On 12-02-18 10:54 AM, Rudolf O. wrote:
The problem is that TPM is advocated by Intel, Microsoft, Apple and others who want to control your hardware and software. The term is their marketing term for something they control.
I think we are throwing the technology baby out with the dirty legal bathwater.
The problems we are talking about are legal in nature. While I know there is a tendency in the technical community try try to use technology to route around law, I believe that is counter-productive. We must apply legal fixes to legal problems. I believe we in the technical community have a moral obligation to get involved in politics and law to fix these bugs, rather than seek to hide ourselves from laws which will continue to harm the rest of society.
The Trusted Platform Module is a useful technology for protecting the rights of computer owners, if only the law were there to protect rather than in too many cases prohibit the rights of computer owners.
Anyone other than the owner controlling keys should be illegal: a legal problem.
Conditioning the supply of publicly published copyrighted content on allowing a "remote attestation" of a computer to verify that it is *not* controlled by the owner should be illegal: a legal problem (and solved through policy proposals embedded within the IT property rights petition http://c11.ca/petition/ict )
-- 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 _______________________________________________ fsfc-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfc-discuss
