From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Tue Apr 08 2003 - 02:13:53 MDT
Hal Finney wrote:
> 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.
>
If I cannot use the OS of my choice and work the code on my
machines as I desire without losing the ability to see broad
sections of the net or to work with a lot of trusted hardware
(there is talk of making peripherals only work fully in such a
"trusted" environment) then I most certainly am being coerced
into a scheme not of my choosing in order to line the pockets of
its perpretrators. It is a species of racketeering or perhaps
we need another category of force altogether to cover such things.
> 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.
>
Do they have the right to impose their voluntary limits on me
then? Effectively, if it spreads to enough sides, cpus,
motherboards and peripherals, I will lose the ability to choose
differently. I will become less free.
> 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.
>
Fat lot of good that will do if TCPA is mandated and/or spreads
to major feeds and devices too quickly.
>>
>>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?
>
No. History is full of systems become widespread that did not
solve problems effectively. There is also no reason to argue
that popularity makes coercion of the dissenters ok. I am
concerned with more than that individuals choose to use this
technology. This technology was purposefully designed to limit
freedom and choice. It is not a neutral thing as you imply.
- smaantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Apr 08 2003 - 02:14:26 MDT