At Fri, 1 Sep 2006 22:37:06 +0200, Pierre THIERRY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Scribit Marcus Brinkmann dies 01/09/2006 hora 20:34: > > > I love the quote, but it isn't very relevant. What TPM shows is that > > > the nature of divulgence can be altered through technical means. > > > Given such technical means, it is not obvious that Jefferson's words > > > (or any of those who preceded them) remain true today and in the > > > future. [...] > > Well, it would be an interesting trick if you could change the nature > > of information by mere postulation of a believe about it. > > If I understand Shapiro well, his wording is important: the nature of > divulgence, that is the way information is given out, is something > essentially different from the very nature of information itself. > > Of course, if I give you a paper to read it in a vast room full of other > people moving around, chatting and doing many osrt of things, while > trying to check, from my desk, that you don't copy the ifnormation, I'll > have a hard time. > > But if I keep the paper in my hands, merely letting you read it in front > of me, you will have a hard time making a copy. Of course, it depends of > your memory, of the means you will have at hand (micro-camera in a > button, a friend with a professional zoom on a camera, etc.) and of many > other details of the situation.
I would likely refuse to read the paper under these circumstances. But it is an interesting example. Suppose you could invent a mechanical device, that you strap around somebodies head, which will monitor the eyes, ears and mouth of the person, and interfers when copyrighted material is exchanged without a license. It can also keep your eyes open if you do not look at the advertisement. Would you support such technology? In a sense, such a device is the logical extension of TPM technology. This is of course only a thought experiment, because no such device exists, and is not likely to exist. However, I still think there is a grain of truth in the analogy: In both cases, the goal is to put information into somebodies reach while still controlling this information. Disney wants people to identify with their latest cartoon character, but at the same time they want to control all uses of that cartoon character. This gives Disney control over the culture, and thus over the population. Use cases of trusted computing at the work place are similar: TPM can be used to exploit the labor of the workers, while at the same time controlling tightly how the workers can do their job. That's a new version of the old song of disempowerment of workers, with easily predictable, desastrous consequences for the population. The struggle against "trusted computing" is nothing less but a struggle for self-determination and freedom of thought and expression of the individual. > TPM won't change by any means the very nature of information, and as you > said it, only one full leakage is needed to leak the information to the > whole world. Which is, IMHO, a very good thing. But the attempts at > modifying the way you access information are real, and they do change > something. I definitely agree that they change something. If they wouldn't, no harm could result, and we wouldn't even need to have a discussion. I consider the threat of trusted computing very real, as I do consider the harm it can inflict on society. > If you view a movie on a totally TMPed sysytem, with the > hardware, graphic card and screen that are checked to provide secure > channels, you will have a hard time to succesfully leak the information > without loss. Actually, I think it is quite easy with analog to digital conversion. The reproduction can be made arbitrarily close to the quality as the movie is displayed on the restricted hardware, this means that the copy will possibly be as good as the "original" as you are allowed to see it. There is an economic barrier to make the first copy, but any costs (which will be comparatively small) is completely amortized by the marginal costs of zero of any further copy once the first copy has been made. The incentive to make this first copy is quite strong. Nothing of this is in any sense new or surprising. I recall from my music lessons in school that it was common practice a couple of hundred years ago to have people in a concert or opera which would remember the melodies and write them down when they were back home. Compare this to your exampe above. What changed and keeps changing is how capable our systems of reproduction and restriction respectively are. However, it is my opinion that the capability of the systems of reproduction today constitute such an enormous wealth for human mankind that it would be immoral not to exploit them thoroughly. How can we refuse to share all our socially useful knowledge and works of beauty with the rest of the world at almost no cost for us? This is the moral question posed to us by the 21st century. Thanks, Marcus _______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
