On Sat, Jul 13, 2002 at 07:10:07PM -0500, Harmon Seaver wrote:
On Sat, Jul 13, 2002 at 10:59:23AM -0700, Eric Murray wrote:
Microsoft does not do things simply because they enjoy being evil.
They are not so worried about Linux (with its small share of the market)
that they will spend
Eric Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Jul 12, 2002 at 07:14:55PM +1200, Peter Gutmann wrote:
From a purely economic perspectice, I can't see how this will fly. I'll pull a
random figure of $5 out of thin air (well, I saw it mentioned somewhere but
can't remember the source) as the
On Sat, Jul 13, 2002 at 06:34:36PM +1200, Peter Gutmann wrote:
Eric Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Jul 12, 2002 at 07:14:55PM +1200, Peter Gutmann wrote:
From a purely economic perspectice, I can't see how this will fly. I'll pull a
random figure of $5 out of thin air (well, I saw
On Sat, Jul 13, 2002 at 10:59:23AM -0700, Eric Murray wrote:
Microsoft does not do things simply because they enjoy being evil.
They are not so worried about Linux (with its small share of the market)
that they will spend mega-bucks now on a very long term project that might
possibly let them
On Sat, Jul 13, 2002 at 10:59:23AM -0700, Eric Murray wrote:
Microsoft does not do things simply because they enjoy being evil.
They are not so worried about Linux (with its small share of the market)
that they will spend mega-bucks now on a very long term project that might
possibly let them
Eric Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Jul 12, 2002 at 07:14:55PM +1200, Peter Gutmann wrote:
From a purely economic perspectice, I can't see how this will fly. I'll pull a
random figure of $5 out of thin air (well, I saw it mentioned somewhere but
can't remember the source) as the
Jay Sulzberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nonsense. Let us remember what Palladium is:
Palladium is a system designed to enable a few large corporations and
governments to run source secret, indeed, well-encrypted, code on home user's
machines in such a way that the home user cannot see,
Peter wrote (potentially quoting somebody else)
From a purely economic perspectice, I can't see how this will fly.
I'll pull a
random figure of $5 out of thin air (well, I saw it mentioned
somewhere but can't remember the source) as the additional
manufacturing cost for the TCPA hardware
On Fri, Jul 12, 2002 at 07:14:55PM +1200, Peter Gutmann wrote:
From a purely economic perspectice, I can't see how this will fly. I'll pull a
random figure of $5 out of thin air (well, I saw it mentioned somewhere but
can't remember the source) as the additional manufacturing cost for the
On Fri, 5 Jul 2002, AARG!Anonymous wrote:
... /
Right, and you can boot untrusted OS's as well. Recently there was
discussion here of HP making a trusted form of Linux that would work with
the TCPA hardware. So you will have options in both the closed source and
open source worlds to
On Fri, 5 Jul 2002, AARG!Anonymous wrote:
... /
Right, and you can boot untrusted OS's as well. Recently there was
discussion here of HP making a trusted form of Linux that would work with
the TCPA hardware. So you will have options in both the closed source and
open source worlds to
At 09:43 PM 06/28/2002 +0200, Thomas Tydal wrote:
Well, first I want to say that I don't like the way it is today.
I want things to get better. I can't read e-books on my pocket computer,
for example, which is sad since I actually would be able to enjoy e-books
if I only could load them onto my
At 09:43 PM 06/28/2002 +0200, Thomas Tydal wrote:
Well, first I want to say that I don't like the way it is today.
I want things to get better. I can't read e-books on my pocket computer,
for example, which is sad since I actually would be able to enjoy e-books
if I only could load them onto my
Seth Schoen writes:
The Palladium security model and features are different from Unix, but
you can imagine by rough analogy a Unix implementation on a system
with protected memory. Every process can have its own virtual memory
space, read and write files, interact with the user, etc. But
--
On 5 Jul 2002 at 14:45, AARG! Anonymous wrote:
Right, and you can boot untrusted OS's as well. Recently there
was discussion here of HP making a trusted form of Linux that
would work with the TCPA hardware. So you will have options in
both the closed source and open source worlds to
Hadmut Danisch writes:
You won't be able to enter a simple shell script through the
keyboard. If so, you could simple print protected files as
a hexdump or use the screen (or maybe the sound device or any
LED) as a serial interface.
