Quoting Anonymous [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Okay, you are afraid that only properly authorized code will run.
Let's talk about one area: programming languages.
What about compilers? Development systems? No doubt you'll claim these
will be restricted. They'll be like assault weapons. Use a
--
On 4 Jul 2002 at 7:38, Anonymous wrote:
Okay, you are afraid that only properly authorized code will
run. Let's talk about one area: programming languages.
What about compilers? Development systems? No doubt you'll
claim these will be restricted. They'll be like assault
weapons.
At 07:38 AM 7/4/02 +0200, Anonymous wrote:
James Donald writes:
However it is a system and set of institutions that can validate
that properly authorized code is running, and thus with a
relatively minor change can ensure that ONLY properly authorized
code may be run -- (Hey, we will protect
--
On 4 Jul 2002 at 7:38, Anonymous wrote:
Okay, you are afraid that only properly authorized code will
run. Let's talk about one area: programming languages.
What about compilers? Development systems? No doubt you'll
claim these will be restricted. They'll be like assault
weapons.
James Donald writes:
On 3 Jul 2002 at 10:48, xganon wrote:
Do you really think that DRM systems could eliminate cypherpunk
applications? Have you thought this through in detail? Please
expand on it.
The system as specified is harmless, because it can run anyone's
code, and thus can
Ryan Lackey writes:
I consider DRM systems (even the not-secure, not-mandated versions)
evil due to the high likelyhood they will be used as technical
building blocks upon which to deploy mandated, draconian DRM systems.
DRM systems inevitably slide toward being more mandated, and more
James Donald writes:
On 3 Jul 2002 at 10:48, xganon wrote:
Do you really think that DRM systems could eliminate cypherpunk
applications? Have you thought this through in detail? Please
expand on it.
The system as specified is harmless, because it can run anyone's
code, and thus can
--
On 3 Jul 2002 at 10:48, xganon wrote:
Do you really think that DRM systems could eliminate cypherpunk
applications? Have you thought this through in detail? Please
expand on it.
The system as specified is harmless, because it can run anyone's
code, and thus can run napster like
Quoting Joseph Ashwood [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The same argument can be applied to just about any tool.
A knife has a high likelihood of being used in such a manner that it causes
physical damage to an individual (e.g. you cut yourself while slicing your
dinner) at some point in its useful
Robert Hettinga writes:
If it's encrypted, and it's on my hard drive, than it's my property. I own
it, not someone else. That's a private good. I can turn around, and sell it
to you. You can encrypt it, and put it on your hard drive, and you can sell
it. It's *your* property.
This has
Ryan Lackey provides a detailed analysis, but he gets off to a bad start
right at the beginning:
DRM systems embedded in general purpose computers, especially if
mandated, especially if implemented in the most secure practical
manner (running the system in system-high DRM mode and not
At 7:25 PM -0500 on 6/30/02, xganon wrote:
The only evil here is the viewpoint that people must not have choices,
that they must be forced into a Communist from-each-according-to-his-
ability system where creative people have no choice or control over the
products of their minds.
All they
--
On 1 Jul 2002 at 22:10, Anonymous wrote:
The fact is that the market can't solve this kind of problem.
That's right, markets are not perfect. [] But information
objects, absent successful DRM restrictions, are effectively
public goods. Markets do not handle public goods well. It
On Mon, Jul 01, at 10:10PM, Anonymous wrote:
| Brilliant. Let the market solve the problem. Why bother with the auction
| part, then? If the market's going to solve the problem for the 2nd guy
| to hold the copy, why not let it solve the problem for the 1st? The fact
| is,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Traffic Analysis is A Bitch, boys and girls. At 10:10 PM +0200 on
7/1/02, The Single-Remailer-Hop Anonymous Austrian Innumerate
returns, writing:
They do fine for ordinary, private
goods.
A signed, much less encrypted, copy of a piece of digital
- Original Message -
From: Ryan Lackey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I consider DRM systems (even the not-secure, not-mandated versions)
evil due to the high likelyhood they will be used as technical
building blocks upon which to deploy mandated, draconian DRM systems.
