I agree with you that behind Trusted Computing and DRM, there are very dangerous ideas like the one that hardware should be the essential enforcer of rules that are otherwise enforced by the society, which creates and interpret them.
But there is something very strange, an assumption that you make, in your arguments: why should I own what I use in a computer? In the real world, I use many tools that I have no right to dispose of. If I rent a car, I have limited rights on it's use, idem for my appartment. In the use case of a program that the author doesn't want to disclose to me, I'm just renting it. That's not schizophrenic at all. That's plain normal. > Trusted computing and DRM impose not rules about property of items. > They impose rules about property of digital data. How will TC impose anything? For the moment, we discussed uses of the TC were it gives a (morally objectionable) power to the user (i.e. certification of privacy-related properties of the system). Curiously, Nowhere man -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP 0xD9D50D8A
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
