Am Freitag, 1. September 2006 00:36 schrieb Marcus Brinkmann: > At Thu, 31 Aug 2006 14:38:34 -0400, > > "Jonathan S. Shapiro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I do not believe that the same is true for TPM. The problem with TPM is > > that the one widely publicized application is DRM. In discussions on > > this list, we have identified a number of scenarios where TPM protects > > the interests of the *customer*. TPM per se is merely a mechanism for > > mechanically embedding certain contract terms. Some of those contracts > > are socially bad, some are socially neutral, and some are socially > > positive. > > That's the real question, isn't it? The TPM supporters are > cherry-picking the use cases and evaluating the scenarios mostly under > the aspects of protection, and a narrow set of other interests. So > are doing some of the critics, I should add. That's why I am > targeting at a level of analysis that transcends the individual use > cases. A complete evaluation of the expected net effect on society is > desperately lacking, but the threats are numerous and have been > expressed by many parties. To downplay this to the DRM example is an > understatement of the criticism that exists. The interesting question for me is whether the negative scenarios coming with this technologie are caused by a bad design of the technology, or whether these bad examples are a logical consequence of a design that allows the "good" ones (independent of the fact that we have different understandings what the "good" and "bad" examples are).
> > > There does not appear to be any technical means for differentiating > > among these. > > There doesn't need to be. We can do it in the old-fashioned, human > way. > > > But arguing against TPM because of the single example of DRM does not > > strike me as a sound approach. In principle, it is a good thing that > > parties to a contract should be able to verify compliance. > > This is one of the claims that I would like to see analyzed further. > I have given several specific, real world examples where this does not > seem to be the case, but where breaking the terms of a contract is not > only legitimate, but sometimes even a responsibility. The most recent > examples where the Pentagon papers, emergency action to avert danger, > lieing in a job interview, and shrink-wrap licenses. > > > DRM is an unfortunate perversion of this technical capability. > > My current opinion is that the analysis indicates that it is not a > perversion of the technology, but that the perversion is inherent in > the technology, because of the inherent nature of information as > non-proprietarizable. > > Interestingly enough, the same argument shows that the technology > fundamentally doesn't work in the long run. However, even if it > doesn't work in principle, its attempted implementation can > potentially do a lot of harm in the meantime. > > Thanks, > Marcus _______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
