[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: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 11:28:13 +0200
User-agent: KMail/1.9.1

Am Freitag, 1. September 2006 04:41 schrieb Jonathan S. Shapiro:
> On Fri, 2006-09-01 at 01:24 +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > I have a definition, but I do not know if you will find it useful.
> > It's the best I can come up with, and it works surprisingly well in
> > practice.  Here it comes:
> >
> >  A free choice is one that can be made independent of any other
> >  choices.
> It seems to me that what you are describing is an *independent* choice.
> A free choice is one that is made without coercion. A choice between two
> discrete options, each having costs and benefits, remains a free choice.
That's the reason I asked. What is the definition of coercion then? The 
decision to use Linux and accept that I cannot use word any more in imo a 
free choice, but many people will say that for them this is not a free 

Basically, users have a free choice to disable their TPM. If the OS does not 
work with a disabled TPM, it remains a free choice. But the costs and 
benefits are not as equal as before...

> Your concept is fine. It's the label that doesn't seem quite right to
> me.
> shap

reply via email to

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