[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] SSSCA Hearing on Oct. 25
- To: Scott A Crosby <crosby(at)qwes.math.cmu.edu>
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] SSSCA Hearing on Oct. 25
- From: Noah silva <nsilva(at)atari-source.com>
- Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 12:13:10 -0400 (EDT)
- cc: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0110191728030.4815-100000@qwe3.math.cmu.edu>
- Reply-To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
At first glance of the page, it seems like a good thing, doesn't it? Your
PC will be more "trusted". Hopefully that means I can trust it not to
crash as much?
They should mention they want it so THEY can "trust" it to obey them
instead of the owner being able to trust it to do what they want it to.
-- noah silva
> Not if by 'secure' they mean locked down with digital control technology
> like: http://www.trustedpc.org/home/home.htm
>
> There's no way that linux will get this; because mere users can modify the
> source code for their kernel. IMHO, TrustedPC is the real goal of this
> legistlation.
>
> Scott
>
>
>