privacy <> digital rights management

[John S. Denker]

I wrote:
> > Perhaps we are using
> > wildly divergent notions of "privacy" 

Donald Eastlake 3rd wrote:

> You are confusing privacy with secrecy 

That's not a helpful remark.  My first contribution to
this thread called attention to the possibility of
wildly divergent notions of "privacy".

Also please note that according to the US Office of
Technology Assessment, such terms do not posess "a single
clear definition, and theorists argue variously ... the
same, completely distinct, or in some cases overlapping".

Please let's avoid adversarial wrangling over terminology.
If there is an important conceptual distinction, please
explain the concepts using unambiguous multi-word descriptions
so that we may have a collegial discussion.

> The spectrum from 2 people knowing something to 2 billion knowing
> something is pretty smooth and continuous. 

That is quite true, but quite irrelevant to the point I was making.
Pick an intermediate number, say 100 people.  Distributing
knowledge to a group of 100 people who share a vested interest in not 
divulging it outside the group is starkly different from distributing 
it to 100 people who have nothing to lose and something to gain by
divulging it.

Rights Management isn't even directly connected to knowledge.  Suppose
I know by heart the lyrics and music to _The Producers_ --- that doesn't 
mean I'm free to rent a hall and put on a performance.

> Both DRM and privacy have to
> do with controlling material after you have released it to someone who
> might wish to pass it on further against your wishes. There is little
> *tehcnical* difference between your doctors records being passed on to
> assorted insurance companies, your boss, and/or tabloid newspapers and
> the latest Disney movies being passed on from a country where it has
> been released to people/theaters in a country where it has not been
> released.

That's partly true (although overstated).  In any case it supports
my point that fixating on the *technical* issues misses some
crucial aspects of the problem.

> The only case where all holders of information always have a common
> interest is where the number of holder is one.

Colorful language is no substitute for a logical argument.
Exaggerated remarks ("... ALWAYS have ...") tend to drive the
discussion away from reasonable paths.  In the real world,
there is a great deal of information held by N people where
(N>>1) and (N<<infinity).

---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo at wasabisystems.com