On Sat, 21 Sep 2002 13:15:18 -0700, AARG!Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On the contrary, TCPA/Palladium can solve exactly this problem. It allows > the marketers to *prove* that they are running a software package that > will randomize the data before storing it. And because Palladium works > in opposition to their (narrowly defined) interests, they can't defraud > the user by claiming to randomize the data while actually storing it > for marketing purposes. Yup.. This bit I agree with (in contrary to the other reply to your message). There are still issues over the correctness of that aforementioned randomizing package; is it correctly designed and implemented. AFAIK Pd would let a user know it was being run. > Ironically, those who like to say that Palladium "gives away root on your > computer" would have to say in this example that the marketers are giving > away root to private individuals. In answering their survey questions, > you in effect have root privileges on the surveyor's computers, by this > simplistic analysis. This further illustrates how misleading is this > characterization of Palladium technology in terms of root privileges. Actually, I'd exactly call Palladium as being root over my machine, maybe a part of my machine (a Tor/NUB/whatever), but root.. It could be claimed that I have a choice as to whether or not I wish to run the 'other' software. However, I've always had that choice (the power switch). Its still root. The idea I believe is that I'm supposed to be mollified by the idea (as you suggest) that I can get root on someone elses machine, to control what they can and can't do.. However, little is said that the reverse applies to me; someone has root on *my* machine. Now, that might not be bad, if it weren't for the power inbalance between me and them. Why do I have a 'bonus saver' card for 3 grocery store chains? Why am I stuck with draconian EULA's that promise nothing and take away everything. Scott
