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

[Marcus Brinkmann]

At Sun, 7 Jan 2007 00:15:39 +0100,
Pierre THIERRY <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> Scribit Marcus Brinkmann dies 06/01/2007 hora 23:48:
> > > 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).
> 
> What can be permanent with opaque memory that wouldn't with memory
> shared transparently?

In my opinion, that's the wrong question to ask.  The right question
to ask is if there is a significant difference in the harm that can
result from such an arrangement if I am out of control compared to
when I retain control.  I believe that to be the case.
 
> The only permanent change in the process is that the memory region could
> be altered, but that's already the case whatever the way memory is
> shared.

Nono, I agree that within the system there is no permanent, or more
specifically irreversible change in your arrangement.  The change
happens outside the system, involving the actors, that means real
human like you and me.

This assumes that revocation is feasible, which may not always be the
case, depending on what the relationship of power is between the
actors and the application.  Another point to consider.

Thanks,
Marcus