I have worked in the fringes of the computer security field for some time now and so I can't really say that what I'm about to relate to you is a big surprise to me, but at the same time I think it does a good job of highlighting the dichotomy that is the human being. It tells you why enforcement is required, policy alone is not enough. Most people will behave differently if they know their actions are being monitored but some people will try to take action regardless.

I have an acquaintance whose name shall remain hidden (in order to protect the guilty) but whom I'll call Jane, who recently tweeted about a way to get around IP blocking of Internet-provided content. Specifically content provided by the website/company called Hulu. This is a website devoted to providing US-based network TV content via the Internet free for consumers (but not free for Hulu). Presumably Hulu makes ad revenue and perhaps a subscription-based premium account, I don't really know or care but they are a company trying to make money so they will not be giving this away (at least not eventually). Anyway, that isn't my point, my point is that Hulu does pay a license fee to be allowed to distribute the content to US-based Internet users and other companies, (like Rogers and Bell) pay a license fee to do so in Canada (which are only available for a fee if at all).

So, Jane finds out that there is no real IP blocking per se, it is more about DNS blocking and there are ways around the blocking for the technically savvy, and Jane's instructions actually allow the less-than-savvy to enjoy the benefits of breaking copyright / licensing restrictions for Canadians and seeing Hulu content. It sounds great, it is a pain in the ass not being able to access that content when given a URL from a US-based friend. But the part I'm confused about is that Jane works for a large software vendor whose existence and revenue come from the same sort of restrictive licensing "rights". In other words, Jane owes her rather lucrative paycheque to these draconian copyright laws and yet Jane has no problem going around those laws for her own good and is so comfortable with the idea that she posts her intent and how-to instructions on the public Internet for all to see/read. Now Jane isn't a small cog in the software vendor's wheel, Jane's job means she understands the rules well, she just clearly doesn't believe they apply to her.

No doubt Jane has some internal justification engine that says the profits made from the use of IP rights for TV is different ... I imagine it has something to do with the fact that the original signal is broadcast over the airwaves and if one has the right equipment one can pick it up over the airwaves in Canada legally and free and thus getting it over the Internet is just more convenient. But that, I'd say, is a specious argument because there is no feasible way for a broadcaster to limit the broadcasting to a specific geography so there is no way to apply such restrictions over airwaves.

In any case, the restrictions are a way of enforcing the rule of law, not of making it, and getting around the technology had better not be the way that we decide whether it is legal to do so or not. No, I just don't see the justification ... you either support the concept of IP or not (and surely if you work for a company that earns their money over IP and aggressively prosecutes those who attempt to subvert that IP you do support the concept of IP). So I conclude that Jane is a hypocrite.

Well let's be honest, Jane would hardly be alone right there, who amongst us aren't hypocritical at times but the curious aspect is that this otherwise intelligent person who has achieved great success and likely hopes to continue to do so would jeopardize it all for a chance at fame with a quick tweet. Tweets are generally public information and tweets that are automatically copied to multiple web sites via other online resources are guaranteed to be public. Why would Jane make such an open admission unless Jane really didn't think she was doing anything wrong? (because the public part is the point behind her tweets, again this isn't a story of how technology is doing something unexpected).

Or perhaps it is much more blatant than that. A different but equally well paid high-tech friend once included me in a conversation that suggested ways to get around paying duty on electronics purchased online in the US. While not quite the same public forum, the upfront way it was presented certainly seemed to mean that it was an accepted thing to do. My response when asked what I do wasn't taken so well because "I don't smuggle", which was only to mean that I'm too frightened to be caught but was taken to mean that I was on a different moral plain than they were. In this case I'm not sure I see a moral argument to paying duties, there is I suppose a justice argument to be made (and one thing my Dad drilled into me was to be fair) but for me "if you can't do the time don't do the crime" ... I just didn't want to get caught. Perhaps Jane equally felt that her actions were justified because the rest of the world would do the same if they could.

But this copyright thing is quite different, I can't wrap a good argument up that can justify my breaking copyright rules for my entertainment but expect others to follow it for my financial edification ... and I don't even work for a software vendor anymore. I've NO interest in paying huge license fees for software or for entertainment (though I do a lot of the latter), that's why I primarily work with Open Software and Linux, but I can't be the hypocrite Jane is and to be honest, I've lost a lot of respect for her as well.

Is there an ECM-related point to all this jibber-jabber? Only that

• This notion of social networking is quite dangerous even for the fully initiated. While Jane may well never have cause to regret her public stance, should Jane ever want to be an elected official or need to show her honesty and integrity to an impartial party (like a court of law), there is some easy dirt available to show her insincerity. The odd part is that I do believe Jane aspires for just such a role in politics and it is already too late for her to undo the damage done, she'll just have to spin any future story about it her way.