[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Separate trusted computing designs

From: Tom Bachmann
Subject: Re: Separate trusted computing designs
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 09:58:03 +0200
User-agent: Thunderbird (X11/20060826)

Hash: SHA1

Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:
> 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.]

Just for this mail, let me define this (2-statement-definition) as "full
ownership" and only point 1 as "partial" or "shared ownership". This is
a bit misleading, because as long as the ownership is not given up whole
or in part, these two are equal.

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

So within this design, I own my computer only partially.
And what's with the movies on it (that are protected?). I own them
actually less than partially. I have no access to the bits. And if I
play them, I partially give up ownership of my monitor and graphic card.
Hell, what component of my computer _do_ I fully own?
Despite the possibility of abusement, why should I pay the same price
for something I own together with others I neither know nor trust?
Would you think it is OK if government would have the legal right to
prevent you from going into your kitchen if tv is running?
- --
- -ness-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)


reply via email to

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