Re: bit-split, or: the schizophrenia of trusted computing

[Pierre THIERRY]

Scribit Marcus Brinkmann dies 01/05/2006 hora 04:21:
> Anyway, I did not even talk about ownership of the program.  I talked
> about ownership of the storage that contains the program.  The
> peculiar thing is this: Once you run DRM software on your computer,
> the computer does not any longer belong to you in full.
> 
> Let's look at embedded devices, for example hard disk video recorders.
> If these come with a DRM-restricted software, so that you can not
> update the software on the machine, you do not fully own it.

I think you're mixing things abusively. Having a device that will enable
me to run DRM software, which in turn is the only one enabled to read
DRM-protected data doesn't mean that I'm not able to run another
software.

This is what Palladium seems to be intended for, and I'm already trying
to make all the people I know concerned by this perversion. I agree this
would not be anymore owning the computer, and I want to own my computer.
And I think it's sound that people in general own their computer in this
way.

But I want to know where the harm is in a system with the TC chip
enabled where non-DRM software can be run, even if it is to replace all
the system. WRT DRM IIUC, the only problem is that replacing the
certified OS with another one that is not makes the user unable to read
DRM-protected data.

Unsurely,
Nowhere man
-- 
address@hidden
OpenPGP 0xD9D50D8A

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature