[cap-talk] Capabilities and Freedom vs. Safety

[Marcus Brinkmann]

At Sun, 22 Jul 2007 02:50:10 +0200,
Pierre THIERRY <nowhere.man at levallois.eu.org> wrote:
> 
> Scribit James A. Donald dies 22/07/2007 hora 10:31:
> > > 2. The system-wide installation utility should be able to install
> > > programs in such a way that (a) they are confined when run, but (b)
> > > the user cannot inspect their code or data.
> > This makes it likely that such programs will not necessarily be
> > written to act in the best interests of the user - that they will, in
> > some sense, be Trojans or malware.
> 
> Could you detail how a Trojan or malware could be designed as to
> effective when run confined?

Reading the subthread that started from this question is very
illustrative.  Several people discussed lots of technical reasons why
or why it's not possible to such a Trojan would work.  But the likely
scenario is entirely different.  Here is a different story, which is
much closer to reality I think:

People do not have running software as a goal.  Their goal is (for
example) to listen to music, watch a movie, read a book.  In fact,
often not any music, any movie or any book, but a particular one.
Labels and publishers have no interest in the user's security, but all
interest in controlling dissemination of this data.  It follows that
they will only provide the data to software that implements their
interests.  This software will not be confined, but require an
internet connection for tracking and billing purposes.  In your
hypothetical operating system, a pop up window will warn the user that
the program is not going to be confined if you proceed.  And users
will be told that they have to press the OK button, or they can stare
at a blank screen instead.  You can insist that the option is there to
press Cancel, but you better document in the user manual how parents
can explain their kids why their mates in the kindergarten can watch
"Finding Nemo", but their kid can't for security reasons.

As for the belief that "the market" (this ominous hidden force, like
in Star Wars) can "sort this out": there is no competition of
providers for "Yesterday" from the Beatles, or "Steamboat Willy" from
Walt Disney, and there is only a finite supply of TV distribution
channels, all in the hands of a few evermore-concentrated corporations
which share the same narrow interests.  The fundamental requirements
for the theoretical free market model to apply are not even close to
being fulfilled.  You may wish for the market model to apply, but it
doesn't.

Thanks,
Marcus