From: "Geo" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_010E_01C5CCB6.82E6DFD0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

But the feature being discussed can not only "be used" for DRM,
it can = be used to FORCE DRM on those who don't want it and to prevent =
competition on the OS market by not allowing an OS that doesn't force = drm
to be used.

Geo.
  "Rich"  wrote in message news:434839da$1{at}w3.nls.net...
     My objection to your use of the term DRM is that it doesn't apply =
and diverts the discussion away to off topic, often silly, emotionally =
charged claims.  A claim that something could be used for DRM could = apply
to anything as there is no limit to what someone might use.  = Passwords
can be used for DRM.  They are today.  TLS/SSL can be used for = DRM.  It
is today. Smartcards, tokens, or anything to identify the = entity to which
rights were granted can be used.

     None of this helps for secure boot whose purpose is to validate the =
software environment and has no need to identify the user or the = machine.

  Rich

    "John Beckett"  wrote in =
message news:7roek156s13jun0lt9u808ahvmc20pbmrj{at}4ax.com...
    "Rich"  wrote in message news::
    >    Your reply falls apart immediately after "as you well know".
    >  In fact you have it exactly backwards.

    Maybe you're answering in automatic mode??

    Just because I mentioned the terms "Geo" and "DRM"
in the same =
message
    does not mean I am supporting all or any of Geo's assertions re DRM.

    In fact, I was pointing out that trusted computing is capable of =
good
    things, and I predict that with the rising sophistication of =
malware,
    companies really will need trusted computing systems for their =
laptops if
    the laptops are allowed to connect to the normal company network.

    I claim that the same features of trusted computing that provide the
    benefit of secure remote access are also capable of providing DRM. I =
am
    not commenting on whether that is good or bad.

    I would appreciate a clear correction if I have made a mistake in =
the
    above (i.e. which words are wrong, and briefly why).

    > What you approve is up to you and if you use it can provide you =
with
    > a degree of trust not available without secure boot.

    I understand that.
    =20
    > Many of george's opinions on DRM are ...

    That's an issue for another thread, IMHO.

    John

------=_NextPart_000_010E_01C5CCB6.82E6DFD0
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








But the feature being
discussed can not =
only "be=20
used" for DRM, it can be used to FORCE DRM on those who don't want it
= and to=20
prevent competition on the OS market by not allowing an OS that doesn't = force=20
drm to be used.
 
Geo.

  "Rich" <{at}> wrote in message news:434839da$1{at}w3.nls.net...
     My
objection to your use =
of the term=20
  DRM is that it doesn't apply and diverts the discussion away to off =
topic,=20
  often silly, emotionally charged claims.  A claim that something =
could be=20
  used for DRM could apply to anything as there is no limit to what =
someone=20
  might use.  Passwords can be used for DRM.  They are =
today. =20
  TLS/SSL can be used for DRM.  It is today. Smartcards, tokens, or =

  anything to identify the entity to which rights were granted can be=20
  used.
   
     None of
this helps for =
secure boot=20
  whose purpose is to validate the software environment and =
has no=20
  need to identify the user or the machine.
   
  Rich
   
  
    "John Beckett" <FirstnameSurname{at}com=">mailto:FirstnameSurname{at}compuserve.com.omit">FirstnameSurname{at}com=
puserve.com.omit>=20
    wrote in message news:7roek156s13=
jun0lt9u808ahvmc20pbmrj{at}4ax.com..."Rich"=20
    <{at}> wrote in message >   =20
    Your reply falls apart immediately after "as you well =
know".> =20
    In fact you have it exactly backwards.Maybe you're
answering =
in=20
    automatic mode??Just because I mentioned the terms
"Geo" and =
"DRM"=20
    in the same messagedoes not mean I am supporting all or any of =
Geo's=20
    assertions re DRM.In fact, I was pointing out that trusted =
computing=20
    is capable of goodthings, and I predict that with the rising=20
    sophistication of malware,companies really will need trusted =
computing=20
    systems for their laptops ifthe laptops are allowed to connect =
to the=20
    normal company network.I claim that the same features of =
trusted=20
    computing that provide thebenefit of secure remote access are =
also=20
    capable of providing DRM. I amnot commenting on whether that is =
good or=20
    bad.I would appreciate a clear correction if I have made a =
mistake=20
    in theabove (i.e. which words are wrong, and briefly =
why).>=20
    What you approve is up to you and if you use it can provide you =
with>=20
    a degree of trust not available without secure boot.I =
understand=20
    that. > Many of george's opinions
on DRM are=20
    ...That's an issue for another thread,=20
 
IMHO.John

------=_NextPart_000_010E_01C5CCB6.82E6DFD0--

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5