Personal

There is nothing magical about digital signatures. They are simply an electronic mark used to signify a promise and to cement faith in the document or transaction to which that promise is attached. Some day digital signatures will be as commonplace among CAD professionals as the human readable “wet stamp” is today. However it must also be said that, just as CAD did not make architects more creative, digital signature technology will not make engineers more trustworthy. The technology to use digital signatures has been around for well over 20 years, and a wide variety of software tools exist today that make digital signatures easy to use on almost any platform. So why is the use of digital signatures not more widespread? Primarily because the utopian dream of a paperless world has yet to materialize. So long as hardcopy on paper is regarded as the authentic “record” version of a document, digital signatures are virtually useless. Even if new buildings are designed completely in CAD, an architect’s digital signature simply won’t mean anything if downstream consumers of the building design require a paper blueprint. The true benefits of a paperless world simply can’t be realized until every link in the chain has joined the digital club. So long as even a single node on the distribution tree requires a human readable method of verifying authenticity, the architect is forced to use a handwritten wet signature on paper blueprints from the very start. Handwritten signatures can be scanned into an electronic format, but then they lose their putative value because a digital facsimile is so easily reproduced. Therefore only original and unique handwritten wet signatures are trustworthy in a human readable form. Digital signatures do not translate to paper because they are not human readable. Therefore digital signatures only have value for a document in electronic form. This maxim is fundamental to a proper understanding of the emerging digital signature technology: digital data can only be securely signed by computers; and human readable documents can only be securely signed by humans. I see many people in the CAD industry looking for a hybrid solution to this paper vs. digital dilemma by using a “digitized signature” (i.e. handwritten on paper, then scanned into electronic format) so that printed output contains this digitized signature. This cannot even remotely be considered a digital signature! There is simply no such thing as a secure printed digitized signature. Yes, you can digitally sign a document that has an embedded digitized signature, but once it is printed, that digitized signature is not worth the paper it’s printed on. Not only could that signature be stolen from the document and used maliciously, there is no way to tell from the signature alone whether or not it has already been stolen and used maliciously. The only hybrid approach that is practical and legally sound is to use digital and wet signatures in parallel. Using an architect as an example, this would mean creating and disseminating two sets of signed documents: the CAD model of a building (perhaps converted into a common 2D format like PDF, DWFx, or XPS) with the architect’s digital signature and paper blueprints with the architect’s individually handwritten wet signature. A number of companies claim to sell some sort of hybrid solution involving the creation of a secure digitized signature. This is simply capitalism – selling something useless just because there is a market for it. A digitized signature is only secure if it is never used. I’ve heard the rationalization that the digitized signature printed on paper meets a psychological need for people accustomed to seeing one, even if it has no legal value. In my opinion, such pandering borders on deception and serves only to further alienate digital signature technology from those who would benefit from it. This sort of abuse is typified by an emailed PDF file consisting of a scanned document with a handwritten signature. In such cases, checking the sender’s email address likely becomes the most reliable way to verify the document’s trustworthiness. Spam filters bear witness to the fact that the sender’s email address is the most important – and often only – criteria we use in determining the level of trust to place in emailed documents. This is an important point to keep in mind. The act of applying a digital signature requires the use of a secure private encryption key, but the digital signature alone does not provide security in any way. Digitally signing a document does not prevent it from being modified or stolen. In that respect it is no different than a handwritten wet signature. However, unlike a wet signature that cannot be easily duplicated, a digital signature does not prevent a signed document from being copied. This does not make digital signatures inferior. On the contrary, making copies is necessary and commonplace in the digital world, so the fact that exact copies of digitally signed documents are still trustworthy is a huge benefit over handwritten signatures. There are other notable differences between a digital signature and a handwritten signature. Digital signatures can be time-stamped, thus providing reliable evidence that a document was signed on or before a certain time. A disadvantage of digital signatures is that they are only as reliable as the digital ID used to create them. To combat this problem, a public clearinghouse of compromised digital IDs must be maintained, and auditing systems must be in place to immediately detect and report suspicious activity. Time stamped digital signatures created before a digital ID is compromised can be easily and certainly distinguished from compromised signatures if properly designed and competently managed infrastructure is in place. This is necessary to ensure that previously existing digital signatures survive a compromising event. In conclusion, adequate technical solutions and time tested safeguards already exist for successfully using digital signatures in a professional environment, but digital consumers still need to learn how to work within the limitations of the technology. Building an acceptable comfort level with a technology that must by its nature completely replace something as significant and culturally ingrained as the handwritten signature will not be easy or quick, but it is inevitable.

Security and encryption legend Bruce Schneier posted this essay: The War on the Unexpected I think we should all be reminded that representative governments are always at risk of death by democracy: suicide under the watchful eyes of a body politic beholden only to the next election.

