TinyURL to save the copy-paste-linebreak fixing for the huge 4OD url
http://preview.tinyurl.com/ycud7p
On 15/02/07, Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 15/02/07, Richard P Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Looks like the negative relationship can go even further :-)
Imagine if your local library imposed DRM on the books it lent you,
you'd only be able to read them in certain places with certain light
sources. Why do you accept unreasonable restrictions (even paying for
the privilege) on music that you'd never except with the written
word?
Well
PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Andrew Bowden
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 9:39 AM
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: RE: [backstage] DRM and hwardware attitudes
Imagine if your local library imposed DRM on the books it lent you,
you'd only be able to read them in certain
On 11/02/07, Michael Sparks wrote:
On Saturday 10 February 2007 22:28, Tim Thornton wrote:
Your machine will do what you tell it to. It's just that there are
secrets you can't access.
Regarding the point above, that's the issue here. Whilst you're happy
with
owning a computer that will
On Saturday 10 February 2007 22:29, Tim Thornton wrote:
[ lots of interesting material ]
Having read /some/ of this now, it might useful to repeat in back to help
others in the thread understand the basic ideas, or to allow me to be
corrected if I've misunderstood :-). (The DRM use case will
On 11/02/07, Michael Sparks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ignoring the DRM usecase or restricting your computer scenarios, having a
secure location for helping check system integrity and protecting the
contents of your harddrive, is useful.
Sure.
When you lose the ability to sign things yourself,
On 11/02/07, Tim Thornton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've just reread one of RMS' musings on treacherous computing, and some
of what he describes is terrible. But that's not what is on offer!
If it was designed to stop your computer
from functioning as a general-purpose computer why can I
On 10/02/07, Tim Thornton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your machine will do what you tell it to. It's just that there are
secrets you can't access.
So if you tell it to access those secrets, and it won't, how is it
doing what you tell it to, again?
--
Regards,
Dave
-
Sent via the
On Friday 09 February 2007 18:26, Tim Thornton wrote:
...
I can trust your computer not to reveal my secrets to you,
Do you not see how this is a bad thing - how this can be abused?
I buy a car. It does what I tell it (well it would if I drove). I buy
a hammer it bangs what I want to bang. I
On 09/02/07, Nic James Ferrier wrote:
Tim Thornton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I believe it to be orthogonal to DRM. In the trusted computing
space,
your secrets are secret, as are mine. I can trust your computer not
to
reveal my secrets to you, and you can trust that I can't get at
On 09/02/07, vijay chopra wrote:
There's not a single benefit that treacherous computing brings that
cannot
be solved another way, in your example you can hold secrets via any
number of numerous encryption methods, my home PC has a whole
encrypted
partition for data security. Why do I need a
On 10/02/07, Michael Sparks wrote:
On Friday 09 February 2007 18:26, Tim Thornton wrote:
...
I can trust your computer not to reveal my secrets to you,
Do you not see how this is a bad thing - how this can be abused?
I buy a car. It does what I tell it (well it would if I drove). I buy
a
On 10/02/07, Michael Sparks wrote:
The TPM was designed with this in mind, and each TPM has its own
keys.
Because they're internal to the TPM and can't be extracted by
software,
you can have confidence in the TPM's authenticity.
This is wy off topic, but how does a remote third party
Oh, and where did you get the idea that DRM is a benefit
to the computer's owner?
It's a benefit to me, in that I subscribe to an online music library for
less than I used to spend on CDs. I have more music, and more money - I
call that a benefit.
That requires neither treacherous
Tim Thornton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, in the PC space it's only constrained if you want it to be. Most PCs
sold today have a TPM, which is rarely used (I've only met one person so
far who uses their TPM, and I work in the industry). You need to enable
it. You can use it to constrain your
On Saturday 10 February 2007 22:28, Tim Thornton wrote:
...
Regarding the other longer mail, many thanks for that - I'll read up on the
references. I'd made some assumptions about the system, but hadn't realised
that there were some keys I was unaware of the the TPM and the fact that
there is
On 10/02/07, Nic James Ferrier wrote:
You work in the industry and you've only met one person who uses
it. So why are firms still putting it in their products? Surely a
motherboard would be cheaper without it?
Of course it's cheaper not to install a TPM, but it's chicken and egg -
to take
On 08/02/07, Nic James Ferrier wrote:
Tim Thornton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, this /is/ an implementation problem, and can be overcome with a
trusted hardware element on the platform. At that stage, the hoop
will be more than simply running some code.
Do you work for ARM?
I do, but
Tim Thornton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nic said:
I don't want a constrained comptuer because I don't trust the computer
maker to be open and above board about the precise way the computer is
constrained.
What do you feel may be hidden?
What do you feel a company might not hide?
I think
I welcome it. Having a region of my computer that is independent of the
regular computer gives me confidence that I can hold secrets on my PC.
The whole purpose of trusted computing in its widest sense is to provide
an environment where anyone can have trust. There are many uses for it,
often
On 2/9/07, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Where did you get the idea that DRM is a benefit to the computer's owner?
If content-owners* require DRM to be able to release content for use on your
computer (currently the case in the BBC iPlayer, and/or Channel 4's
on-demand plater,
21 matches
Mail list logo
