Re: [fsfc-discuss] 'DRM'/'TPM' + another thought

[David C Dawson]

To be clear, I was referring to "Technological Protection Measures",
Not "Trusted Computing Model".
My objection  to "Technological Protection Measures" was that
in my mind, the excessive vagueness would make it open to
abuse. - (this seems to have been addressed further down in the thread.)

On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 01:33:12AM -0500, Michael Faille wrote:
> Hello all,
> 
> I think end users can control TPM since they must own private key.
> 
> So, where is the probleme with TPM? It's like data encryption for me.
> 
> The problem is the misuse of TPM (when motherboard owner didn't own the
> privatekey). It's like the misuse of UEFI :
> http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/secure-boot-vs-restricted-boot/
> 
> My 2 cents,
> -- 
> Michael Faille
> 
> On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 1:24 AM, David C Dawson <address@hidden>wrote:
> 
> > Quick response --
> > I regard these strictly as concepts:
> > I think of 'TPM' as a superset of 'DRM'.
> > Both are a convenient fiction.
> > They both give a 'rights holder' cart blanche, up to a point.
> > but 'TPM' provides more scope for abuse - terrifyingly so in my view.
> >
> > I sent the link to Matthew Skala's excellent article because
> > I thought his line of reasoning could be developed further to
> > encompass 'TPM'
> >
> > I think, already that his article demonstrates the sort of thinking
> > from which the 'DRM' concept came - that is, 'DRM' is supposed to be
> > able to make 'content' 'change colour' if 'DRM' is circumvented.
> >
> > That might be fuzzy thinking in my feeble old brain. but there it is.
> >
> > Is it useful and/or possible to ask Matthew Skala for his input on this?
> > /Dave
> > On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 03:51:34PM -0500, Russell McOrmond wrote:
> > >
> > > On 12-02-17 01:09 PM, David C Dawson wrote:
> > > >Please take a look at this link:
> > > >http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23
> > >
> > >   I did, back in 2004.  I also skimmed again today to remind me of
> > content.
> > >
> > >  Matthew Skala is one of the people who has been actively involved
> > > in this area of policy from the beginning, including on the general
> > > digital-copyright.ca forums.  (even back when it was still called
> > > canada-dmca-opponents  http://www.digital-copyright.ca/discuss/10 )
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >   Curious what made you think of it?
> > >
> > >   The colour being discussed in the article is a human trait, and
> > > one of the obvious failings of attempts at "DRM" (however you want
> > > to define that acronym) is to try to program computers to make human
> > > decisions. Even if we can make sentient computers, they still won't
> > > be human. Computers can help humans with metadata to make good
> > > decisions, but can't make those human decisions for us.
> > >
> > >
> > >   It is separate from the question of how rules for decisions are
> > > encoded (in software) and where are those decisions made (in
> > > hardware, not in "content") when those decisions are made by a
> > > computer.  The colour of the bits of the content addresses a
> > > different set of confusions between technical and non-technical
> > > people.
> > >
> > > --
> > >  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!"
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > fsfc-discuss mailing list
> > > address@hidden
> > > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfc-discuss
> >
> > --
> > David Dawson VE7HP VE7HDC
> > IRC: (Freenode) VE7HP
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > fsfc-discuss mailing list
> > address@hidden
> > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfc-discuss
> >

-- 
David Dawson VE7HP VE7HDC
IRC: (Freenode) VE7HP