Dave: Adam is correct - I was responding to him.
'secure remote attestation that the boot sequence was followed' seems to imply that a net connection back to Hollywood would be required to boot. 'All your computer are belong to us'. Peter Trei > ---------- > From: Adam Shostack[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 11:42 AM > To: Dave Farber > Cc: Trei, Peter; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: A talk on Intellectual Property and National Defense > > Dave, > > I think Peter was responding to me, not you. > > And no, I'm not proposing that this be done, but I suspect that the > RIAA and MPAA will go as far as saying no off-net viewing of > controlled media. Recall that they already supported the DIVX system > which required a phone line to work. From their perspective, its > their content, and they're going to squeeze it as much from it as they > can. > > Adam > > On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 11:37:20AM -0500, Dave Farber wrote: > | Sorry that is not what I said. Where did you get that from the above? > | > | On 2/4/03 11:28 AM, "Trei, Peter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > | > | >> Adam Shostack[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] writes: > | >> > | >> I believe that DRM systems will require not just an authorized boot > | >> sequence, but a secure remote attestation that that boot sequence was > | >> followed, and a secure attestation as to the versions of the software > | >> on your system. So, while a secure system is needed for AT/DRM, its > | >> not enough. > | >> > | > Let me get this straight - in order to make the RIAA and MPAA richer, > | > we're going to ban off-net computer use? If you're not near a WiFi > | > hotspot you won't be able to boot your laptop? > | > > | > Peter Trei > | > > | > > | > > | > > -- > "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." > -Hume > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]