I’ve heard the word “brutal” used more than once during conversations with Autodesk employees about the Autodesk sponsored discussion groups. It’s true that raw unfiltered feedback can be brutal, and it can also hurt your ego if you happen to be the target of criticism. The trick is to learn how to interpret the feedback. If you can master that skill, that raw feedback is a fast, unbiased, low noise-to-signal-ratio predictor of the future. I’ve seen many recognizable Autodesk names come and go since the days of Autodesk’s original online discussion group, the CompuServe ACAD forum. Oftentimes, they came espousing the virtues of such a vibrant community, only to wilt away after they got singed a few times in the inevitable flame wars. Some Autodesk names (Art Cooney comes to mind) have been around forever, and still take it all in stride. Personally, I view the discussion groups as one of Autodesk’s biggest competitive advantages, even while they go largely untapped. This week saw too issues erupt into what could fairly be termed brutal feedback. The first was caused by the Autodesk University registration site failing under the load of opening day registration. Several threads (“Dear Carl Bass” and “AU2007 Registration is now open!!!") called Autodesk to the carpet for blowing it again, after a similar fiasco in 2006. The second event occurred when AutoCAD product manager Eric Stover announced a new “bonus” tool called CommandComplete. I pity the poor guy or gal that wrote this tool (on their own time, I’m sure), all excited to see how it is received, only to become the victim of a flame war. Okay, not really a flame war in this case because Eric employed his finely tuned flame retardant diplomacy skills to prevent it from getting out of hand – so let’s just call it a “venomous reaction”. There is a moral to this story. Some companies would kill to have access to this kind of critical, unfiltered, instantaneous feedback from the unwashed masses. I hope Autodesk recognizes the goose that lays the golden egg.

Reading the discussion about the reluctance to move to 3D/BIM in the latest issue of upFront.eZine reminded me of the principle of rational ignorance. The principle of rational ignorance applies when the perceived cost of obtaining knowledge is greater than the perceived benefit. It’s a bit of a chicken-and-egg scenario, where individuals rationalize their decision to remain ignorant based on their perception of the (lack of) benefit in the very thing they are ignorant about. It is interesting to think about the 2D to 3D paradigm shift in terms of shifting the balance in the rational ignorance equation. I think there’s also another principle at work here: Newton’s Third Law. The harder the collective movers and shakers try to push, the harder the end users resist. Maybe if the software companies stopped pushing so hard, the shift would occur naturally with much less resistance. By the way, I noticed a familiar theme in the upFront eZine discussion: those resistant to the paradigm shift lament the lost art of drafting and fail to believe that the new paradigm no longer needs artisans. Obviously there are other factors at work here – factors over which no amount of logic will prevail.

Deelip Menezes asks what got me started on lamenting the sad state of the CAD industry in my previous post. Good question. It all started with a Fox News story about a French architect’s claim to have solved the “Pyramid Secret”: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,262981,00.html. The article links to Dassault Systemes’ web site: http://khufu.3ds.com/introduction/. My snake oil alarm went off when I saw the site. I’ll admit I didn’t read it, but it looks like a slick marketing ploy. I was irritated that I fell for it. It reminded me of how insideous and incestuous this industry has become, now reaching out to mainstream media in search of new victims.

In some ways the CAD software industry is a lot like the fashion industry. The movers and shakers are trying to establish new fads that are just recycled from older fads, while guiding the unwashed masses into adopting new trends that have been carefully molded to ensure perpetuation of the system. Meanwhile the up and comers try desperately to get a share of the action, while an entire industry of hangers-on tries to eke out a living from the scraps left behind by the big players. It’s a tired old symphony played on the world stage, with pretty much the same players today as twenty years ago. The same seamstresses making the same old faux fluff, dressing it up a bit, draping it over a new model, and parading it down the same old runways. Bah! I’m going outside, maybe that’ll cheer me up.

I’m sure that by now all of you have heard about the latest “chain letter” circulating about the blogosphere. It sounds suspiciously like bloggers patting each other on the back. To wit, I’ve been “tagged” by Evan Yares. On principle, and just because I like to be contrary, I refuse to pass this one on, but I’ll go part of the way since there is some redeeming social value to the premise. The five: I was a difficult child. I ran away from home routinely before I started Kindergarten. I still have memories of the summer just before my third birthday of almost daily forays with my dog “Shep” into the woods adjacent to my parents’ property. Sometimes, after a dispute with my parents, I would take off deep into the woods plotting revenge. One day, after some altercation or other, I narrowly escaped my whip-wielding mother by diving under a barbed wire fence and racing into the woods before she could catch up. My mother spent hours searching for me, and finally spotted me hiding under some brambles. After rounding me up and taking me back home, mom tied me with a rope to a post outside our workshop until my father came home from work. When my father came home, he didn’t have the heart to punish me further.I was raised Amish. When I was 12, I installed a battery operated radio tuner in my basement workshop, and wired the output through a hidden network of wires (that included our hot water heating pipes as one side of the circuit) into a recessed wall outlet beside my bed so that I could listen to the radio discreetly from my bed through a small earpiece. Later I did something similar when my parents bought my first horse and buggy, by hiding the guts of a portable stereo under the seat.Amish children are expected to quit school after the 8th grade and begin working (traditionally on the family farm, although farming is becoming less common these days). I chose to continue my education by going on to high school while working evenings and summers to support myself. For this, I was ridiculed and called names in school, and my parents caught a lot of flack from their church elders for my actions (which they had very little control over). I chose not to go on to college after graduating in the top 5 of my class in high school.My first full time job was as a brick mason, following in my father’s footsteps. I did masonary and other construction work the last two summers of high school, and full time for a year or so after I graduated. One day a family friend called to ask if I would be interested in a “computer job” programming a CNC punch press. The company had unceremoniously fired the previous programmer and had nobody with the skills to replace him. My interview went something like “Do you know anything about computers?” “Yes.” “Can you start tomorrow?” It was at that company where I discovered AutoCAD, and the rest, as they say, is history.A few years ago, I played poker on a show broadcast across the United States on Fox SportsNet. The show was sponsored by UltimateBet.net, an online poker site. The winner received 10 thousand dollars and a chance to play again for 200 thousand dollars. I got there by beating several thousand other players in a series of online tournaments. I placed third out of the six finalists at the table, so I walked away with nothing more than an all expense paid (and lavish) weekend in Los Angeles, not to mention the satisfaction of knowing my kids got to watch me on national TV.Go Buckeyes! ...

