At Thu, 31 Aug 2006 09:53:36 -0400, "Jonathan S. Shapiro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 1. It would be helpful to have a URL to refresh my memory. Better still, > if it is truly a reference essay for Hurd, put it on the Wiki!
Actually, I plan to write it up as a paper, but that has to wait, unfortunately. The URLs are http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/l4-hurd/2006-05/msg00184.html http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/l4-hurd/2006-05/msg00232.html http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/l4-hurd/2006-05/msg00324.html > Some of the critical term definitions that you have adopted do not, in > my view, correspond to conventional usage, and I therefore find it > impossible to adopt (or even remember without explicit conscious effort) > your definitions. Your definition of "ownership" is one example (see > below). I have no objection to the concept that I think you are trying > to capture. My problem is that I am unable to form any persistent > binding between the word "ownership" and that concept, because to me > ownership is a legal term that means something quite different. I accept that criticism. We have uncovered something that is very difficult to get right, because the existing terminology does not map well to the "trusted computing" use case. Let me explain. There is a distinction made in German law between the "owner" of an item and the "possessor". I may be in possession of an item because I acquired it unlawfully, or because I found it (the owner lost it), or because I contracted it for a purpose. I assume similar concepts exist elsewhere, too. As you point out, the term ownership doesn't fit, because one retains the ownership of the computer even during a contract. I got this partly correct in my essay, but got it wrong several times as well, and on the mailing list. I apologize for that, and I retract it. On the other hand, the term "possession" also doesn't fit, because I may be in possession of all the physical parts of the hardware and still not be able to exercise the kind of control I am interested in. The term "control" is a band-aid that we can use to communicate what we mean, given that we have a rough understanding of the information flow model that's involved in the typical use case. However, the term begs for a rigorous definition and analysis. I may have fallen into a trap by proprietizing the nature of the encrypted key on the "trusted computing" chip, while at the same time argueing against the proprietization of information. That's a neat one! It's a quite serious blow to the way I present my core argument, and the first real challenge that has come up. I am very grateful for this. I will have to think about how to correct this. [...] > In the same way, the TiVo box can be used by the owner for its original > purpose, and the owner is welcome to *attempt* to adapt it at their own > risk. It is my understanding that the DMCA (and the EUCD implementations here in Europe) may make this illegal if anti-circumvention measures are applied by the vendor. Is that wrong? Thanks, Marcus _______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
