Very interesting, I learned something about a Casio watch I used to own today!
Anyway back to the article, I think there should be a difference between using a specific encryption scheme (applying math to your data), and purchasing a physical piece of specific technology. But then again, there are import/export laws concerning security so I guess there is some legal precedent, even if it's questionable.
The problem I've seen happen over and over again is when the boss decides it's much simpler to bypass the technology department, create something as a rapidly developed prototype, and then leave the tech department to cleanup the aftermath. Maybe the IT department got a reputation for making things overly complicated, or they find communication with their own experts too difficult because they lean on the side of realism rather than optimism. In either case, the companies that act this way clearly do not have leaders who have confidence in their own people, and will repeatedly go through new staff for their "technology department" which would be better labeled "cost center" as far as any of said leaders are concerned.
Actually considering it's easily forked (and in fact is forked for certain Linux distros), it's a pretty good answer.
Yeah, I'm probably ditching Mozilla, too, as soon as something better than Chrome comes along, but don't pretend open-source is insignificant.
If I father a child (creator) and raise it to be... less than respectful of the law... my child then robs a bank. Do they put *me* in jail? By your definition they should...
While scripts aren't children, in any event parents are often held responsible for the actions of their children.
Hackers are just a migratory lifeform with a tropism for computers.