[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Fwd: Separate trusted computing designs

From: Michal Suchanek
Subject: Fwd: Separate trusted computing designs
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 22:33:35 +0200

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Michal Suchanek <address@hidden>
Date: Aug 30, 2006 10:33 PM
Subject: Re: Separate trusted computing designs
To: "Jonathan S. Shapiro" <address@hidden>

On 8/30/06, Jonathan S. Shapiro <address@hidden> wrote:
On Wed, 2006-08-30 at 21:54 +0200, Tom Bachmann wrote:

> As a side note, this is, imo, a discussion of terms: for me, for
> instance, "I on this computer" is a superset of "I can read and write
> every bit of this computer's ram (at any time)". For you, it appareantly
> is not. One crucial point about discussing these things is that we
> require not-technical reasoning, reasoning in terms we often do not
> precisely define.

Unless you physically lend the computer to somebody else..

The term "owner" has a specific and well-defined legal meaning, and I
have (in the past) understood Marcus to be using this meaning when he
uses the term "owner". His position (as I understand it) might be
captured with two statements:

  1. The legal owner should be able to read and write every bit of this
     computer's ram (at any time).
  2. This right should be inalienable -- it should not be possible for
     an owner to give up this right in whole or in part.

     [This is the part where Marcus and I disagree.]

The term "owner" is distinct from the term "user".

The TC/TCPM design that is currently being implemented on PCs is
entirely consistent with statement (1). It is not consistent with
statement (2).

> > This aside, I disagree with an assumption that you appear to be making
> > here. It appears to me that you deny the possibility that a machine may
> > be contracted on a non-exclusive but isolated basis.
> Where does he (implicitely) state that one?

Marcus has been very clear that his concept of "ownership" is not
subdivisible. He has explicitly excluded any scenario involving shared
ownership or any scenario in which "total control" is restricted to a
subset of the resource/machine.

For example, his notion of ownership is inconsistent with the concept of
"community property", wherein a husband and wife may jointly own a house
or a computer.

Of course, I may not have understood him correctly, or I may be
mis-applying what he has said.

It does not prevent shared ownership. It just prevents separated
shared ownerhip.

If DRM was applied a husband and wife could not share a plain house,
they would have to live in a double dwelling house, or an equivalent
implemented in a single house using room scheduling quotas :)



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]