Re: Separate trusted computing designs

[Tom Bachmann]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:
> 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.]
>

Just for this mail, let me define this (2-statement-definition) as "full
ownership" and only point 1 as "partial" or "shared ownership". This is
a bit misleading, because as long as the ownership is not given up whole
or in part, these two are equal.

> The TC/TCPM design that is currently being implemented on PCs is
> entirely consistent with statement (1). It is not consistent with
> statement (2).
> 

So within this design, I own my computer only partially.
And what's with the movies on it (that are protected?). I own them
actually less than partially. I have no access to the bits. And if I
play them, I partially give up ownership of my monitor and graphic card.
Hell, what component of my computer _do_ I fully own?
Despite the possibility of abusement, why should I pay the same price
for something I own together with others I neither know nor trust?
Would you think it is OK if government would have the legal right to
prevent you from going into your kitchen if tv is running?
- --
- -ness-
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFE9paLvD/ijq9JWhsRAuH0AJ4gBnkXNGBIFscjdSGh2q7GitGadgCbBKQr
H6qSmIyU/oEvs8e2R6XnKJI=
=1Erf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----