From: Lee Daniel Crocker (lee@piclab.com)
Date: Mon Apr 07 2003 - 19:28:29 MDT
> (Hal Finney <hal@finney.org>):
>
> As far as whether computers today are capable enough to run all the
> killer apps, that is a pretty static view of things.
True, but the point is that there's no reason to expect the
technology of free computers and software to progress any more
slowly than mass-market "trustworthy" ones. The only way the
latter will sell is if there's some "killer app" that absolutely
requires Palladium; I don't see such an app anytime soon, and
it's already too late.
> 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.
Well of course they do. Their jobs might depend on it. That's no
reason to take them seriously.
> 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.
That's probably true, but you know as well as I do that it's a
physically impossibility to lock up the sound waves, and you can't
lock up ideas. Musicians are already starting to realize that the worst
thing that can happen to a new band is to get a recording contract;
pretty soon consumers will start realizing it too, and the old business
models will fail.
> 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.
That all true, I agree--but you could have said the same thing for
a dozen other copy-protection techbologies that have been tried over
the years. And all of them failed miserably. That's all I'm saying
here: comsumers aren't stupid, and they know what copy-protection is,
and they know not to buy into it, no matter what the sweet-sounding
words of the creators are. All the double-speak of "enabling" new
kinds of restricted transactions is easy to see through.
> Why would you revolt and attempt to kill this technology?
By "revolt" I mean simply to refuse to patronize it, and to work
to create free alternatives. And the reason is simple: restricting
the free exchange and use of information is inherently evil, no
matter how it is justified.
> What gives you the wisdom to intervene in a free choice by another
> person to decide what technology to use?
I'm not interfering with that choice at all; as I said, my "revolt"
is to make sure he understands that he is choosing to restrict himself,
and to make sure he has alternatives. That's competition, not coercion.
> 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.
You have to be careful what you mean by saying that they "oppose" the
technology. I'm not suggesting--nor is any libertarian I know--that
we should forbid it, or that people shouldn't have the freedom to
restrict themselves. All we're saying is that we haven't heard a good
argument yet why someone would want to do that other than "we want
producers of content to have more control and consumers less".
If I am to willingly sign away my rights to something, I expect
something big in return. I might sign an NDA with an employer, for
example, trading some of my right to free speech for the compensation
of a job. If I choose to run a "trustworthy" app on a Palladium-
enabled computer, what am I getting for giving away my rights? Is
it worth the price?
-- Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lee/> "All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past, are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Apr 07 2003 - 19:35:36 MDT