Re: bit-split, or: the schizophrenia of trusted computing

[Pierre THIERRY]

I agree with you that behind Trusted Computing and DRM, there are very
dangerous ideas like the one that hardware should be the essential
enforcer of rules that are otherwise enforced by the society, which
creates and interpret them.

But there is something very strange, an assumption that you make, in
your arguments: why should I own what I use in a computer?

In the real world, I use many tools that I have no right to dispose of.
If I rent a car, I have limited rights on it's use, idem for my
appartment.

In the use case of a program that the author doesn't want to disclose to
me, I'm just renting it. That's not schizophrenic at all. That's plain
normal.

> Trusted computing and DRM impose not rules about property of items.
> They impose rules about property of digital data.

How will TC impose anything? For the moment, we discussed uses of the TC
were it gives a (morally objectionable) power to the user (i.e.
certification of privacy-related properties of the system).

Curiously,
Nowhere man
-- 
address@hidden
OpenPGP 0xD9D50D8A

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature