To Jonathan [backdoor]

[Anton Tagunov]

Hi Jonathan! May I rephrase some ideas and ask your opinion (again)?

(I) Scenario I. Let us call the following paragraph "two freedoms"

 J> You, as a user, are free to say
 J> "I don't want to run anything that I cannot (transitively) inspect".
 J> I, as a developer am free to say
 J> "I do not choose to let you inspect my programs,
 J> but you are free not to run them at all."

 Marcus thinks "two-freedoms" = society shoots itself in a foot.
 If all users run "two-freedomed" OS and Hollywood DRM
 protects all DVDs users shall surrender.

 Flip the coin. If everybody runs a "free" OS Hollywood shall surrender.


(II) Scenario II.

 Suppose a computer hosts data of utmost importance.
 Computer owners think the data also of utmost secrecy.
 They use totally opaque OS + TPM + data encryption.

 In a while soft turns out to be buggy.
 It won't give back the data that the computer stores.

 That's another way for the society to shoot itself in the foot.
 We can easily imagine a resulting disaster of any magnitude -
 from one person's life endangered (medical, criminal evidence data)
 to humanity survival questioned (asteroid tracking data)


(III) Conclusion.

Jonathan if you could build an utmostly secure OS
yet having an inspection "backdoor" what would you do?

How much do you "buy" the arguments for providing such a facility?


regards, Anton Tagunov