Since you could use the keyboard to enter a
Hadmut Danisch wrote:
On Wed, Jul 03, 2002 at 10:54:43PM -0700, Bill Stewart wrote:
At 12:59 AM 06/27/2002 -0700, Lucky Green wrote:
I fully agree that the TCPA's efforts offer potentially beneficial
effects. Assuming the TPM has not been compromised, the TPM should
enable to detect if
On Thu, Jul 04, 2002 at 10:54:34PM -0700, Lucky Green wrote:
Sure you can use shell scripts. Though I don't understand how a shell
script will help you in obtaining a dump of the protected data since
your script has insufficient privileges to read the data. Nor can you
give the shell script
Seth Schoen writes:
The Palladium security model and features are different from Unix, but
you can imagine by rough analogy a Unix implementation on a system
with protected memory. Every process can have its own virtual memory
space, read and write files, interact with the user, etc. But
[Repost]
Bear writes:
A few years ago merchants were equally adamant and believed
equally in the rightness of maintaining their right to not
do business with blacks, chicanos, irish, and women. It'll
pass as people wake up and smell the coffee. Unfortunately
that won't be until after at
PROTECTED] '
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Ross's TCPA paper
Here's a clue, Mr. Bear. The cypherpunks list was founded on the
principle that cyberspace can enhance freedom, and that includes freedom
to associate with whomever you choose. Racism is evil, but the solution
must lie in people's
Barney Wolff wrote:
My use of anonym was a joke. Sorry if it was too deadpan. But
my serious point was that if a pseudonym costs nothing to get or
give up, it makes one effectively anonymous, if one so chooses.
Well, yeah, I'd say that single-use pseudonyms are, in fact, the
definition of
--
On 1 Jul 2002 at 15:06, Tim May wrote:
I have strong views on all this DRM and TCPA stuff, and
especially on the claim that some form of DRM is needed to
prevent government from taking over control of the arts.
But we said everything that needed to be said _years_ ago. No
point in
On Mon, 1 Jul 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--
On 1 Jul 2002 at 15:06, Tim May wrote:
I have strong views on all this DRM and TCPA stuff, and
especially on the claim that some form of DRM is needed to
prevent government from taking over control of the arts.
But we said everything
On Monday, July 1, 2002, at 07:15 PM, Mike Rosing wrote:
On Mon, 1 Jul 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--
On 1 Jul 2002 at 15:06, Tim May wrote:
I have strong views on all this DRM and TCPA stuff, and
especially on the claim that some form of DRM is needed to
prevent government from
anonym n : Mr. and Mrs. John Smith when signed in a motel register.
On Sun, Jun 30, 2002 at 09:55:58PM -0400, R. A. Hettinga wrote:
More to the point, there is no such thing as an anonym, by definition.
--
Barney Wolff
I never met a computer I didn't like.
R. A. Hettinga wrote:
At 12:06 AM +0100 on 7/1/02, Ben Laurie wrote:
No, a pseudonym can be linked to stuff (such as reputation,
publications, money). An anonym cannot.
More to the point, there is no such thing as an anonym, by definition.
Hmm. So present the appropriate definition?
Cheers,
At 11:30 PM -0400 on 6/30/02, Barney Wolff wrote:
anonym n : Mr. and Mrs. John Smith when signed in a motel register.
No. Pseudonym(s). Subclass Alias.
An anonym (literally, no name, right?) is not signing the book at all,
and, thus, as nyms go, can't exist except in your mind. Somewhere St.
My use of anonym was a joke. Sorry if it was too deadpan. But
my serious point was that if a pseudonym costs nothing to get or
give up, it makes one effectively anonymous, if one so chooses.
