOR Magazine: business strategy, IT, architect, | Victory Dallas / Press Room / Press Release | ADVISOR® RECENT ARTICLES

RIAA Goes After Corporate P2P

1:08:03 AM

comment []

I have reservations about posting this, since it just helps spread the public scare tactics of BigContent. But it's important in as much as I think P2P can play an important role in corporate information exchange and it points out the need for som epolicies about just how and what can go on a P2P server.
BigContent strikes $1 million deal with Arizona corporation over an internal P2P server with illegal MP3s.

Peer-to-Peer Web Sites Grow 535 Percent. Lawsuit Settlement Finds Corporations Liable for Allowing Access to P2P Apps
[Content Wire - Digital Copyright]

See also: BW Online | August 1, 2001 | The Beat Goes On | RIAA and MPAA seek ruling in P2P case | RIAA and MPAA seek ruling in P2P case | BW Online | August 1, 2001 | The Beat Goes On | Warner Bros. Puts Movie Downloads to the Test | BW Online | August 1, 2001 | The Beat Goes On | BW Online | August 1, 2001 | The Beat Goes On | Warner Bros. Puts Movie Downloads to the Test | BW Online | August 1, 2001 | The Beat Goes On | Blunt Force Trauma