Am Freitag, 1. September 2006 01:24 schrieben Sie: > Hi, > > I will make this short because you have indicated that you are not > interested in more discussions on these topics, and I don't want to > impose it, and furthermore I do not have much to add to the issues you > are interested in discussing. I will find other, more appropriate > venues to raise my concerns to your group and the public in general in > the near future. This is your interpretation, but not what I have written. First, I said that I am interested in this discussion, but that I cannot spend too much time on it. Second, I said that I would like to focus the discussion on this list to hurd-related discussions and to continue the more general discussions at another place. Third, I said that I am interested in criticism, questions, and suggestions regarding our projects, but that I do not want to continue the discussion here (i) because of lack of time, and (ii) because I neither represent the project(s) not our group here officially. I do not want to mix up my personal opinion regarding TPM and related topics, and statements about our group and/or projects. I would expected that you can understand this.
Regards, Chris > > However, let me clarify one issue and respond to your direct questions > at least. > > At Thu, 31 Aug 2006 20:06:46 +0200, > > Christian Stüble <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You are not consistent here. What is the difference between "possess" > > and "own"? > > I admit I was inconsistent. The reason is that I was confused about > the ownership and possession of the computer hardware on the one hand, > and the secret key on the TPM on the other hand. As I do not believe > in ownership of information, the secret key on the TPM can not be > owned in my opinion. However, if you do believe in ownership, or > proprietarization, the key can be owned, and then it is very clear > that the user does not own it (whoever it is, it is not the user). > > Anyway, whatever view one holds on the issue of proprietarization of > information, it doesn't change the facts (information doesn't care > what one believes about it) and the consequences to be expected > (society doesn't care what one believes about how it is working, > either). Foregoing the ownership discussion actually makes my > argument easier and much more consistent, so I am grateful for having > that eliminated. I am sorry for the confusion. > > > Okey, this statement shows again that you assume a very uncommon > > definition of "ownership". You have a knife, but you are not allowed to > > kill people with it. Now, you are not the owner of the knife any more? > > Killing other people certainly invades the ownership of other people, > so that is the sphere of contracts, and not the sphere of private > ownership. > > > > However, it is useful for the sake of discussion to simplify away some > > > of the more remote public rights to make more clear where the major > > > parts of control come from. > > > > But for now in my opinion your definition of ownership does not make > > sense at all, because it cannot be applied in practice. Why do you > > require full ownership of a PC then? > > Actually, that is a misunderstanding which I may have caused by > simplifying the discussion too early. The point is of course not that > you do not retain exclusive control, but the degree to which you lose > control by adoption of TPM technology. It's a differential argument, > not an absolute one. In the rush I probably got it wrong, but that is > moot now as I do not believe in it anymore anyway. > > Nevertheless, the question stands with slight adoption, so let me give > you the short answer: Because I like to express my personality and > free will through my computer. It's the same reason I want to have > full control over my diary, my pyjamas, and any other personal item. > > [...] > > > the license. In practice, there are more concrete examples: You get your > > printer, tooth-brush, shaver, etc for free, but you have to pay whenever > > you use it (buying ink, brushes, razor blade, ...) But in real life, you > > can decide whether you accept this business model when you sign the > > contract. If enough customers do not accept this business model, another > > vendor will provide other business models. This is real life. Why > > shouldn't this happen in virtual life, too? > > What you describe is not even true in the real world, not on the > surface, and certainly not under analysis. It can happen the way you > describe, but it can also happen that the will of the customers is > forcefully repressed, often with government complicity, as happened > many times in the past, early and recent, and well documented in history. > > > Before I start another discussion here. Do you already have a definition > > what a free choice is? And please ensure that real life can provide such > > free choices. > > I have a definition, but I do not know if you will find it useful. > It's the best I can come up with, and it works surprisingly well in > practice. Here it comes: > > A free choice is one that can be made independent of any other > choices. > > In practice, every second of our life can only be spent once, so this > can never be true. However, as technically inclined people, we will > find it easy to abstract away from such trivial border cases, and only > consider "atoms of choices" in an appropriately chosen "universe of > choices" that brings attention to the issues at hand. > > I welcome better definitions. However, I have never heard of a > meaningful definition which turns what is obviously a requirement into > a free choice. > > Thanks, > Marcus _______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
