Bram wrote:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/770511.asp?cp1=1
Of course, the TCPA has nothing to do with security or
privacy, since those are OS-level things. All it can really
do is ensure you're running a particular OS.
It's amazing the TCPA isn't raising all kinds of red flags at
the
--- begin forwarded text
Status: U
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 12:53:42 -0700
From: Paul Harrison [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Ross's TCPA paper
To: R. A. Hettinga [EMAIL PROTECTED]
User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022
on 6/23/02 6:50 AM, R. A. Hettinga at [EMAIL
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 12:53:42 -0700
From: Paul Harrison [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Ross's TCPA paper
I would think a TCP _with_ ownership of the TPM would be every paranoid
cypherpunk's wet dream. A box which would tell you if it had been tampered
with either in hardware or software?
On Israel's decision to deport families of martyrs:
A Palestinian legislator, Salah Tamari, called deporting families an
illegal,
unlawful and inhuman measure. Why should somebody be accountable for
someone elses actions?
http://www.news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=685972002
Someone
I, for one, can vouch for the fact that TCPA could absolutely
be applied to a DRM application. In a previous life I actually
designed a DRM system (the company has since gone under). In
our research and development in '96-98, we decided that you need
at least some trusted hardware at the client
It's an interesting claim, but there is only one small problem.
Neither Ross Anderson nor Lucky Green offers any evidence that the TCPA
(http://www.trustedcomputing.org) is being designed for the support of
digital rights management (DRM) applications.
Microsoft admits it:
It seems clear at least if DRM is an application than DRM applications would benefit
from the increased trust and architecturally that such trust would be needed to
enforce/ensure some/all of the requirements of the Hollings bill.
hawk
Lucky Green wrote:
other
technical solution that
On Mon, Jun 24, 2002 at 08:15:29AM -0400, R. A. Hettinga wrote:
Status: U
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 12:53:42 -0700
From: Paul Harrison [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Ross's TCPA paper
To: R. A. Hettinga [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The
important question is not whether trusted platforms are a good
Anonymous wrote:
Furthermore, inherent to the TCPA concept is that the chip can in
effect be turned off. No one proposes to forbid you from booting a
non-compliant OS or including non-compliant drivers.
Good point. At least I hope they don't. :-)
There is not even social opprobrium; look
I think Bob made some great points about my book, but it's clear that
this debate
is revolving around a few sentences in Bob's review. Perhaps he miscategorizes
Brin, perhaps he doesn't. I haven't read _Transparent Society_ in some time.
Still, it's important to realize that this isn't just a
10 matches
Mail list logo
