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

[Marcus Brinkmann]

At Fri, 01 Sep 2006 10:52:34 -0400,
"Jonathan S. Shapiro" <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 2006-09-01 at 12:02 +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > At Fri, 1 Sep 2006 10:09:49 +0200,
> > Christian Stüble <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > 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.
> 
> To the best of my knowledge, you have no direct or credible evidence
> concerning the ideological goals behind the technology -- or even that
> such goals exist.

The ideology is the idea that information can and should be
proprietarized.  This is what all the proposed technical mechanism
have in common, and it is also what the people I talked to about this
support when they support the technology, including yourself.  It's in
fact the whole purpose of the technological constraints.

> If you have it, bring it forward. If you do not, I suggest that paranoia
> and FUD do not facilitate rational decision making.

What paranoia and FUD?  It's just a simple observation.

> This applies equally to everyone, and it applies to positive speculation
> as well as negative speculation, so please feel free to point out to me
> when *I* do it as well!

I don't have time for that, nor does it interest me very much.

Thanks,
Marcus