[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Separate trusted computing designs

From: Marcus Brinkmann
Subject: Re: Separate trusted computing designs
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 16:55:25 +0200
User-agent: Wanderlust/2.14.0 (Africa) SEMI/1.14.6 (Maruoka) FLIM/1.14.7 (Sanjō) APEL/10.6 Emacs/21.4 (i486-pc-linux-gnu) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI)

At Thu, 31 Aug 2006 11:58:32 +0200,
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.

Without using the term, or another term with the same definition, it
is impossible to understand the effect of "trusted computing" on

Maybe it is my fault.  I am putting a strong emphasis on the term
ownership in the discussion.  However, I think it is appropriate for
me to do so, because I have given a whole long essay on the subject
matter, which includes as good definitions of the terms "ownership"
and "contract" (and others) as is philosophically possible.

Nobody has challenged these definitions.  This may be because nobody
has read them either.  Which I find mildly disappointing, because that
essay is one of the best things I have ever written on that subject.
So, why are you reading this email?  Better read these:



reply via email to

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