At Mon, 01 May 2006 12:47:14 -0400, "Jonathan S. Shapiro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, 2006-05-01 at 18:05 +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > > At Mon, 01 May 2006 12:01:55 -0400, > > "Jonathan S. Shapiro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The second point is fundamentally a value judgment, and it cannot be > > > decided by purely technical means. It implies that there may exist > > > *some* forms of information encapsulation are not only acceptable, but > > > may be ethically mandatory. > > > > But as you said, it can not be decided purely by technical means. A > > consequence is that in many circumstances, and I have in mind > > particularly those circumstances which have a broader public impact, > > technical means may not be the appropriate means to enforce encapsulation. > > In the absence of technical means of support, encapsulation *cannot* be > enforced in a share-access computing system.
I used the word "enforce" above in the same sense as in "enforcing a law". Using your definition, one can not enforce any law. That may be true, but I think that the term is nevertheless commonly used in this way, and rightfully so. > If you can offer a demonstration of how to do it, you will overturn > decades of security research going all the way back to the Anderson > Report and earlier. If you can actually demonstrate this, then trust me > when I say that your life is completely *wasted* in the area of > mathematics. I hope its clearer now. Thanks, Marcus _______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
