Re: [fsfc-discuss] 'TPM' etc.

[Russell McOrmond]

On 12-03-03 05:22 PM, David C Dawson wrote:
> Re: TPM etc, esp on ARM devices
>
> Since it appears that the intention is to make any used gadget
> into a useless piece of junk fit only for the landfill, then
> might it be desireable to persuade provincial governments to add
> a recycling fee on devices that *cannot* have alternate OS's installed?

  I think this argument is an interesting one that should be pursued, 
but we also have a stronger one.


  I believe that provincial governments should fully recognise and 
protect the property rights of technology owners.  Once a computer is 
*sold* (paid for, etc -- IE: not a rental under some contract) it should 
be the right of the owner to remove any foreign locks and apply their 
own security, etc.

  This may involve provincial governments clarifying that contracting 
terms that disallow owner unlocking are null-and-void, and possibly to 
have legal requirements for unlocking and/or owner override for lawful 
sale/import of computers.



Will governments protect all property rights from all threats?
http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/5361

Federal Bill C-32 tramples areas of provincial jurisdiction
http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/5156
   -- includes letters I've written to my provincial MPP on these issues.

--
 Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
 Please help us tell the Canadian Parliament to protect our property
 rights as owners of Information Technology. Sign the petition!
 http://l.c11.ca/ict

 "The government, lobbied by legacy copyright holders and hardware
  manufacturers, can pry my camcorder, computer, home theatre, or
  portable media player from my cold dead hands!" http://c11.ca/own