Exactly..... trust normally only works if both sides agree.
Earlier I read that the BBC are content to follow the music
industry's example with DRM.... if anyone reads any of the debates
and the opinions of the record execs, it is very clear that they are
promoting a protection racket.
I don't see many of the artists arguing for DRM, simply because they
have no real choice if they are contracted to the industry... if they
are not, they are normally promoting their own music, on myspace or
even youtube.
Since the early 90's I have watched the industry destroy itself,
cutting budgets, wasting money on lawsuits etc.... if that is the
future of the BBC, then I wish you all luck.
Whatever happened to the safest dual private key system?..... yes,
where I give you a key physically and you give me a key
physically.... then our private keys are decoders of public keys.....
from memory, the first time that was debated in Parliament, the UK
government used the "fear" of terrorism to make it illegal, mid 90's
I think, following the Septics again. :-)
If that hadn't happened, then the music companies could have used CD
as a carrier for those keys... allowing the customer to access data
through the net and computers, instead of locking everyone out.
Everyone would have been too secure in the eyes of the government.
Let us be real, the business has sold you the Beatles on record,
cassette and CD..... if they can make more money selling you the same
content on DRM'd data file, then they will. As the technology changes
they will sell the same property again and again.
Sadly, they, as well as I believe now the BBC, will make more effort
to protect that, call it what you like, the end result is already
happening..... the old physical model of distribution of music is
absolutely not compatible with this technology.
The artists will eventually embrace the new model, especially as most
groups are young kids who want everyone to hear their music. In the
new model there is very little need for a middle man between the
artist and audience.
I can assure you that the user/administrator debate took place when
Mac OS-X arrived, years ago, and the customers were very clear that
there was no room for free outside access to the motherboard or hard-
drive. As a result, I have a network filter, and am saddened by how
much that is already abused. Still, at least I try to limit it.
Regards
RichE
On 11 Feb 2007, at 18:24, vijay chopra wrote:
Look at Vijay's assertion regarding
his encrypted partition, and how that obviated the need for a trusted
element - when the protection of encrypted partitions is one of the
primary use cases for TPMs.
You obviously missed my point though, I don't need someone else to
"protect" my data, I'm perfectly capable of doing it myself,
secondly I only give sensitive data to people I already trust not
to give it away, if I have to be reliant on their hardware as
opposed to their brain, I probably shouldn't (and don't) give them
access to my data anyway. The thing that negates the need for
trusted computing are trusted people. If I don't trust the person,
I'm not going to give them access to my data; trusted computing or
not.
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
