Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #20123

Re: Arranging free trials for online services.

Show all headers | View raw

On 05/12/2012 03:06, Roedy Green allegedly wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Dec 2012 16:02:10 +0100, Daniele Futtorovic
> <da.futt.news@laposte-dot-net.invalid> wrote, quoted or indirectly
> quoted someone who said :
> 
>> I'm not enthused, to say the least, by your suggestion to fix certain
>> people's business model by an invasion of everyone's privacy -- not to
>> mention the inevitable statist structure which maintaining such a scheme
>> would require.
> 
> I had another idea I sent to Thawte, basically using code signing
> certs as id.  You don't put yourself at any financial risk and you
> don't divulge anything of value.

Firstly, what these guys call "code signing certs" are really just certs
with digital signing usage.

Secondly, if someone like Thawte did it (i.e., a PKI vendor), I guess I
would have no problem with it. But this really doesn't work out.

You go to site XXX, and they say: "you can access resource YYY if you
show conclusive evidence that you have the private key to a
Thawte-signed certificate"? So what then -- must I go to Thawte and buy
a cetificate? Or will the one providing the restricted service be buying
the cert for me? In other words: who pays?

And then: how does Thawte determine your identity, and that, regardless
of who pays for it, they didn't already issue you a signing certificate?
It's merely shifting the problem. I guess if the provider of the
restricted service were okay with whatever Thawte's due diligence were
to be, I wouldn't care. But we both know that given the technology,
Thawte's due diligence isn't going to be worth much. Or it will cost
much. And then: who pays?

The follow-up suggestion at this point is usually that the bloody gov't,
the pox on all its houses, should issue these certs like it issues IDs,
and enforce it with its armed thugs. Which would create criminality and
generally mean a huge burden for everyone. Do you want the internet
experience to feel like a trip to the DMV? Cause I sure don't. And all
this to help people, viz. the providers of the restricted services,
whose service I probably don't even give a rat's arse about.

So it boils down to what I said: fixing certain people's business model
by imposing a burden on every one else.

And there's a much simpler solution that doesn't affect the lives of
anyone but those who have an interest in the matter: you want the
service, you pay for it. And if the service provider isn't able to
provide appetisers for their service, too bad, but it ain't got nothing
to do with me.

> 
> The service they are trying to protect is in the  order of $200 a
> year, well worth some cheating. How can they offer a limited time free
> trial without giving away the farm?
> 
> What is being used now is requiring a credit card number, something I
> find unacceptable. I won't even do that when I buy something. It is
> like handing over  pile of blank cheques.

Which sounds perfectly reasonable. And which, I reckon, is those guys'
problem.

And if you have a problem with it, you obviously have chosen that it's
not a problem that weighs higher than the problem you would have with
giving our your credit card info. So I'd say just live with your choice.

-- 
DF.

Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Arranging free trials for online services. Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2012-12-03 10:45 -0800
  Re: Arranging free trials for online services. Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2012-12-03 10:53 -0800
  Re: Arranging free trials for online services. Leif Roar Moldskred <leifm@dimnakorr.com> - 2012-12-03 14:06 -0600
  Re: Arranging free trials for online services. Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-12-03 22:22 -0500
  Re: Arranging free trials for online services. Daniele Futtorovic <da.futt.news@laposte-dot-net.invalid> - 2012-12-04 16:02 +0100
    Re: Arranging free trials for online services. Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2012-12-04 18:06 -0800
      Re: Arranging free trials for online services. Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-12-05 10:39 -0800
        Re: Arranging free trials for online services. Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2012-12-05 14:27 -0800
      Re: Arranging free trials for online services. Daniele Futtorovic <da.futt.news@laposte-dot-net.invalid> - 2012-12-06 00:18 +0100
  Re: Arranging free trials for online services. "Chris Uppal" <chris.uppal@metagnostic.REMOVE-THIS.org> - 2012-12-04 18:31 +0000
    Re: Arranging free trials for online services. Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-12-04 12:59 -0800
    Re: Arranging free trials for online services. Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2012-12-04 18:02 -0800
      Re: Arranging free trials for online services. "Chris Uppal" <chris.uppal@metagnostic.REMOVE-THIS.org> - 2012-12-15 12:24 +0000
    Re: Arranging free trials for online services. Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2012-12-13 09:01 -0800
  Re: Arranging free trials for online services. Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2012-12-06 11:01 -0600
    Re: Arranging free trials for online services. Leif Roar Moldskred <leifm@dimnakorr.com> - 2012-12-06 11:50 -0600
      Re: Arranging free trials for online services. Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-12-06 10:49 -0800

csiph-web