‘Twas the week before Christmas, and all through the city Highways congested, tempers were tested; the sight wasn’t pretty The stores opened early, and stayed open late Registers rang, loudspeakers sang; as I tempted fate I proceeded with caution, threading the aisles Squeaking wheels, dubious deals; all the new styles I grabbed toys for the boys, and a gift for my niece Loaded my cart, doing my part; to help the Chinese I rushed to the checkout, avoiding a wreck Teeming masses, slow as molasses; all writing a check After walking a mile, got it all in my car Loaded for bear, gasping for air; I didn’t get far After dodging and weaving, with skill and deft Almost out, stuck en route; they’re all turning left! Happy Holidays Everyone!

No matter the communication protocol used to transmit it, most information gets packaged into a file format for consumption. File formats are like virtual checkpoints along the information superhighway, and we would do well to pay attention to who is manning the gates. We’ve heard a lot of noise lately about the need for “open” file formats, but documenting a file format is not the same thing as relinquishing control of the format. The key consideration is who decides when and how the file format changes. This is a dirty little secret about file formats that you are not supposed to know. By controlling when and how a file format changes, an organization can maintain a mindshare monopoly over consumers of its file format – even when the format is “open”. It may be that the relative anarchy of the internet has given us a false sense of security. We happily use “open” formats like PDF, DWF, DXF, HTM, and others with relatively little concern about who controls them, but all of those formats (HTM perhaps to a lesser degree) are controlled by corporations whose allegiance is first and foremost to their shareholders. For example, PDF is “open”, but did you know that third party developers need a digital ID signed by Adobe in order to create forms-enabled PDF files that can be opened in the free Acrobat Reader? In April of 2006, Autodesk filed a trademark application for the word “DWG” when used to refer to DWG files. This may seem benign on the surface, but if successful it will give Autodesk more legal leverage in “defending” the file format. A few weeks ago, Autodesk filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against the Open Design Alliance claiming that the ODA infringed their “AUTODESK” trademark by embedding the mark inside DWG files created with its DWGdirect libraries. Much has been written by the pundits about the pros and cons of the ODA lawsuit, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation predictably suggests that Autodesk is using trademark claims to stymie interoperability, but the bottom line is that the contention centers around a file format – a file format that Autodesk considers valuable enough to wage war over.

It may seem strange to some of you, but I consider myself an artist. Visual Studio is my canvas, and the keyboard is my paintbrush. This is why I wouldn’t survive in a stuffy corporate environment with committees, red tape, and politics. I’m a visionary, not a software engineer. I don’t like to plan every little detail; I’d rather start with a grand vision and just let the code go wherever my vision leads it. I confess this can be both a strength and a weakness. For example, I’ll spend two weeks refactoring perfectly working code because I don’t think it’s elegant enough. On the other hand, aesthetic beauty of structure and architecture is every bit as important in software as it is in other fields. It’s just that the benefits are intangible and more difficult to quantify. Perfectly working code, you say? I admit, that’s a bit of a rarity these days. It’s a rarity precisely because not many programmers consider programming as an art form. Real artists are never satisfied with their work; they never stop working toward absolute perfection of both form and function. This leads me to my real point. I have a favorite saying, “Have you made your mistake today?” Ironically, perfection can only be achieved by making mistakes. If you’re not making mistakes, you’re not learning. If you’re not learning, you’re not taking any risks. If you’re not taking any risks, you’re achieving mediocrity at best. Learn to make mistakes gracefully. Enjoy your capacity to learn and evolve toward perfection, no matter what kind of art you create.

This year I taught an ObjectARX class at AU. As usual, there wasn’t nearly enough time to cover all the things I wanted to cover. I’m still contemplating what I want to do differently next year in order to be able to spend more time on the subject without boring everybody to death. ...

The French expression tuit de suite pretty much sums up how I feel after every Autodesk University, and this year is no exception. So much gets crammed into one week, with barely any time to decompress or collect my thoughts, let alone catch up with all the latest gossip or relax with old friends. ...