From: "Rich" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_041C_01C5CD03.BCB631A0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

   Irrelevant to your claims of DRM and also false.

Rich

  "Geo"  wrote in message
news:4349c91d$1{at}w3.nls.net...
  None of those are a mandatory part of the boot process.

  Geo.
    "Rich"  wrote in message news:4349439c{at}w3.nls.net...
       No more or less than passwords, TLS/SSL, smart cards, tokens, or =
anything else someone wants to make a mandatory part of any process they = choose.

    Rich

      "Geo"  wrote in message =
news:434921c2$1{at}w3.nls.net...
      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_041C_01C5CD03.BCB631A0
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








  
Irrelevant to your claims =
of DRM and=20
also false.
 
Rich
 

  "Geo" <georger{at}nls.net>">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>
wrote=20
  in message news:4349c91d$1{at}w3.nls.net...
  None of those are a
mandatory part of =
the boot=20
  process.
   
  Geo.
  

    "Rich" <{at}> wrote in message news:4349439c{at}w3.nls.net...
       No
more or less than =
passwords,=20
    TLS/SSL, smart cards, tokens, or anything else someone wants to make =
a=20
    mandatory part of any process they choose.
     
    Rich
     
    

      "Geo" <georger{at}nls.net>=20">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>=20
      wrote in message news:434921c2$1{at}w3.nls.net...
      But the feature being discussed =
can not only=20
      "be used" for DRM, it can be used to FORCE DRM on those who don't =
want it=20
      and to prevent competition on the OS market by not allowing an OS =
that=20
      doesn't force drm to be used.
       
      Geo.
      

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

        DRM.  They are today.  TLS/SSL can be used for =
DRM.  It=20
        is today. Smartcards, tokens, or anything to identify the entity =
to=20
        which rights were granted can be used.
         
          
None of this helps =
for secure=20
        boot whose purpose is to validate the software =
environment and=20
        has no 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=20
          know".>  In fact you have it exactly=20
          backwards.Maybe you're answering in automatic=20
          mode??Just because I mentioned the terms
"Geo" and =
"DRM" in=20
          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=20
          computing is capable of goodthings, and I predict that =
with the=20
          rising sophistication of malware,companies really will =
need=20
          trusted computing systems for their laptops ifthe laptops =
are=20
          allowed to connect to the normal company network.I =
claim that=20
          the same features of trusted computing that provide =
thebenefit of=20
          secure remote access are also capable of providing DRM. I =
amnot=20
          commenting on whether that is good or bad.I would =
appreciate a=20
          clear correction if I have made a mistake in theabove =
(i.e. which=20
          words are wrong, and briefly why).> What you =
approve is up=20
          to you and if you use it can provide you with> a degree =
of=20
          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_041C_01C5CD03.BCB631A0--

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