From: Hal Finney (hal@finney.org)
Date: Mon Apr 07 2003 - 17:58:54 MDT
Lee Crocker writes:
> The only way this stuff
> will ever be jammed down consumer's throats is by force--i.e., if
> they manage to lobby congress to mandate it. Even then, I and
> millions of others will still revolt and kill it.
>
> They're too late--computers available now are already many times
> more capable than needed to run all the killer applications for
> which a consumer needs one, so why on Earth would anyone buy a
> crippled machine when he can do everything he wants to do on a
> free one?
BTW the original version of the TCPA FAQ is at
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html and includes some extra
links at the bottom.
As far as whether computers today are capable enough to run all the
killer apps, that is a pretty static view of things. Five, ten years
from now computers will undoubtedly be far more powerful than the ones
we have today, and I strongly suspect that new applications will have
been developed which will use that extra power. I don't see any reason
why progress will suddenly stop, with a ca 2003 computer providing all
the capbility anyone will ever need.
In terms of TCPA/Palladium being crippled, the inventors of these
systems claim the opposite. They argue that trusted computing adds
functionality while retaining backwards compatibility. You can still
run all the apps you want from today, plus you can now run a whole
new class of applications, so-called trusted applications. These have
access to a new type of functionality that lets them prove to remote
systems that they can be trusted to handle data in a specified manner.
This can be used to improve the security of many applications, including
digital rights management.
In a few years, it might be that content companies will sell you legal
music and movies over the net, but only if you are running a trusted
computing system. Those systems will let you run an app which can prove
to the remote server that it will follow the DRM rules, it will encrypt
the data that has been downloaded so that other programs can't get access
to it, and it will limit copying of the data.
No one is forcing you to run such an app, and no one is forcing the
content companies to download the data to you. The trusted computing
technology makes possible a new kind of transaction which cannot occur
today. Consumers may choose to adopt this technology in order to take
part in these kinds of transactions. There is no need for coercion
or a legal mandate.
Why would you revolt and attempt to kill this technology? What gives
you the wisdom to intervene in a free choice by another person to
decide what technology to use? You would not object if a person tried
to use cryptography to cloak his communications with someone else. What
is wrong with someone using technology that lets him make a kind of
commitment that is not possible today?
It frankly astonishes me that libertarians oppose trusted computing
technology. I seem to be the only one who sees things differently.
I believe in freedom. That means I accept that other people may make
decisions differently than I would. Their decisions may even have
an indirectly negative impact on me. But I would not say that I was
justified in trying to take options away from them, to prevent them from
using a technology like this. I would really appreciate a libertarian
and freedom oriented explanation of why voluntarily-adopted trusted
computing technology should be fought.
Hal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Apr 07 2003 - 18:07:11 MDT