[cap-talk] Capabilities and Freedom vs. Safety

[Jonathan S. Shapiro]

On Mon, 2007-07-23 at 10:05 +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> 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.  

I think that this outcome is not obvious. Labels and publishers have
legitimate and illegitimate interests in this transaction:

  Legitimate:
    - Expectation and right to be paid for the music, etc.
    - Right to restrict you from copying for duration of copyright
      [As a matter of law. I do not take a position here on ethics.]

  Illegitimate:
    - Collecting your personal information.

I agree with Marcus that they will push for both types of interests, but
I suspect that they will *settle* for the legitimate ones. It is very
much possible to engineer a system in which, for practical purposes, the
legitimate interests can be served.

> 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.

This specific design is quite bad, but I agree that something like the
dialog box will appear.

However, it *is* possible to ensure that the connection is severed once
the purchase is completed. There is no way to know that only the
purchase data (and not other personal information) went out, but it *is*
possible to know that the player per se does not have an outward
connection.

> As for the belief that "the market" (this ominous hidden force, like
> in Star Wars) can "sort this out"

  [Loud sound of exhaling here]

shap