Re: [fsfc-discuss] 'DRM'/'TPM' + another thought

[Darcy Casselman]

However much we might not like the term, and however much it is,
indeed, a "propaganda term of the enemy," "Technological Protection
Measure" is the term defined and used in bill C-11 (just as it was in
C-32, C-61 and C-60 before it), and is on its way to becoming the term
in law.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Docid=5144516&File=72#16

We can argue about whether or not it is a good, meaningful or useful
term to use, but if we're talking about the bill specifically, there
isn't another term to use.

Darcy.

On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 3:27 PM, David C Dawson <address@hidden> wrote:
> To be clear, I was referring to "Technological Protection Measures",
> Not "Trusted Computing Model".
> My objection  to "Technological Protection Measures" was that
> in my mind, the excessive vagueness would make it open to
> abuse. - (this seems to have been addressed further down in the thread.)
>
> On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 01:33:12AM -0500, Michael Faille wrote:
>> Hello all,
>>
>> I think end users can control TPM since they must own private key.
>>
>> So, where is the probleme with TPM? It's like data encryption for me.
>>
>> The problem is the misuse of TPM (when motherboard owner didn't own the
>> privatekey). It's like the misuse of UEFI :
>> http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/secure-boot-vs-restricted-boot/
>>
>> My 2 cents,
>> --
>> Michael Faille
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 1:24 AM, David C Dawson <address@hidden>wrote:
>>
>> > Quick response --
>> > I regard these strictly as concepts:
>> > I think of 'TPM' as a superset of 'DRM'.
>> > Both are a convenient fiction.
>> > They both give a 'rights holder' cart blanche, up to a point.
>> > but 'TPM' provides more scope for abuse - terrifyingly so in my view.
>> >
>> > I sent the link to Matthew Skala's excellent article because
>> > I thought his line of reasoning could be developed further to
>> > encompass 'TPM'
>> >
>> > I think, already that his article demonstrates the sort of thinking
>> > from which the 'DRM' concept came - that is, 'DRM' is supposed to be
>> > able to make 'content' 'change colour' if 'DRM' is circumvented.
>> >
>> > That might be fuzzy thinking in my feeble old brain. but there it is.
>> >
>> > Is it useful and/or possible to ask Matthew Skala for his input on this?
>> > /Dave
>> > On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 03:51:34PM -0500, Russell McOrmond wrote:
>> > >
>> > > On 12-02-17 01:09 PM, David C Dawson wrote:
>> > > >Please take a look at this link:
>> > > >http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23
>> > >
>> > >   I did, back in 2004.  I also skimmed again today to remind me of
>> > content.
>> > >
>> > >  Matthew Skala is one of the people who has been actively involved
>> > > in this area of policy from the beginning, including on the general
>> > > digital-copyright.ca forums.  (even back when it was still called
>> > > canada-dmca-opponents  http://www.digital-copyright.ca/discuss/10 )
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >   Curious what made you think of it?
>> > >
>> > >   The colour being discussed in the article is a human trait, and
>> > > one of the obvious failings of attempts at "DRM" (however you want
>> > > to define that acronym) is to try to program computers to make human
>> > > decisions. Even if we can make sentient computers, they still won't
>> > > be human. Computers can help humans with metadata to make good
>> > > decisions, but can't make those human decisions for us.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >   It is separate from the question of how rules for decisions are
>> > > encoded (in software) and where are those decisions made (in
>> > > hardware, not in "content") when those decisions are made by a
>> > > computer.  The colour of the bits of the content addresses a
>> > > different set of confusions between technical and non-technical
>> > > people.
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > >  Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
>> > >  Please help us tell the Canadian Parliament to protect our property
>> > >  rights as owners of Information Technology. Sign the petition!
>> > >  http://l.c11.ca/ict
>> > >
>> > >  "The government, lobbied by legacy copyright holders and hardware
>> > >   manufacturers, can pry my camcorder, computer, home theatre, or
>> > >   portable media player from my cold dead hands!"
>> > >
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > fsfc-discuss mailing list
>> > > address@hidden
>> > > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfc-discuss
>> >
>> > --
>> > David Dawson VE7HP VE7HDC
>> > IRC: (Freenode) VE7HP
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > fsfc-discuss mailing list
>> > address@hidden
>> > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfc-discuss
>> >
>
> --
> David Dawson VE7HP VE7HDC
> IRC: (Freenode) VE7HP
>
> _______________________________________________
> fsfc-discuss mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfc-discuss