On Thursday, in article
     <KPVpe.4079$q46.233@newsfe1-win.ntli.net>
     ml_news@ddnospamddml1dd.co.uk.dd "Martin 53N 1W" wrote:

Raj Rijhwani wrote:

but I'm 
more concerned about deliberate hidden abuse embedded in projects like 
BOINC.  I don't have the time to audit the code myself, and I no longer 
trust the commercially influenced motives.

What commercially influenced motives for s@h?

Who said anything about commercially influenced motives for S@h?  I'm 
concerned about commercial influence on the infrastracuture development 
of BOINC.  There's a great commerical potential in distributed computing, 
both intrinsically and as a Trojan horse for other purposes.

The boinc framework could be used by commercial projects with a 
'commercial' project client. Boinc itself and s@h stay very much open 
source and purely for the science.

I agree fully that there must always be a very clear unambiguous 
distinction between projects for pure science and any tainted with 
commercialism.

In my eyes Anderson's been tainted by his effort to milk the S@h distributed 
computing experience for personal commercial gain, and that taints the whole 
project all the more.  I no longer trust the infrastructure, and the core 
development.

If all they wanted to do 
was "more science" they could simply have rolled out an expanded 
S@h client.  The very fact that there's a more complex project afoot 
suggests that a different agenda is now in play.

Yes, the agenda is expanded beyond s@h to now include other astrophysics 
science and others. New clients can now be easily added to search for 
signals in new ways, or to do completely new science.

That's the *stated* agenda.  And very plausible it is.  BUT it opens the 
door to other possibilities.  (Which should not be mistaken for suggesting 
that there *are* other possibilites.  It's merely an awareness that there 
may be, and that you and I are in no position to know conclusively one 
way or the other.)

Are your suspicions based only on that Boinc is designed to support any 
number of projects rather than being locked in to only Berkeley and SETI?

I don't have particular suspicions.  I simply lack concrete faith in the 
the purity of motives behind the push to a broader architecture, and am 
wary of the simple fact that once in place that same infrastructure and its 
development could be abused by unseen interests.  But fundamentally, yes.  
I was prepared to set aside those misgivings when the software was 
developed by the SETI boffins for the SETI boffins.

When a person does something because they have a tight focus on a goal, 
human psychology tends to suggest that they wouldn't be wasting time on 
looking for ways to abuse the tool that helps them reach it.  When the 
focus is no longer obssessively on the goal, but on the development of the 
tool itself - or an element of the tool - (as with the team assembled to 
develop BOINC), then you can bet your bottom dollar that someone's mind 
will at least have wandered down that path.  I'm not prepared to chance 
that they may have done more than wander.  (Again, I'm not suggesting that 
there is an intent to abuse, or that such a means exists.  I'm simply 
aware of the potential, and not prepared to expose myself or my machines 
to that slim chance.)
-- 
Raj Rijhwani                    |  This is the voice of the Mysterons...
raj@rijhwani.org                |  ... We know that you can hear us Earthmen
http://www.rijhwani.org/raj/    |  "Lieutenant Green:  Launch all Angels!"
Permission to distribute this article as website content is expressly denied.