On Wed, 20 Jun 2001 22:04:59 PDT, Eliot Lear said:
freeware. My concern with OPES would be a modifying of data in a way that
neither end could determine. I am not willing to protect the end points
from themselves. Nor can I.
Hmm. at the one end, is the "end point" the *browser*, or the person who's
doing the browsing? Yes, a case can be made that you can't protect the
person (or the computer) from the browser - but we *should* be able to at
least draw a line on the floor and say "the browser and OPES can't collaborate
to do something contrary to what the source end wanted to transmit".
And for the record, I can think of *several* organizations that would be
at least very tempted to stoop to saying "our client software is non-malicious"
and not actually *lie* because some OPES agent is being malicious for the
client software. Interestingly enough, the danger here isn't the pure
software houses - it's the companies that provide both software and content
(or wish they did) that are the threat here....
Mo's warning is quite reasonable-- there is a limit to what goo you should
put in the middle, but I question the meaning of an end point. If we
allow for the notion of things like web farms, can we not also allow for
some set of standards that support such things? I think so. However, I
can't say that's what OPES will do because the charter is too vague.
And I'm questioning the meaning at the end that isn't the web farm ;)