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

[Jonathan S. Shapiro]

On Mon, 2006-05-01 at 05:22 +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > The first corresponds to one user making a "loan" of the space to the
> > second. If I make you a "loan" of my right to storage, this does not
> > imply that I should be able to read what you put in that storage.
> 
> Right, it does not.  However, it's not hard for you to encrypt the
> data on write out.

I think that you have "I" and "you" reversed. But also you are confused.

This is a persistent system. There is no writing data out. The space
that I have "borrowed" is part of my *heap*.

Your ability to destroy the storage that I borrow from you does not
create a moral hazard. I may lose my bits, but I knew that when I
decided to use your storage.

This is completely orthogonal to whether I should be required to
disclose my bits to you, or take expensive measures to protect them.

Indeed, the very fact that I *can* use encryption to protect my data
from you in this case reveals that no benefit was achieved by making the
right to destroy imply the right to read. If no purpose is served by
this, why is it beneficial?

> > I need the right to reclaim (destroy), but not the right to
> > access. This is similar to the right of privacy that you have when
> > you rent from a landlord.
> 
> But the landlord, at least in Germany, can not kick you out from one
> second to the next.  Also, if there is a dispute, the final decision
> is (if no other resolution takes place), done by a judge, and in the
> trial the information how the property was used may be subpoenaed, for
> example to check if it was used for commercial purposed (requiring a
> higher rent than private use).
> 
> I am mentioning this to draw attention to the fact that the real real
> world allow for much wider range of nuances than a superficial
> analysis suggests.  This should make one suspicious if the simple
> technical means have the right properties, especially if they can be
> enforced rigorously.

That is all very nice, but I notice you did not address my point at all:
the party making the loan (and I agree that it isn't quite a loan,
because it can be instantly reclaimed) requires the right to reclaim,
but not the right to read.

> > From his note, I believe that what Marcus is trying to disable is the
> > ability to own *information*, which is different from storage.
> 
> Actually, both are separable concerns.  The struggle for freedom of
> information is a struggle for free culture.  It is of secondary
> concern here in this discussion.  The struggle for free hardware is a
> conservative cry: I should be in control over how the bits flow in my
> computer (yes, even if I choose to store information on it that is
> owned by somebody else).

Marcus: that is beautiful rhetoric. Does it actually *mean* anything?


> Well, first, there is a very obvious difference that can matter.  The
> painting is not digital data.  Digital data has the peculiar property
> that it can be copied and distributed to everybody who wants to have
> it without loss of quality, quantity, and without marginal costs.

I agree that this is true, but it does not seem relevant to the topic of
conversation, which was "control over information". The question here is
"how does my *control over information* (the painting) differ from
Disney's *control over information* (via DRM)?" You appear to be arguing
that it has to do with marginal costs. This has nothing to do with the
example -- the cost of replication to me is zero, since it is the
visitor who wishes to take the photograph, and I have already agreed to
let them into the room. From a cost perspective, the two cases are
identical.

Yes, the visitor photograph will be lower quality than the original, but
the visitor has decided that they find this acceptable, or they would
not want to take the photograph -- so the loss of quality does not seem
relevant here.

> Now, if you have a precious painting from the middle ages, it may be
> photo-sensitive.  So, not allowing to make pictures using a flash may
> be ok to protect the integrity of the original.
> 
> Or, upkeeping and restauration of the painting may be expensive.  If
> this is true, and allowing to take pictures would mean that nobody
> comes looking at the picture anymore, then it _may_ be ok to forbid
> making photos.

Yes yes. All that is nice. All of that is presupposed if I am letting
people into my gallery. The *only* question here is about letting the
visitor take a picture.

Let us imagine further that the taking of the picture does not present
any harm to the original.

> I hope you did not expect a simpler answer.  The impact that DRM has
> which makes it morally reprehensive is that it artificially and
> needlessly causes a shortage of intellectual goods, which could
> instead be distributed to everybody in the world at no marginal costs.

Okay. So how is that different from my refusing to let the visitor take
the picture?


shap