Fwd: Separate trusted computing designs

[Michal Suchanek]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Michal Suchanek <address@hidden>
Date: Aug 30, 2006 10:33 PM
Subject: Re: Separate trusted computing designs
To: "Jonathan S. Shapiro" <address@hidden>


On 8/30/06, Jonathan S. Shapiro <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-08-30 at 21:54 +0200, Tom Bachmann wrote:
>
> > As a side note, this is, imo, a discussion of terms: for me, for
> > instance, "I on this computer" is a superset of "I can read and write
> > every bit of this computer's ram (at any time)". For you, it appareantly
> > is not. One crucial point about discussing these things is that we
> > require not-technical reasoning, reasoning in terms we often do not
> > precisely define.

Unless you physically lend the computer to somebody else..

> The term "owner" has a specific and well-defined legal meaning, and I
> have (in the past) understood Marcus to be using this meaning when he
> uses the term "owner". His position (as I understand it) might be
> captured with two statements:
>
>   1. The legal owner should be able to read and write every bit of this
>      computer's ram (at any time).
>   2. This right should be inalienable -- it should not be possible for
>      an owner to give up this right in whole or in part.
>
>      [This is the part where Marcus and I disagree.]
>
> The term "owner" is distinct from the term "user".
>
> The TC/TCPM design that is currently being implemented on PCs is
> entirely consistent with statement (1). It is not consistent with
> statement (2).
>
> > > This aside, I disagree with an assumption that you appear to be making
> > > here. It appears to me that you deny the possibility that a machine may
> > > be contracted on a non-exclusive but isolated basis.
> >
> > Where does he (implicitely) state that one?
>
> Marcus has been very clear that his concept of "ownership" is not
> subdivisible. He has explicitly excluded any scenario involving shared
> ownership or any scenario in which "total control" is restricted to a
> subset of the resource/machine.
>
> For example, his notion of ownership is inconsistent with the concept of
> "community property", wherein a husband and wife may jointly own a house
> or a computer.
>
> Of course, I may not have understood him correctly, or I may be
> mis-applying what he has said.

It does not prevent shared ownership. It just prevents separated
shared ownerhip.

If DRM was applied a husband and wife could not share a plain house,
they would have to live in a double dwelling house, or an equivalent
implemented in a single house using room scheduling quotas :)

Thanks

Michal