[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [fsfc-discuss] Technological measures in a land of myth and a time o
From: |
David C Dawson |
Subject: |
Re: [fsfc-discuss] Technological measures in a land of myth and a time of magic |
Date: |
Tue, 27 Mar 2012 16:31:36 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) |
My analogy is indeed to the science-fiction version of these
technologies.
Your answer illustrates that very well.
Regrettably, I did not make that clear.
You have done so now.
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 09:53:55AM -0400, Russell McOrmond wrote:
>
> On 12-03-27 08:53 AM, David Dawson wrote:
> > An analogy to TPM
> > If TPM is considered to be a sort of bullet-proof jacket
>
> Not sure this deals with the real-world scenario, rather than what
> the vendor marketing material claims.
>
>
> The technological measures are applied to our devices by someone
> other than the owner. It is illegal for us to unlock our devices in
> order to implement our own security policy, or to unlock content
> such that it is interoperable with the devices we own. People are
> being forced to use non-owner locked devices if they wish to
> participate in culture (today to access popular entertainment, and
> likely soon communicate on popular social media sites, etc).
>
>
> It is more like a bullet attraction jacket. We are forced to wear
> these jackets by a law which ties our right to leave our homes and
> participate in every-day life (communicate with others, participate
> in culture, etc) with wearing such a jacket. Rather than protecting
> the person wearing them they have a magnetic pull which would
> attract bullets that would otherwise miss us, making us more
> vulnerable to guns than we would be otherwise. Not only is it
> illegal for us to remove these jackets in public, but it is illegal
> for us to wear bullet-proof jackets in order to protect ourselves
> from attraction jackets or bullets in general.
>
>
>
> Suggesting that technological measures "protect" someone
> (copyright holders, or anyone else) rather than making all concerned
> more vulnerable (other than anti-competitive benefits to device
> manufacturers) is to be discussing the science-fiction version of
> these technologies.
>
>
> --
> 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