[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 12:35:24 +0200
User-agent: Thunderbird (X11/20060826)

Hash: SHA1

Christian Stüble wrote:
>>> 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 
> more?

As you say, using the all-day term "owning" here confuses things. The
abstract concept "full ownership" does not apply to this situation.

>> 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.

But I cannot technically access it to, say, convert the movie into
another format.

>> 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.

I am not speaking about the price of the movie here, but about the price
of the hardware.

>> 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.

I do not understand that answer. I can (e.g.) relate "tv running" to
"watching protected movie" and "going into the kitchen" to "accessing
the graphics memory". And I can make up an insane relation (to, say,
"playing protected music from the shell" and "accessing graphics
memory"), too, which might look more like the kitchen-tv example.
- --
- -ness-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)


reply via email to

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