On Mon, 24 Jun 2002, Anonymous wrote:
The amazing thing about this discussion is that there are two pieces of conventional wisdom which people in the cypherpunk/EFF/"freedom" communities adhere to, and they are completely contradictory.
Makes for lively conversation doesn't it :-)
Cypherpunks alternate between smug assertions of the first claim and panicked wailing about the second. The important point about both of them, from the average cypherpunk's perspective, is that neither leaves any room for action. Both views are completely fatalistic in tone. In one, we are assured victory; in the other, defeat. Neither allows for human choice.
A good discussion should alternate. Certainly it's not the same people. And both urge the same action - tell your congress critter to butt out!
This means that whether the Hollings bill passes or not, the situation will be exactly the same. People running in "trusted" mode can prove it; but anyone can run untrusted. Even with the Hollings bill there will still be people using untrusted mode. The legislation would not change that. Therefore the Hollings bill would not increase the effectiveness of the TCPA model. And it follows, then, that Lucky and Ross are wrong to claim that this bill is intended to legislate use of the TCPA. The TCPA does not require legislation.
Exactly. Let the market decide. This is why it's necessary to contact your congress critter - they don't need to be involved.
Lucky, Ross and others who view this as a catastrophe should look at the larger picture and reconsider their perspective. Realize that the "trusted" mode of the TCPA will always be only an option, and there is no technological, political or economic reason for that to change. The TCPA gives people new capabilities without removing any old ones. It makes possible a new kind of information processing that cannot be accomplished in today's world. It lets people make binding promises that are impossible today. It makes the world a more flexible place, with more opportunities and options. Somehow that doesn't sound all that bad.
As long as it's not legislated, nobody needs to worry about what gets fabbed. The market will decide if DRM makes any economic sense. I'm betting it doesn't, but I've been wrong before. Untrusted platforms will be cheaper than trusted ones, so there has to be some incentive for customers to buy them. Economic incentives make far more sense than legislated ones. The main point is not the content of the bill, or its purpose. The main point is that government is being told to get involved in the market place, and that, all by itself, is a *bad* idea. If people want to build trusted platforms and put them on the market they can go ahead and do it. If people don't want to buy them, that's their choice, and if others do decide it's worth it, they should be allowed to. As long as TCPA is really an option, the market place is a good way to sort things out. But S.2048 needs to die, not for scary reasons, but just because there's no reason for it in the first place. Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike