Re: Potential use case for opaque space bank: domain factored network stack

[Marcus Brinkmann]

At Sat, 6 Jan 2007 21:21:24 +0100,
Pierre THIERRY <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> Scribit Marcus Brinkmann dies 06/01/2007 hora 20:26:
> > The principle is user's control over their resources, or short "user
> > freedom".
> 
> Well, with respect to classical law, in your scenario the user has less
> freedom and control over it's own resources, because you give him the
> /usus/, the right to use it, but you refuse him the right to give
> exclusive /usus/ to someone else.
> 
> That's a basic freedom in real life, and it's pretty useful in some very
> interesting schemes in OS implementation.

We have to recognize that sometimes the community (by means of laws)
protects you and others from yourself.  This is because it was
realized that people are often under external pressure can not always
make voluntary decisions independently, and then are bound to hurt
themselves or a higher value in the community.  There are some rights
that you are not allowed to alienate.

I am not saying that this is necessarily the case here.  But if you
are looking for analogies in the real world, then I think you will
find examples both ways.  That suggests that we need to find out more
about the actual consequences of the policies you propose in the real
world before we can commit to their application.

> > In the total dominance case, the relationship of control over the
> > resources remains the same before and after the operation.  In the
> > peer case, it is altered, that's a threat scenario for me.
> 
> It's not really altered, because the originating peer keeps the
> /abusus/, which gives him the ability to get back to the exact state of
> control it was before.

That doesn't make the loss of control any less real for the duration
it happened, with all its consequences for the actors involved (which
may very well be irreversible and thus permanent).

Thanks,
Marcus