RE: Challenge to David Wagner on TCPA
I'm going to respond to AARGH!, our new Sternlight, by asking two questions. 1. Why can't I control what signing keys the Fritz chip trusts? If the point of TCPA is make it so *I* can trust that *my* computer to run the software *I* have approved, and refuse to run something which a virus or Trojan has modifed (and this, btw, is the stated intention of TCPA), then why the hell don't I have full control over the keys? If I did, the thing might actually work to my benefit. The beneficiary of TCPA when I don't have ultimate root control is not I. It is someone else. That is not an acceptable situation. 2. It's really curious that Mr. AARGH! has shown up simultaneously on the lists and on sci.crypt, with the single brief of supporting TCPA. While I totally support his or her right to post anonymously, I can only speculate that anonymity is being used to disguise some vested interest in supporting TCPA. In other words, I infer that Mr. AARGH! is a TCPA insider, who is embarassed to reveal himself in public. So my question is: What is your reason for shielding your identity? You do so at the cost of people assuming the worst about your motives. Peter Trei PS: Speculating about the most tyrannical uses to which a technology can be put has generally proved a winning proposition. --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@wasabisystems.com
On 8/1/02 1:14 PM, "Trei, Peter" <ptrei@rsasecurity.com> wrote:
So my question is: What is your reason for shielding your identity? You do so at the cost of people assuming the worst about your motives.
Is this a tacit way to suggest that the only people who need anonymity or pseudonymity are those with something to hide? Jon --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@wasabisystems.com
Jon Callas wrote:
On 8/1/02 1:14 PM, "Trei, Peter" <ptrei@rsasecurity.com> wrote:
So my question is: What is your reason for shielding your identity? You do so at the cost of people assuming the worst about your motives.
Is this a tacit way to suggest that the only people who need anonymity or pseudonymity are those with something to hide?
. Anonymity is generally considered a a requirement for the political process in the United States to protect the right to express political speech without regard to being harrassed by those in power. There have been several federal court decisions in the last few years that have struck down laws limiting anonymity for political speech. One that comes to mind was a requirement in Chicago, I think that required the authors name on political phamplets. Would a law requiring such technical measures for controlling access to copyrighted information as proposed by representatives of Disney, et. al. in the U.S. Congress recently that incidentally by design prevented anonymity be found to be unconstitutionally limiting freedom of political speech on the internet by its chilling effect?
participants (3)
-
David G. Koontz
-
Jon Callas
-
Trei, Peter