At Sun, 30 Apr 2006 23:47:22 -0400, "Jonathan S. Shapiro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, 2006-05-01 at 05:22 +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > > > The first corresponds to one user making a "loan" of the space to the > > > second. If I make you a "loan" of my right to storage, this does not > > > imply that I should be able to read what you put in that storage. > > > > Right, it does not. However, it's not hard for you to encrypt the > > data on write out. > > I think that you have "I" and "you" reversed. But also you are confused. > > This is a persistent system. There is no writing data out. The space > that I have "borrowed" is part of my *heap*.
Jonathan, in the last days, everytime you think I am confused, I am actually thinking clearly, and you just misunderstood. I suppose you keep track of which memory frames you loaned and which not. You only write encrypted data to the loaned frames. Problem solved. > Your ability to destroy the storage that I borrow from you does not > create a moral hazard. I may lose my bits, but I knew that when I > decided to use your storage. If it creates a moral or otherwise hazard depends on the use case. > This is completely orthogonal to whether I should be required to > disclose my bits to you, or take expensive measures to protect them. Yeah, so what? > > I am mentioning this to draw attention to the fact that the real real > > world allow for much wider range of nuances than a superficial > > analysis suggests. This should make one suspicious if the simple > > technical means have the right properties, especially if they can be > > enforced rigorously. > > That is all very nice, but I notice you did not address my point at all: > the party making the loan (and I agree that it isn't quite a loan, > because it can be instantly reclaimed) requires the right to reclaim, > but not the right to read. I explained to you why I do not think that this is necessarily the case. It is the case in your example only because you _said_ it is the case. But once your abstract descriptions hit the real world, you don't know what happens. > > > From his note, I believe that what Marcus is trying to disable is the > > > ability to own *information*, which is different from storage. > > > > Actually, both are separable concerns. The struggle for freedom of > > information is a struggle for free culture. It is of secondary > > concern here in this discussion. The struggle for free hardware is a > > conservative cry: I should be in control over how the bits flow in my > > computer (yes, even if I choose to store information on it that is > > owned by somebody else). > > Marcus: that is beautiful rhetoric. Does it actually *mean* anything? It does mean something to me. > > Well, first, there is a very obvious difference that can matter. The > > painting is not digital data. Digital data has the peculiar property > > that it can be copied and distributed to everybody who wants to have > > it without loss of quality, quantity, and without marginal costs. > > I agree that this is true, but it does not seem relevant to the topic of > conversation, which was "control over information". I am surprised. "control over information" is not my topic here. Maybe you posted in the wrong thread? Now I understood why I thought that the painting example was kinda out of place. I was talking about ownership of storage. Anyway, I already answered the painting question. Thanks, Marcus _______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
