> There are no socially positive uses of something that limits > someones freedom.
So you advocate that there should be no law or mechanism that should limit my ability to murder you, for example? Law does not dictate what is moral or not, nor does it dictate what freedom is. Slavery was legal you know. If you are allowed to dictate if I can live or not, you are restricting my freedom to decide what I can do with my life. > Treacherous computing is no way near `value-neutral', it lets > another entity control what someones machine does without their > consent. You are confusing several different technologies into one. No, I'm not, Digital Restricting Managment and Treacherous Computing are closley related. Your statement about DRM is close to true (I actually do not agree, but I think this is because we are proceeding from different principles where DRM is concerned), but your statement about Trusted Computing is, to my knowledge, widely promulgated but entirely wrong. Please don't call it trusted computing, there is nothing trusted about letting another entity other than owner of the computer dictate what the computer can or cannot do. Calling it TC is OK since it doesn't propagte the lie that Treacherous Computing has anything to do with trust. Can you please give an example of the type of third-party entity control that you believe is made possible by the presence on the motherboard of a TPM chip? It can prohibit me from running a free operating system, a free boot loader, it can make it impossible to play CD's or DVD's on free platforms since they are not `treacherous' to the user. Treacherous computing makes it impossible to circumvent data that is encumbered by Digital Restriction Managment. _______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
