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

[Pierre THIERRY]

Scribit Marcus Brinkmann dies 01/09/2006 hora 20:34:
> > I love the quote, but it isn't very relevant. What TPM shows is that
> > the nature of divulgence can be altered through technical means.
> > Given such technical means, it is not obvious that Jefferson's words
> > (or any of those who preceded them) remain true today and in the
> > future. [...]
> Well, it would be an interesting trick if you could change the nature
> of information by mere postulation of a believe about it.

If I understand Shapiro well, his wording is important: the nature of
divulgence, that is the way information is given out, is something
essentially different from the very nature of information itself.

Of course, if I give you a paper to read it in a vast room full of other
people moving around, chatting and doing many osrt of things, while
trying to check, from my desk, that you don't copy the ifnormation, I'll
have a hard time.

But if I keep the paper in my hands, merely letting you read it in front
of me, you will have a hard time making a copy. Of course, it depends of
your memory, of the means you will have at hand (micro-camera in a
button, a friend with a professional zoom on a camera, etc.) and of many
other details of the situation.

TPM won't change by any means the very nature of information, and as you
said it, only one full leakage is needed to leak the information to the
whole world. Which is, IMHO, a very good thing. But the attempts at
modifying the way you access information are real, and they do change
something. If you view a movie on a totally TMPed sysytem, with the
hardware, graphic card and screen that are checked to provide secure
channels, you will have a hard time to succesfully leak the information
without loss.

Subtly,
Nowhere man
-- 
address@hidden
OpenPGP 0xD9D50D8A

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature