On Sun, 9 Feb 2003, Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer wrote: > However note: you can't defend TCPA as being "good" vs Palladium "bad" > (as you did by in an earlier post) by saying that TCPA only provides > key storage.
TPM != TCPA. TCPA with *user* control is good. > As Michel noted TCPA and Palladium both provide remote attestation and > sealing, and it is this pair of functions which provides the DRM > functionality. > > Therefore for DRM purposes TCPA and Palladium are both socially bad > technologies. It's bad only if the *user* does not have control over their own machines. If each enterprise can control their own machines, completely independently of all other external organizations, then TCPA could be really useful. If only Bill Gates controls all machines, it's bad for the rest of us (but pretty damn good for Bill!!) Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
