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

[Pierre THIERRY]

Scribit Marcus Brinkmann dies 01/09/2006 hora 23:50:
> But it is an interesting example.  Suppose you could invent a
> mechanical device, that you strap around somebodies head, which will
> monitor the eyes, ears and mouth of the person, and interfers when
> copyrighted material is exchanged without a license.  It can also keep
> your eyes open if you do not look at the advertisement.  Would you
> support such technology?

No. I already skip the ads in the beginning of DVDs, because my free
software DVD player doesn't obey the rule that it should not permit me
to skip the ads.

> In a sense, such a device is the logical extension of TPM technology.

I'm not sure. It needs serveral layers on top of TPM to be implemented:
it needs tivoized hardware and a tivoized OS on it that runs only
software that implements DRM (Digital Reeducation of Mobility in the
case you describe...).

This is much more than providing attestation of running software, secure
channels and protected storage. Maybe this is the very goal of TPM, but
it's not that obvious that it's its natural use. Let's not throw the
baby with the water. Even if the water stinks and the parents are very
suspicious...

> This is of course only a thought experiment, because no such device
> exists, and is not likely to exist.

Though variations could. In a novel she's writing, a friend of mine
describe a world where many people own some sort of PDA, which on
selected times shows mandatory news. Of course, you see mostly the bad
terrorists killing the good people like you, and this keeps people in
hatred and fear...

> Use cases of trusted computing at the work place are similar: TPM can
> be used to exploit the labor of the workers, while at the same time
> controlling tightly how the workers can do their job.  That's a new
> version of the old song of disempowerment of workers, with easily
> predictable, desastrous consequences for the population.

Sure. But I'm sure the battlefield is the law, not the computer.

> > 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.
> Actually, I think it is quite easy with analog to digital conversion.
> The reproduction can be made arbitrarily close to the quality as the
> movie is displayed on the restricted hardware, this means that the
> copy will possibly be as good as the "original" as you are allowed to
> see it.

BTW, I'm curious how fast we'll see automatized software running on
stock hardware (or relatively cheap one) that does this.

> How can we refuse to share all our socially useful knowledge and works
> of beauty with the rest of the world at almost no cost for us?  This
> is the moral question posed to us by the 21st century.

I tend to believe that we could press everyone to share by example.
Furthermore, some people won't be able to pay to access the protected
content, like emergent countries in their whole and many poor people in
richer countries. They will probably like very much the open content,
and this can just contaminate everyone.

Generosity, beauty and openness, when a critical mass is reached, can
spread in a stronger way than desire for protection, jealousy and the
like, I think.

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

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature