3 ms·

I use trusted computing channels/methods to handle sensitive documents and prevent unauthorized programs from interacting with the data. It's literally DRM, an

I use trusted computing channels/methods to handle sensitive documents and prevent unauthorized programs from interacting with the data. It's literally DRM, and I think it's a good thing, because it lets me protect sensitive information from theft.

icebraining 12y ago
If you're not trying to protect data from the user itself, I'd still say it's not DRM. What counts is the goal, not the technology. DRM was certainly a motivation for the development of TC, but that doesn't mean all uses of TC are necessarily DRM.
- ObviousScience 12y ago
  It's a shared system, in that other people can access the same server the files are actually located on. The DRM is definitely meant to stop other users of the system from accessing the files, and only permit me to view it through a thin terminal when showing the proper credentials. You seem to have an ideological need to call DRM bad in all cases and tell me how every other use of DRM is not "True DRM!", but I'm using it to stop people with access to the server from being able to open certain files even if they somehow break other security features which should prevent them from even getting access to the bits. I'm not sure how much more DRM you can get than stopping people from viewing content unless they show their credentials to prove they're an authorized user.
  - icebraining 12y ago
    and only permit me to view it through a thin terminal when showing the proper credentials. Yes, which is why I wrote it's not DRM if you're not trying to protect data from the user itself. In that case, you are. I'm using it to stop people with access to the server from being able to open certain files even if they somehow break other security features which should prevent them from even getting access to the bits. I'm not sure how much more DRM you can get than stopping people from viewing content unless they show their credentials to prove they're an authorized user. I'm using the UNIX filesystem permissions for that. Is UNIX DRM now? As far as I know, DRM as a term arose to describe the technologies that tried to allow the user to view the content while preventing him/her from copying it. You seem to have an ideological need to call DRM bad in all cases and tell me how every other use of DRM is not "True DRM!" No, I'm just trying to make sense of the fact that people are using a term in a different way than I've always seen it used, and which happens to be (in my opinion) much less useful, since it turns any authorization layer into "DRM".
- click170 12y ago
  I agree that DRM is most often used against the user but I disagree that it has to be used against the user for it to be called DRM. DRM is Digital Rights Management, there is nothing in the name about being used against a specific group of people. I could use it to prevent you from playing a song just as I could use it to prevent unsigned kernel modules from loading on a secure system, the only difference is that DRM is so often used against us consumers that the colloquial definition is shifting away from including things which are technically DRM but which aren't used against you. This is the same kind of thing that happened to the "native advertising" people who hide adverts as news stories and wonder why people have come yo loath the term native advertising. They've unintrntionally established a colloquial definition that is actually quite distant from the textbook definition through their abuse. I argue the same has happened to DRM.
  - icebraining 12y ago
    DRM is Digital Rights Management, there is nothing in the name about being used against a specific group of people. No, but we had those systems before, we just call it "security" and "authorization layer". DRM arose, as far as I know, to describe copy-protection mechanisms like SecuROM. They've unintrntionally established a colloquial definition that is actually quite distant from the textbook definition through their abuse. I argue the same has happened to DRM. Maybe so, but then I never got the original definition, and I don't understand why there was the need for a new term when authorization layers are old as dirt.

icebraining 12y ago

If you're not trying to protect data from the user itself, I'd still say it's not DRM. What counts is the goal, not the technology. DRM was certainly a motivation for the development of TC, but that doesn't mean all uses of TC are necessarily DRM.

ObviousScience 12y ago
It's a shared system, in that other people can access the same server the files are actually located on. The DRM is definitely meant to stop other users of the system from accessing the files, and only permit me to view it through a thin terminal when showing the proper credentials. You seem to have an ideological need to call DRM bad in all cases and tell me how every other use of DRM is not "True DRM!", but I'm using it to stop people with access to the server from being able to open certain files even if they somehow break other security features which should prevent them from even getting access to the bits. I'm not sure how much more DRM you can get than stopping people from viewing content unless they show their credentials to prove they're an authorized user.
- icebraining 12y ago
  and only permit me to view it through a thin terminal when showing the proper credentials. Yes, which is why I wrote it's not DRM if you're not trying to protect data from the user itself. In that case, you are. I'm using it to stop people with access to the server from being able to open certain files even if they somehow break other security features which should prevent them from even getting access to the bits. I'm not sure how much more DRM you can get than stopping people from viewing content unless they show their credentials to prove they're an authorized user. I'm using the UNIX filesystem permissions for that. Is UNIX DRM now? As far as I know, DRM as a term arose to describe the technologies that tried to allow the user to view the content while preventing him/her from copying it. You seem to have an ideological need to call DRM bad in all cases and tell me how every other use of DRM is not "True DRM!" No, I'm just trying to make sense of the fact that people are using a term in a different way than I've always seen it used, and which happens to be (in my opinion) much less useful, since it turns any authorization layer into "DRM".
click170 12y ago
I agree that DRM is most often used against the user but I disagree that it has to be used against the user for it to be called DRM. DRM is Digital Rights Management, there is nothing in the name about being used against a specific group of people. I could use it to prevent you from playing a song just as I could use it to prevent unsigned kernel modules from loading on a secure system, the only difference is that DRM is so often used against us consumers that the colloquial definition is shifting away from including things which are technically DRM but which aren't used against you. This is the same kind of thing that happened to the "native advertising" people who hide adverts as news stories and wonder why people have come yo loath the term native advertising. They've unintrntionally established a colloquial definition that is actually quite distant from the textbook definition through their abuse. I argue the same has happened to DRM.
- icebraining 12y ago
  DRM is Digital Rights Management, there is nothing in the name about being used against a specific group of people. No, but we had those systems before, we just call it "security" and "authorization layer". DRM arose, as far as I know, to describe copy-protection mechanisms like SecuROM. They've unintrntionally established a colloquial definition that is actually quite distant from the textbook definition through their abuse. I argue the same has happened to DRM. Maybe so, but then I never got the original definition, and I don't understand why there was the need for a new term when authorization layers are old as dirt.