Re: [dvd-discuss] SSSCA Hearing on Oct. 25

[Michael.A.Rolenz(at)notes.aero.org]

Skimming through their "design philosophy" 
(http://www.trustedpc.org/home/pdf/designv1_0final.pdf) the word "trust" 
pops up so often that I find myself mistrustful of them.....and as you 
point out LINUX won't fit into that. What these people seem to be 
advocating is a technological fascist computerized police state to protect 
the sanctitiy of their intellectual property.




Noah silva <nsilva@atari-source.com>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
10/22/01 09:13 AM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

 
        To:     Scott A Crosby <crosby@qwes.math.cmu.edu>
        cc:     dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
        Subject:        Re: [dvd-discuss] SSSCA Hearing on Oct. 25


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
> 
> 
>