On Wed, 26 Jun 2002, Scott Guthery wrote:
Privacy abuse is first and foremost the failure
of a digital rights management system. A broken
safe is not evidence that banks shouldn't use
safes. It is only an argument that they shouldn't
use the safe than was broken.
I'm hard pressed to imagine
I'm slightly confused about this. My understanding of contract law is
that five things are required to form a valid contract: offer and
acceptance, mutual intent, consideration, capacity, and lawful
intent. It seems to me that a click-through agreement is likely to
fail on at least one, and
I wrote:
Perhaps we are using
wildly divergent notions of privacy
Donald Eastlake 3rd wrote:
You are confusing privacy with secrecy
That's not a helpful remark. My first contribution to
this thread called attention to the possibility of
wildly divergent notions of privacy.
Also please
On Wed, 26 Jun 2002, Donald Eastlake 3rd wrote:
Privacy, according to the usual definitions, involve controlling the
spread of information by persons autorized to have it. Contrast with
secrecy which primarily has to do with stopping the spread of
information through the actions of those
On Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 10:01:00AM -0700, bear wrote:
As I see it, we can get either privacy or DRM,
but there is no way on Earth to get both.
[...]
Hear, hear! First post on this long thread that got it right.
Not sure what the rest of the usually clueful posters were thinking!
DRM
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html
Ross
-
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending unsubscribe cryptography to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 03:57:15PM -0400, C Wegrzyn wrote:
If a DRM system is based on X.509, according to Brand I thought you could
get anonymity in the transaction. Wouldn't this accomplish the same thing?
I don't mean that you would necessarily have to correlate your viewing
habits with
