In Texas, they have to get a court issued warrant to draw blood. It is considered, as I understand it, by our supreme court as a violent act - extracting part of your body against your will. Is it different in any other states? Can the officer on the scene make that determination? Links? Something else to rage about today... :

Maybe they should have tried Kleptomism instead of Kopimism? ;)

Let's remember that originally the point of the GPL was to allow people to share source freely, so that you could pass your work on and be assured that other users could pass it on too. It prevented restrictions on the sharing of something you created. It made your work open and free.

If I understand this right, and GPLv3 requires the allowance of "modifications in place", the GPLv3 is going far beyond that. It's no longer about keeping code open and free, it's forcing others to make their property open and free. It's no longer about sharing your work, it's about how your work is used.

Regardless of how you feel about "tivoization" -- personally I hate it -- this is telling someone else what to do with what they created. That's not making a statement about your own property, it's making a statement about somebody else's.

I'm a developer. Developers have the right and justification to release software under whatever license they choose! If a dev wants to restrict against "Tivoization", that's fine.

But let's not kid ourselves that "modifications in place" is about sharing software. This is going much further, and people with an interest in engineering things for the world to benefit from and making a living in the process have a very well qualified criticism.

http://www.qdb.us/305324
<Pomax> 20 years from now, someone is going to have the radical idea to give users access to the underlying OS, rather than to the browser API, and he will be heralded a revolutionary.
<Pomax> All manner of programming languages will pop up that work outside "the browser", giving access to "offline" applications, storing files in "user space", even perhaps running in something called "kernel mode".
<Pomax> It'll be a brave new world.
<Mirell> It's scary that's believable.

You're spot on. All it takes is one $0.02 sticky note with a Mult1pl3.R3str1c71Ons.En4rced password written on it to make all this huff and bluster worthless in most IT environments.

People seem to forget that Users use computers. Not Security Nuts. Not IT staff.

Real security accounts for social factors. The reason the Sup3r!Pa55w0rd policy fails is the same reason the easiest way into a network is often social engineering. Users. Security is not purely technological problem.

Security starts with taking your weakest link into account. Hint: It isn't that your "10 character minimum, 2 character subset" requirement is too weak.

This is stupid.

There should absolutely, absolutely be a way to wipe a corporate account off a phone. That data is the property of the corporation.

But wiping everything is just inane. There is absolutely no reason to wipe pictures, personal contacts, emails, etc. This is software we're talking about. Just wipe the account(s) in question.

The only thinkable reason to wipe data outside of the corporate account is "you could have copied work content elsewhere," and that argument applies no more to phones than to personal computers. Hell, it applies to printed material too. Had any former employers snooping through your house lately?

No, the onus is on the corporation to restrict dissemination of corporate data if the risks are too high. Allowing a remote account wipe is a luxury afforded by software, not a corporate right over personal property.