Ross's TCPA paper

[Mike Rosing]

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