On Sat, 2005-11-05 at 19:46 +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> Please don't call it trusted computing, there is nothing trusted about
> letting another entity other than owner of the computer dictate what
> the computer can or cannot do. Calling it TC is OK since it doesn't
> propagte the lie that Treacherous Computing has anything to do with
Please don't call it "Treacherous Computing". This label presupposes the
proposition that we are trying to test, and which you have not
> Can you please give an example of the type of third-party entity
> control that you believe is made possible by the presence on the
> motherboard of a TPM chip?
> It can prohibit me from running a free operating system, a free boot
> loader, it can make it impossible to play CD's or DVD's on free
> platforms since they are not `treacherous' to the user. Treacherous
> computing makes it impossible to circumvent data that is encumbered by
> Digital Restriction Managment.
Let us take these in turn. Since the ability to play CDs or DVDs or
circumvent DRM is dependent on the operating system software that has
been loaded, I believe that we can ignore these and focus on the
I am not aware of any provision in *any* variation of TC that would
preclude you from installing your own boot loader or operating system.
Can you provide a citation of such a mechanism, or can you explain how
you envision that this might be enforced by the mechanisms that have
actually been proposed?
L4-hurd mailing list