[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Separate trusted computing designs

From: Michal Suchanek
Subject: Re: Separate trusted computing designs
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 13:35:48 +0200

On 8/31/06, Christian Stüble <address@hidden> wrote:
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).

That's exactly it. You are not allowed to do it but you aren't
physically prevented from doing it.

DRM and TPM systems differ in that thay technologically prevent you
from doing somethig, even if the law changed, the enforcement
mechanism was configured incorrectly in the first place, etc.



reply via email to

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