3 ms·

Obviously. But the issue is not that simple. Do you think any kind of information should be protected by law? Because I can think of a few examples. Actually,

by comboy 6y ago

Obviously. But the issue is not that simple. Do you think any kind of information should be protected by law? Because I can think of a few examples. Actually, I believe we are going towards information being the thing that has value, we should arrive there, assuming abundance (on a human scale of course, energy is still required to sustain any patterns), material goods being just things that can be copied. So where do you draw the line? If you get caught with my private keys is that ok & legal? What if I get caught with internal documents of some company? Espionage? Facebook just keeping some big numbers around? How do you implement privacy that you seem to care about without some numbers being illegal? Also remember you bought/installed that malware or agreed to it. And no, I don't like DRM, I do agree that it is insane, but without presenting a coherent view where that problem is not present it's just being angry about the sky being blue.

dane-pgp 6y ago
> So where do you draw the line? A reasonable suggestion would be to draw the line around private data. By design, DRM is intended to restrict people's use of data which the publisher wants to spread as widely as possible (on the condition that they are paid for every copy). This data is therefore not private in any sense. All your other examples work with this line: Private keys are obviously private; internal company documents are "private" in the same sense that corporations are people; government secrets are private (and countries are legal people); and Facebook should be keeping people's personal data secret on their behalf.
- comboy 6y ago
  It somewhat pushes the answer into "private" definition but it does sound good. But then, if a company implements DRM using its private key and somebody steals that private key?
  - dane-pgp 6y ago
    Well, I think that protecting "private" data should be the default but there would be exceptions (because reality is complicated, and so is the law). For example, I don't think that all information created by a government should be given the same protections as information about individual humans, which is why we have Freedom of Information laws. I would even go so far as to say that this principle should apply to corporations, at least for information that is no longer commercially relevant. We already have "public interest" exceptions for things like reporters exposing the private lives of politicians, and that sort of careful consideration also has to be applied to requests invoking "the right to be forgotten". Anyway, even if a society didn't make DRM systems illegal outright, it could accept a legal judgement that "private keys" which are distributed to end user devices are not to be considered private. As a practical matter, though, if your DRM system relies on the secrecy of a key that can fit in a QR code, then you shouldn't expect the law to put that genie back in the bottle for you.
lovelyviking 6y ago
>But the issue is not that simple. I think actually it is very simple. Obviously when you wish to watch some movie your privacy should not be compromised to the end of your life or the life of your computer. It's too much to demand from customer. Just like when you buy an ice cream you do not expect that seller will be granted rights to visit your home whenever he wants from now on. Very simple. No DRM no problem. If seller sells movies he should not install DRM to the customer nor demand it nor imply it. Because in attempt to control things that are impossible to control one can endanger much more important things which can lead to loosing rights, freedom and democracy and those are much more serious problems then some additional copies of some stupid movies which cannot be prevented anyway.

by comboy 6y ago

dane-pgp 6y ago

> So where do you draw the line? A reasonable suggestion would be to draw the line around private data. By design, DRM is intended to restrict people's use of data which the publisher wants to spread as widely as possible (on the condition that they are paid for every copy). This data is therefore not private in any sense. All your other examples work with this line: Private keys are obviously private; internal company documents are "private" in the same sense that corporations are people; government secrets are private (and countries are legal people); and Facebook should be keeping people's personal data secret on their behalf.

comboy 6y ago
It somewhat pushes the answer into "private" definition but it does sound good. But then, if a company implements DRM using its private key and somebody steals that private key?
- dane-pgp 6y ago
  Well, I think that protecting "private" data should be the default but there would be exceptions (because reality is complicated, and so is the law). For example, I don't think that all information created by a government should be given the same protections as information about individual humans, which is why we have Freedom of Information laws. I would even go so far as to say that this principle should apply to corporations, at least for information that is no longer commercially relevant. We already have "public interest" exceptions for things like reporters exposing the private lives of politicians, and that sort of careful consideration also has to be applied to requests invoking "the right to be forgotten". Anyway, even if a society didn't make DRM systems illegal outright, it could accept a legal judgement that "private keys" which are distributed to end user devices are not to be considered private. As a practical matter, though, if your DRM system relies on the secrecy of a key that can fit in a QR code, then you shouldn't expect the law to put that genie back in the bottle for you.

lovelyviking 6y ago

>But the issue is not that simple. I think actually it is very simple. Obviously when you wish to watch some movie your privacy should not be compromised to the end of your life or the life of your computer. It's too much to demand from customer. Just like when you buy an ice cream you do not expect that seller will be granted rights to visit your home whenever he wants from now on. Very simple. No DRM no problem. If seller sells movies he should not install DRM to the customer nor demand it nor imply it. Because in attempt to control things that are impossible to control one can endanger much more important things which can lead to loosing rights, freedom and democracy and those are much more serious problems then some additional copies of some stupid movies which cannot be prevented anyway.