From: Hal Finney (hal@finney.org)
Date: Tue Apr 08 2003 - 00:33:42 MDT
Samantha Atkins wrote:
> Hal Finney wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> If I cannot get the content and apps I need to do my work
> without using TCPA then I am being forced to run it. If it
> destroys alternatives then I am forced to run it. It has very
> strong potential to do precisely that.
We had some discussion in another thread about this kind of usage for the
word "force". You may be "forced" to use TCPA in order to do your work.
But that is different from when someone puts a gun to your head and
forces you to hand over your wallet. The only reason you would be
"forced" to use TCPA is if other people that you wanted to communicate
with would impose that condition.
But it is their free choice to limit how they communicate. Part of
freedom requires respecting the free choices of others. You do not
have the right to impose your tastes and require others to communicate
with you. If they want to use communications technology that requires you
to run TCPA, you have no right to stop them. So in this condition you
are not truly being "forced" to use TCPA, but rather you are respecting
the freedom of other people to decide how they want to communicate.
And of course, you can always refuse to use TCPA and attempt to convince
others to communicate with you without those restrictions. Persuasion,
not force, should govern your relations with others. Hopefully we can
agree on that.
> > 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?
>
> Because this technology is designed to kill choice and many
> things I hold dear. It is not simply a matter of individual
> choice. It is choice removed from individuals and enshrined in
> fundamental hardware empowering potentially or require
> potentially for far too many applications.
So you are concerned that if individuals choose to use this technology,
the eventual result will be a reduction in individual choice and options?
The only way that would happen would be if TC became very popular so
that it was almost universally used, right? Wouldn't that imply that
TC solved real problems for people?
Hal Finney
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Apr 08 2003 - 00:41:56 MDT