On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 11:37:28AM +0100, Ben Laurie wrote:
R. A. Hettinga wrote:
At 12:06 AM +0100
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
At 11:37 AM +0100 on 7/1/02, Ben Laurie wrote:
Hmm. So present the appropriate definition?
Well, like I said, (and to be completely pedantic about it :-)), it
seems to me that logically there's no such thing as an anonym even
though you could do
Barney Wolff wrote:
My use of anonym was a joke. Sorry if it was too deadpan. But
my serious point was that if a pseudonym costs nothing to get or
give up, it makes one effectively anonymous, if one so chooses.
Well, yeah, I'd say that single-use pseudonyms are, in fact, the
definition of
[Repost]
Bear writes:
A few years ago merchants were equally adamant and believed
equally in the rightness of maintaining their right to not
do business with blacks, chicanos, irish, and women. It'll
pass as people wake up and smell the coffee. Unfortunately
that won't be until after at
--
On 1 Jul 2002 at 15:06, Tim May wrote:
I have strong views on all this DRM and TCPA stuff, and
especially on the claim that some form of DRM is needed to
prevent government from taking over control of the arts.
But we said everything that needed to be said _years_ ago. No
point in
PROTECTED] '
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Ross's TCPA paper
Here's a clue, Mr. Bear. The cypherpunks list was founded on the
principle that cyberspace can enhance freedom, and that includes freedom
to associate with whomever you choose. Racism is evil, but the solution
must lie in people's
On Sun, 30 Jun 2002, Barney Wolff wrote:
The trouble I have with this is that I'm not only a consumer, I'm
also a merchant, selling my own professional services. And I just
will not, ever, perform services for an anonymous client. That's
my choice, and the gov't will take it away only when
A pseudonym that I can give up at will and that can never afterwards
be traced to me is equivalent to an anonym.
I'm not suggesting that anonymity be outlawed, or that every merchant
be required to reject anonymous or pseudonymous customers. All I'm
suggesting is that small merchants MUST NOT
On Sun, 30 Jun 2002, Barney Wolff wrote:
A pseudonym that I can give up at will and that can never afterwards
be traced to me is equivalent to an anonym.
Actually, I don't have a problem with it being traced afterwards,
if a crime has been committed and there's a search warrant or
equivalent to
Barney Wolff wrote:
A pseudonym that I can give up at will and that can never afterwards
be traced to me is equivalent to an anonym.
No, a pseudonym can be linked to stuff (such as reputation,
publications, money). An anonym cannot.
Cheers,
Ben.
--
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html
At 12:06 AM +0100 on 7/1/02, Ben Laurie wrote:
No, a pseudonym can be linked to stuff (such as reputation,
publications, money). An anonym cannot.
More to the point, there is no such thing as an anonym, by definition.
There's no way to link the behavior of one event that an anonym causes to
At 11:30 PM -0400 on 6/30/02, Barney Wolff wrote:
anonym n : Mr. and Mrs. John Smith when signed in a motel register.
No. Pseudonym(s). Subclass Alias.
An anonym (literally, no name, right?) is not signing the book at all,
and, thus, as nyms go, can't exist except in your mind. Somewhere St.
A pseudonym that I can give up at will and that can never afterwards
be traced to me is equivalent to an anonym.
I'm not suggesting that anonymity be outlawed, or that every merchant
be required to reject anonymous or pseudonymous customers. All I'm
suggesting is that small merchants MUST NOT
On Sun, 30 Jun 2002, Barney Wolff wrote:
The trouble I have with this is that I'm not only a consumer, I'm
also a merchant, selling my own professional services. And I just
will not, ever, perform services for an anonymous client. That's
my choice, and the gov't will take it away only when
On Sat, Jun 29, 2002 at 10:03:33PM -0700, bear wrote:
...
I won't give up the right NOT to do business with anonymous customers,
or anyone else with whom I choose not to do business.
A few years ago merchants were equally adamant and believed
equally in the rightness of maintaining their
On Sun, 30 Jun 2002, Barney Wolff wrote:
A pseudonym that I can give up at will and that can never afterwards
be traced to me is equivalent to an anonym.
