[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: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 18:20:39 +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 Fri, 1 Sep 2006 16:49:57 +0200,
Pierre THIERRY <address@hidden> wrote:
> Scribit Marcus Brinkmann dies 31/08/2006 hora 16:07:
> > You are definitely not the owner of your house, at least not in
> > Germany. [...] You may have some (even extensive) property rights to
> > your house, but you do not have the exclusive right to possess, use
> > and destroy it.  [...]
> > 
> > Of course, with such a narrow definition of ownership, we do not own
> > very much, as any of our property is subjectable to outside
> > interference in the case of emergencies etc, even our own body.
> Isn't it a bit of a problem that you use the word 'own' in a way that
> maybe you're the only one (correct me if I'm wrong on this point)?

You may have missed my notes where I retract the terminology.

If you apply my arguments to the secret key on the TPM, then my
argument starts to make sense, if (and only if) you believe that
information can be proprietarized.  However, I do not believe that.
So, my arguments have been inconsistent in that regard.

Note however that neither the nature of information nor the effects of
TPM on society depend on your believes about proprietarization of
information.  Thus, I believe that the various problems I pointed out
still exist, I just need a different theory to explain and describe
them.  It can not be the framework of ownership.  This actually works
very well for me, I just need to formalize it, which will take some

> IANAL, but in France too you have plenty of regulations about
> construction work, but you definitely own your house. Legally, you have
> what we call the abusus, which means you do whatever you want with it
> (it may be the same word everywhere in Western countries, as it is a
> Latin word).

Note that I was not using a legal definition of ownership, but a
philosophical definition.  The legal definition of ownership is
practically useless to analyse TPM, exactly for the reason you

Note also that ownership in legal history has always been tied
explicitely to material goods.  So, even if you assume that
information can be proprietarized, drawing analogies from legal
documents is not going to be very useful.

Legal history has mechanisms for control over information.  It's the
realm of copyright, trademark and patents.  "Trusted computing" is
part of a coordinated effort to alter these mechanisms, and turn them
into something radically restricted, more restricted than even
material goods are today.

reply via email to

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