Adam Back wrote:
> The remote attesation is the feature which is in the interests of
> third parties.
>
> I think if this feature were removed the worst of the issues the
> complaints are around would go away because the remaining features
> would be under the control of the user, and there would
David Wagner wrote:
> To respond to your remark about bias: No, bringing up Document Revocation
> Lists has nothing to do with bias. It is only right to seek to understand
> the risks in advance. I don't understand why you seem to insinuate
> that bringing up the topic of Document Revocation Lis
AARG! Anonymous wrote:
>In fact, you are perfectly correct that Microsoft architectures would
>make it easy at any time to implement DRL's or SNRL's. They could do
>that tomorrow! They don't need TCPA. So why blame TCPA for this feature?
The relevance should be obvious. Without TCPA/Palladiu
AARG! wrote:
> I asked Eric Murray, who knows something about TCPA, what he thought
> of some of the more ridiculous claims in Ross Anderson's FAQ (like the
> SNRL), and he didn't respond. I believe it is because he is unwilling
> to publicly take a position in opposition to such a famous and res
At 04:02 AM 8/10/2002 -0700, John Gilmore wrote:
>"The transaction"? What transaction? They were talking about the
>owner getting reliable reporting on the security of their applications
>and OS's and -- uh -- oh yeah, buying music or video over the Internet.
>
>Part of their misleading techniq
> I asked Eric Murray, who knows something about TCPA, what he thought
> of some of the more ridiculous claims in Ross Anderson's FAQ (like the
> SNRL), and he didn't respond. I believe it is because he is unwilling
> to publicly take a position in opposition to such a famous and respected
> figu