Actually, I don't have a problem with it being traced afterwards,
if a crime has been committed and there's a search warrant or
equivalent to
Yes, this is a debate I've had with the medical privacy7 guys, some of
whom like the idea of using Palladium to protect medical records.
This is a subject on which I've a lot of experience (see my web page),
and I don't think that Palladium will help. Privacy abuses almost always
involve abuse
On Mon, 24 Jun 2002, Anonymous wrote:
The important thing to note is this: you are no worse off than today!
You are already in the second state today: you run untrusted, and none
of the content companies will let you download their data. But boolegs
are widely available.
The problem is that
Yes, this is a debate I've had with the medical privacy7 guys, some of
whom like the idea of using Palladium to protect medical records.
This is a subject on which I've a lot of experience (see my web page),
and I don't think that Palladium will help. Privacy abuses almost always
involve abuse
On Wed, 26 Jun 2002, Barney Wolff wrote:
Do you really mean that if I'm a business, you can force me to deal with
you even though you refuse to supply your real name? Not acceptable.
I don't think that privacy (in the sense of having the right
to keep private details of your life from being
Mike Rosing wrote:
As long as MS Office isn't mandated by law, who cares?
It's not clear that enabling anti-competitive behavior is good
for society. After all, there's a reason we have anti-trust law.
Ross Anderson's point -- and it seems to me it's one worth considering
-- is that, if there
David wrote:
It's not clear that enabling anti-competitive behavior is
good for society. After all, there's a reason we have
anti-trust law. Ross Anderson's point -- and it seems to me
it's one worth considering
-- is that, if there are potentially harmful effects that
come with the
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
As a side note, it seems that a corporation would actually have to
demonstrate that I had seen and agreed to the thing and clicked
acceptance. Prior to that point, I could reverse engineer, since
there is no statement that I cannot reverse engineer agreed to. So
Pete Chown wrote:
BTW, I have been thinking for a while about putting together a UK
competition complaint about DVD region coding. No promises that
anything will happen quickly. On the other hand, if people offer help
(or just tell me that they think it is a worthwhile thing to do) it will
On 27 Jun 2002, David Wagner wrote:
No, it's not. Read Ross Anderson's article again. Your analysis misses
part of the point. Here's an example of a more problematic vision:
you can buy Microsoft Office for $500 and be able to view MS Office
documents; or you can refrain from buying it
Adam Back wrote:
I don't mean that you would necessarily have to correlate
your viewing habits with your TrueName for DRM systems.
Though that is mostly
(exclusively?) the case for current deployed (or at least
implemented with a view of attempting commercial deployment) copy-mark
David wrote:
It's not clear that enabling anti-competitive behavior is
good for society. After all, there's a reason we have
anti-trust law. Ross Anderson's point -- and it seems to me
it's one worth considering
-- is that, if there are potentially harmful effects that
come with the
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
As a side note, it seems that a corporation would actually have to
demonstrate that I had seen and agreed to the thing and clicked
acceptance. Prior to that point, I could reverse engineer, since
there is no statement that I cannot reverse engineer agreed to. So
On Thu, 27 Jun 2002, Lucky Green wrote:
David wrote:
It's not clear that enabling anti-competitive behavior is
good for society. After all, there's a reason we have
anti-trust law. Ross Anderson's point -- and it seems to me
it's one worth considering
-- is that, if there are
Peter D. Junger wrote:
That isn't the reason why a click-through agreement isn't
enforceable---the agreement could, were it enforceable, validlly
forbid reverse engineering for any reason and that clause would
in most cases be upheld.
Not in Europe though. EU directive 91/250/EEC on the
On Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 10:01:00AM -0700, bear wrote:
As I see it, we can get either privacy or DRM,
but there is no way on Earth to get both.
[...]
Hear, hear! First post on this long thread that got it right.
Not sure what the rest of the usually clueful posters were thinking!
DRM
Do you really mean that if I'm a business, you can force me to deal with
you even though you refuse to supply your real name? Not acceptable.
I won't give up the right NOT to do business with anonymous customers,
or anyone else with whom I choose not to do business.
