Re: bit-split, or: the schizophrenia of trusted computing

[Marcus Brinkmann]

At Mon, 01 May 2006 09:58:19 -0400,
"Jonathan S. Shapiro" <address@hidden> wrote:
> My expected outcome was that the ethical issue has nothing to do with
> whether the artifact is digital. It entirely has to do with the marginal
> cost of reproduction (to the initial holder) being zero, and the belief
> that creating artificial scarcity is fundamentally unethical.
> 
> I am still not 100% certain, but I think that this is actually where
> Marcus and I ended up.

Sounds about right, however, there is an extra dimension, which I
pointed out and you omitted above.  There must be a public interest in
the artifact.  Otherwise, it would be impossible to be consistent with
the above and defend some amount of privacy, too.

Thanks,
Marcus