At Fri, 1 Sep 2006 10:09:49 +0200, Christian Stüble <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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).
I believe they come from the ideological goals behind the technology. Thanks, Marcus _______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
