On Wed, 2006-06-07 at 14:10 +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > At Wed, 07 Jun 2006 01:43:03 -0400, > "Jonathan S. Shapiro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The problem here is liability and lawsuits: if something goes wrong, > > there is no evidence to decide later whether the program was executing > > legitimately or not. Neither the developer nor the user is adequately > > assured that a robust determination of whether liability might exist > > under contract is possible. > > Liability is a legal subject matter, not a technical. In this case, > it is not the developer who needs the attest that the developers > software has been run, but the user.
Correct. What the developer wants to be able to do is eliminate *possibility* that their software was improperly executed. It eliminates a very large nuisance factor. > Thus, I think you got the > benefits backwards. The developer can only be hurt by an attestation, > because it potentially increases the developers liability. This is untrue. In the absence of attestation, liability will be based on what a jury *believes*. The jury will almost always act in favor of an injured plaintiff. > However, if TC technology > were to be used, a user should desparately try not to have the > developer receive the attestation, but a third agent whose interests > side with the user. But an even better approach -- and the one that I am arguing for -- is that the software simply shouldn't run at all in an improper environment. This doesn't require disclosing anything to the developer. shap _______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
