[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Separate trusted computing designs

From: Christian Stüble
Subject: Re: Separate trusted computing designs
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 11:58:32 +0200
User-agent: KMail/1.9.1

Am Donnerstag, 31. August 2006 09:58 schrieb Tom Bachmann:
> 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.
I suggest not to use the term "ownership" in this context at all. As discussed 
earlier, ownership in the real world does not neccessary  mean that you can 
do everything: You own a pet, but you are not allowed to kill or excruciate 
it. You are the owner of your car, but you are not allowed to manipulate it.
You are the owner of a radio, but you are not allowed to receive al 
frequencies (e.g., those used by the policy).
> > 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.
You own a house. You lease a flat. You are not allowed to enter the flat 
without permission of the leaser. -> You are not the owner of the house any 

> 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. 
In the context you mean, you do not own the movie. You payed for a usage 
license. You can own a movie, but this may be more expensive.

> 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?
Bad example. You see every single bit on the screen, thus you have access
to the content in this case.

> Despite the possibility of abusement, why should I pay the same price
> for something I own together with others I neither know nor trust?
You do not pay the same price. Owning a DVD including permission to watch the 
movie is different from owning the movie.

> 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?
No. But this is exactly what we do not allow.


reply via email to

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