The same argument can be
This is from http://mondediplo.com/2000/06/15publicgood:
What is a public good? This question can best be answered by looking at
the counterpart, a private good. Private goods are typically traded in
markets. Buyers and sellers meet through the price mechanism. If they
agree on a price, the
At 6:46 PM -0700 on 7/1/02, Joseph Ashwood wrote:
DRM is a tool.
I agree. And I don't think any tool is evil, either, and, I bet, Ryan
probably doesn't want to come across as a hoplophobe as you're depiction of
his calling a particular technology evil makes him sound either. :-).
That said,
At 4:02 AM +0200 on 7/2/02, AAA, the Annoying Anonymous Austrian wrote:
But you claimed that signed pieces of digital information were private
goods. Please explain.
If it's encrypted, and it's on my hard drive, than it's my property. I own
it, not someone else. That's a private good. I
Quoting Joseph Ashwood [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The same argument can be applied to just about any tool.
A knife has a high likelihood of being used in such a manner that it causes
physical damage to an individual (e.g. you cut yourself while slicing your
dinner) at some point in its useful
Quoting xganon [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
So DRM systems are evil? Why? What makes them evil? There is no
justification offered for this claim! Are we all supposed to accept it
as obvious?
I consider DRM systems (even the not-secure, not-mandated versions)
evil due to the high likelyhood they
Robert Hettinga writes:
All they have to do is auction the first copy off for a lot of money, cash,
and let the market take care of the rest. That, by the way, is what people
do now, of course, with advances, record contracts, and so on.
Brilliant. Let the market solve the problem. Why
On Mon, Jul 01, at 10:10PM, Anonymous wrote:
| Brilliant. Let the market solve the problem. Why bother with the auction
| part, then? If the market's going to solve the problem for the 2nd guy
| to hold the copy, why not let it solve the problem for the 1st? The fact
| is,
- Original Message -
From: Ryan Lackey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I consider DRM systems (even the not-secure, not-mandated versions)
evil due to the high likelyhood they will be used as technical
building blocks upon which to deploy mandated, draconian DRM systems.
The same argument can be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Traffic Analysis is A Bitch, boys and girls. At 10:10 PM +0200 on
7/1/02, The Single-Remailer-Hop Anonymous Austrian Innumerate
returns, writing:
They do fine for ordinary, private
goods.
A signed, much less encrypted, copy of a piece of digital
--
On 1 Jul 2002 at 22:10, Anonymous wrote:
The fact is that the market can't solve this kind of problem.
That's right, markets are not perfect. [] But information
objects, absent successful DRM restrictions, are effectively
public goods. Markets do not handle public goods well. It
I think dongles (and non-copyable floppies) have been around since the early
80s at least...maybe the 70s. Tamper-resistant CPU modules have been around
since the ATM network, I believe, in the form of PIN processors stored
inside safes)
The fundamental difference between a dongle and a full
security modules are also inside the swipe pin-entry boxes that you see
at check-out counters.
effectively both smartcards and dongles are forms of hardware tokens
the issue would be whether a smartcard form factor might be utilized in a
copy protection scheme similar to TCPA paradigm
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
security modules are also inside the swipe pin-entry boxes that you see
at check-out counters.
Yep -- anything which handles PINs, specifically, and some non-ATM smartcard
payment systems.
effectively both smartcards and dongles are forms of
Quoting xganon [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
So DRM systems are evil? Why? What makes them evil? There is no
justification offered for this claim! Are we all supposed to accept it
as obvious?
I consider DRM systems (even the not-secure, not-mandated versions)
evil due to the high likelyhood they
I think dongles (and non-copyable floppies) have been around since the early
80s at least...maybe the 70s. Tamper-resistant CPU modules have been around
since the ATM network, I believe, in the form of PIN processors stored
inside safes)
The fundamental difference between a dongle and a full
security modules are also inside the swipe pin-entry boxes that you see
at check-out counters.
effectively both smartcards and dongles are forms of hardware tokens
the issue would be whether a smartcard form factor might be utilized in a
copy protection scheme similar to TCPA paradigm
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
security modules are also inside the swipe pin-entry boxes that you see
at check-out counters.
Yep -- anything which handles PINs, specifically, and some non-ATM smartcard
payment systems.
effectively both smartcards and dongles are forms of
33 matches
Mail list logo