The point about DRM, if I
]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Orig-To: bear [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 3:37 PM
Subject: Re: Ross's TCPA paper
On Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 10:01:00AM -0700, bear wrote:
As I see it, we can get either privacy or DRM,
but there is no way on Earth
PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 3:37 PM
Subject: Re: Ross's TCPA paper
On Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 10:01:00AM -0700, bear wrote:
As I see it, we can get either privacy or DRM,
but there is no way on Earth to get both.
[...]
Hear, hear! First post on this long
I'm slightly confused about this. My understanding of contract law is
that five things are required to form a valid contract: offer and
acceptance, mutual intent, consideration, capacity, and lawful
intent. It seems to me that a click-through agreement is likely to
fail on at least one, and
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html
Ross
On Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 03:57:15PM -0400, C Wegrzyn wrote:
If a DRM system is based on X.509, according to Brand I thought you could
get anonymity in the transaction. Wouldn't this accomplish the same thing?
I don't mean that you would necessarily have to correlate your viewing
habits with
On Wed, 26 Jun 2002, Barney Wolff wrote:
Do you really mean that if I'm a business, you can force me to deal with
you even though you refuse to supply your real name? Not acceptable.
I won't give up the right NOT to do business with anonymous customers,
or anyone else with whom I choose not to
Interesting QA paper and list comments. Three
additional comments:
1. DRM and privacy look like apple and speedboats.
Privacy includes the option of not telling, which DRM
does not have.
2. Palladium looks like just another vaporware from
Microsoft, to preempt a market like when MS promised
On Wed, 26 Jun 2002, Barney Wolff wrote:
Do you really mean that if I'm a business, you can force me to deal with
you even though you refuse to supply your real name?
When was the last time you had to give your name when you bought a
newspaper, CD or a DVD in a non-online/non-mail order
Scott Guthery wrote:
Perhaps somebody can describe
a non-DRM privacy management system.
Uhh, anonymous remailers? I never disclose my identity, hence there is
no need for parties I don't trust to manage it.
Come on, folks. This ought to be cypherpunks 101. DRM might be one
way to achieve
Anonymous wrote:
The amazing thing about this discussion is that there are two pieces
of conventional wisdom which people in the cypherpunk/EFF/freedom
communities adhere to, and they are completely contradictory.
I can't agree. Strong protection of copyright is probably possible if
the
On 27 Jun 2002, David Wagner wrote:
No, it's not. Read Ross Anderson's article again. Your analysis misses
part of the point. Here's an example of a more problematic vision:
you can buy Microsoft Office for $500 and be able to view MS Office
documents; or you can refrain from buying it
Adam Back wrote:
I don't mean that you would necessarily have to correlate
your viewing habits with your TrueName for DRM systems.
Though that is mostly
(exclusively?) the case for current deployed (or at least
implemented with a view of attempting commercial deployment) copy-mark
Peter D. Junger wrote:
That isn't the reason why a click-through agreement isn't
enforceable---the agreement could, were it enforceable, validlly
forbid reverse engineering for any reason and that clause would
in most cases be upheld.
Not in Europe though. EU directive 91/250/EEC on the
PROTECTED]
Sent: 6/25/02 11:56 AM
Subject: Re: Ross's TCPA paper
I don't believe that the choice is both privacy and TCPA, or neither.
Essentially all privacy violations are abuses of authorised access by
insiders. Your employer's medical insurance scheme insists on a
waiver allowing them access
On Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 10:01:00AM -0700, bear wrote:
As I see it, we can get either privacy or DRM,
but there is no way on Earth to get both.
[...]
Hear, hear! First post on this long thread that got it right.
Not sure what the rest of the usually clueful posters were thinking!
DRM
On Tue, 25 Jun 2002, Dan Geer wrote:
the problem statements for privacy and for digital rights management
were identical
Hmm, so:
privacy : DRM :: wiretapping : fair use
- RL Bob
I'm slightly confused about this. My understanding of contract law is
that five things are required to form a valid contract: offer and
acceptance, mutual intent, consideration, capacity, and lawful
intent. It seems to me that a click-through agreement is likely to
fail on at least one, and
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html
Ross
Interesting QA paper and list comments. Three
additional comments:
1. DRM and privacy look like apple and speedboats.
Privacy includes the option of not telling, which DRM
does not have.
