Donald Eastlake 3rd wrote: > On Tue, 25 Jun 2002, John S. Denker wrote: > > >>Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 22:21:36 -0400 >>From: John S. Denker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>To: Dan Geer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED], >> [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Subject: Re: privacy <> digital rights management >> >>Dan Geer wrote: >> >>>Over the last six months, I'd discovered that Carl Ellison (Intel), >>>Joan Feigenbaum (Yale) and I agreed on at least one thing: that the >>>problem statements for "privacy" and for "digital rights management" >>>were identical, >> >>... >> >>>... YMMV. >> >>Uhhh, my mileage varies rather considerably. Perhaps we are using >>wildly divergent notions of "privacy" -- or wildly divergent >>notions of "identical". >> >>DRM has to do mainly with protecting certain rights to _published_ >>material. Private material is not "identical" with published >>material -- it is more opposite than identical. > > > The spectrum from 2 people knowing something to 2 billion knowing > something is pretty smooth and continuous. Both DRM and privacy have to > do with controlling material after you have released it to someone who > might wish to pass it on further against your wishes.
No they don't! Privacy has to do with two (or more) parties wishing to collaborate to prevent third parties from eavesdropping. DRM has to do with one party attempting to control everyone else's ability to reproduce. If these are related to each other at all, they are what mathematicians like to call duals. IMO. Cheers, Ben. -- http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html http://www.thebunker.net/ "There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
