[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Separate trusted computing designs
From: |
Christian Stüble |
Subject: |
Re: Separate trusted computing designs |
Date: |
Fri, 1 Sep 2006 11:28:13 +0200 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.9.1 |
Am Freitag, 1. September 2006 04:41 schrieb Jonathan S. Shapiro:
> On Fri, 2006-09-01 at 01:24 +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > I have a definition, but I do not know if you will find it useful.
> > It's the best I can come up with, and it works surprisingly well in
> > practice. Here it comes:
> >
> > A free choice is one that can be made independent of any other
> > choices.
>
> It seems to me that what you are describing is an *independent* choice.
> A free choice is one that is made without coercion. A choice between two
> discrete options, each having costs and benefits, remains a free choice.
That's the reason I asked. What is the definition of coercion then? The
decision to use Linux and accept that I cannot use word any more in imo a
free choice, but many people will say that for them this is not a free
choice.
Basically, users have a free choice to disable their TPM. If the OS does not
work with a disabled TPM, it remains a free choice. But the costs and
benefits are not as equal as before...
Regards,
Chris
>
> Your concept is fine. It's the label that doesn't seem quite right to
> me.
>
> shap