2. Palladium looks like just another vaporware from
Microsoft, to preempt a market like when MS promised
On Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 03:57:15PM -0400, C Wegrzyn wrote:
If a DRM system is based on X.509, according to Brand I thought you could
get anonymity in the transaction. Wouldn't this accomplish the same thing?
I don't mean that you would necessarily have to correlate your viewing
habits with
On Wed, 26 Jun 2002, Barney Wolff wrote:
Do you really mean that if I'm a business, you can force me to deal with
you even though you refuse to supply your real name? Not acceptable.
I won't give up the right NOT to do business with anonymous customers,
or anyone else with whom I choose not to
Scott Guthery wrote:
Perhaps somebody can describe
a non-DRM privacy management system.
Uhh, anonymous remailers? I never disclose my identity, hence there is
no need for parties I don't trust to manage it.
Come on, folks. This ought to be cypherpunks 101. DRM might be one
way to achieve
Speaking personally, if asked DRM privacy, both or neither?
then I will take both -- YMMV.
This bullshit is getting deeper and thicker.
(dis)ability to replay received information at will has next to nothing to do
with ability to stop unwanted parties from obtaining secret information.
Let
Pete Chown writes:
: 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. :-)
:
:
I don't believe that the choice is both privacy and TCPA, or neither.
Essentially all privacy violations are abuses of authorised access by
insiders. Your employer's medical insurance scheme insists on a
waiver allowing them access to your records, which they then use for
promotion decisions.
Pete Chown wrote:
[...]
This doesn't help with your other point, though; people wouldn't be able
to modify the code and have a useful end product. I wonder if it could
be argued that your private key is part of the source code?
Am I expected to distribute my password with my code?
Peter D. Junger wrote:
: There is not even social opprobrium; look at how eager
: everyone was to look the other way on the question of whether the DeCSS
: reverse engineering violated the click-through agreement.
:
: Perhaps it did, but the licence agreement was unenforceable. It's
:
Sandy Harris writes:
: Peter D. Junger wrote:
:
: : There is not even social opprobrium; look at how eager
: : everyone was to look the other way on the question of whether the DeCSS
: : reverse engineering violated the click-through agreement.
: :
: : Perhaps it did, but the licence
Pete Chown wrote:
[...]
This doesn't help with your other point, though; people wouldn't be able
to modify the code and have a useful end product. I wonder if it could
be argued that your private key is part of the source code?
Am I expected to distribute my password with my code?
I don't believe that the choice is both privacy and TCPA, or neither.
Essentially all privacy violations are abuses of authorised access by
insiders. Your employer's medical insurance scheme insists on a
waiver allowing them access to your records, which they then use for
promotion decisions.
--- 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
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
Ross Anderson wrote:
... that means making sure the PC is the hub of the
future home network; and if entertainment's the killer app, and DRM is
the key technology for entertainment, then the PC must do DRM.
Recently there have been a number of articles pointing out how much
money Microsoft
Ross Anderson writes:
During my investigations into TCPA, I learned that HP has started a
development program to produce a TCPA-compliant version of GNU/linux.
I couldn't figure out how they planned to make money out of this. On
Thursday, at the Open Source Software Economics conference, I
On Mon, 24 Jun 2002, Anonymous wrote:
The amazing thing about this discussion is that there are two pieces
of conventional wisdom which people in the cypherpunk/EFF/freedom
communities adhere to, and they are completely contradictory.
Makes for lively conversation doesn't it :-)
Pete Chown wrote quoting Ross:
You need a valid signature on the binary, plus a cert to
use the TCPA
PKI. That will cost you money (if not at first, then eventually).
I think it would be a breach of the GPL to stop people
redistributing the signature: You must cause any work that
1 - 100 of 118 matches
Mail list logo
