[olug] Fw: FC: Linus Torvalds on digital rights management in Linux kernel

[William E. Kempf]

Brian Wiese said:
> On Fri, 2 May 2003 11:13:11 -0500 (CDT)
> "William E. Kempf" <wekempf at cox.net> wrote:
>
> |
> |Brian Wiese said:
> |
> |> Just because something can be done, we need to question whether we |>
> should.
> |
> |This is where our agreement starts to break down.  What's the
> "something" |that can be done?  Why do you question whether it should
> be?  How does |this relate in any way to the technology, or how it
> applies to Open |Source or GPL.
>
> For the sake of this argument, the "something" I guess would be trusting
> the root keys of our computer with M$ instead of ourselves etc... "we"
> should have the right to decide what we can and cannot do with our
> technology.  This 3rd party trust takes the "trust" out of trustworthy
> computing because we honestly cannot tell what it is doing.

If I were forced to trust MS because of the technology, you'd have a leg
to stand on in this argument.  But the technology doesn't do this... even
indirectly.  Laws could force this, but not the technology.

> In a broader note, its other applications of technology.  One of my
> favorite quotes about technology and ethics is from Jurassic Park, where
> the scientist guy says something along the lines, "You got so tied up in
> thinking about if you could and how we can do this (bring back the
> dinosaurs) with the science, that you that you never really questioned
> if you _should_".

This analogy holds only because in JP there was no purpose to bringing the
dinosaurs back.  It was being done purely for the sake of being able to
say they could (and make a few bucks off of tourists, of course).  IOW,
the consequences of what they were doing were never even thought about.

The same isn't true here.  There's legitimate and beneficial uses for
digital signing and DRM.  We're also obviously thinking about the
consequences, or there wouldn't be any arguing going on here ;).  What has
to be decided is if the benefits out weigh the costs... which I think is
probably true, provided we don't have legislation that's clearly against
the spirit of the consitution if not violating the letter of the
constitution.

> |If the "something" is the laws... we're in violent agreement that we
> |shouldn't be passing/enforcing such non-democratic and arguably
> |unconstitutional laws.  If it's the use of the technology that some are
> |trying to put it to use for, at the least we should be discouraging
> this |as consumers, and at the most we should be trying to pass laws to
> enforce |this.  If it's the development of, or use of the technology in
> general... |then you and I are in violent disagreement.
> |
> |I don't have a fatalistic view of things here.  I'm more than concerned
> |about the laws being passed... as they are removing my rights, and will
> |be difficult to overturn once passed.  For the rest of it, I expect
> |"right" will prevail.
>
> On this last part I'm strongly there with you... it seems like our laws
> some days take one step forward, then two steps back!

I haven't seen a step forward in a very long time, and many laws passed
take much more than two steps back!

>  It's scarry
> sometimes...  the one thing people have been fighting and dying for over
> the longest of time has bee one simple thing, "freedom".  Hopefully
> there will always be enough good people around to defend that freedom,
> so that evil will not triumph (or the self interests of a few, the
> corporate monopolies, the powers that be, etc..)

In this case, there may not be enough "good people".  Though everyone
seems to have an opinion, not enough are attempting to do something about
it.  We have to either educate our lawmakers about technology, or remove
them from office/position and replace them with folks that can
comprehend/understand what the technology means.  Once the laws are
passed, it's MUCH more difficult to do something about this.

-- 
William E. Kempf