Re: Separate trusted computing designs

[Michal Suchanek]

On 8/31/06, Christian Stüble <address@hidden> wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 31. August 2006 09:58 schrieb Tom Bachmann:
> > Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:
> > > The term "owner" has a specific and well-defined legal meaning, and I
> > > have (in the past) understood Marcus to be using this meaning when he
> > > uses the term "owner". His position (as I understand it) might be
> > > captured with two statements:
> > >
> > >   1. The legal owner should be able to read and write every bit of this
> > >      computer's ram (at any time).
> > >   2. This right should be inalienable -- it should not be possible for
> > >      an owner to give up this right in whole or in part.
> > >
> > >      [This is the part where Marcus and I disagree.]
> >
> > Just for this mail, let me define this (2-statement-definition) as "full
> > ownership" and only point 1 as "partial" or "shared ownership". This is
> > a bit misleading, because as long as the ownership is not given up whole
> > or in part, these two are equal.
> I suggest not to use the term "ownership" in this context at all. As discussed
> earlier, ownership in the real world does not neccessary  mean that you can
> do everything: You own a pet, but you are not allowed to kill or excruciate
> it. You are the owner of your car, but you are not allowed to manipulate it.
> You are the owner of a radio, but you are not allowed to receive al
> frequencies (e.g., those used by the policy).
That's exactly it. You are not allowed to do it but you aren't
physically prevented from doing it.

DRM and TPM systems differ in that thay technologically prevent you
from doing somethig, even if the law changed, the enforcement
mechanism was configured incorrectly in the first place, etc.


Thanks

Michal