Re: Retracting the term ownership (was: Re: Separate trusted computing designs)

[Marcus Brinkmann]

At Fri, 1 Sep 2006 10:09:49 +0200,
Christian Stüble <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> Am Freitag, 1. September 2006 00:36 schrieb Marcus Brinkmann:
> > At Thu, 31 Aug 2006 14:38:34 -0400,
> >
> > "Jonathan S. Shapiro" <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > I do not believe that the same is true for TPM. The problem with TPM is
> > > that the one widely publicized application is DRM. In discussions on
> > > this list, we have identified a number of scenarios where TPM protects
> > > the interests of the *customer*. TPM per se is merely a mechanism for
> > > mechanically embedding certain contract terms. Some of those contracts
> > > are socially bad, some are socially neutral, and some are socially
> > > positive.
> >
> > That's the real question, isn't it?  The TPM supporters are
> > cherry-picking the use cases and evaluating the scenarios mostly under
> > the aspects of protection, and a narrow set of other interests.  So
> > are doing some of the critics, I should add.  That's why I am
> > targeting at a level of analysis that transcends the individual use
> > cases.  A complete evaluation of the expected net effect on society is
> > desperately lacking, but the threats are numerous and have been
> > expressed by many parties.  To downplay this to the DRM example is an
> > understatement of the criticism that exists.
> The interesting question for me is whether the negative scenarios coming
> with this technologie are caused by a bad design of the technology, or 
> whether 
> these bad examples are a logical consequence of a design that
> allows the "good" ones (independent of the fact that we have different 
> understandings what the "good" and "bad" examples are). 

I believe they come from the ideological goals behind the technology.

Thanks,
Marcus