> Please don't call it trusted computing, there is nothing trusted > about letting another entity other than owner of the computer > dictate what the computer can or cannot do. Calling it TC is OK > since it doesn't propagte the lie that Treacherous Computing has > anything to do with trust.
Please don't call it "Treacherous Computing". This label presupposes the proposition that we are trying to test, and which you have not substantiated yet. There is not presupposing. It has also been substantiated by many people before me. Let us take these in turn. Since the ability to play CDs or DVDs or circumvent DRM is dependent on the operating system software that has been loaded, I believe that we can ignore these and focus on the operating system. It is also dependant on if the hardware allows running of a non-authorised programs/operating system. I am not aware of any provision in *any* variation of TC that would preclude you from installing your own boot loader or operating system. Can you provide a citation of such a mechanism, or can you explain how you envision that this might be enforced by the mechanisms that have actually been proposed? The hardware can refuse to run anything that hasn't been authorised by the manufcuter of treacherous computing hardware. _______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list L4-hurd@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
