[cap-talk] Is "Authority" Subjective?

[Pierre THIERRY]

Scribit Marc Stiegler dies 22/06/2007 hora 11:33:
> We generally consider the ability to invoke the object that creates a
> new List object to be non-authority-bearing.

Wouldn't it be more consistent if we consider it bearing some authority
that we want each subject to have? Moreover, this is not authority to
modify some state, it is merely authority to computation, as you say.

The fact that this computation is state-of-the-art doesn't make it less
authority. It's just that if you plan to restrict access to this
authority to protect this computation, you can expect your strategy to
fail.

> Similarly, access to an object that makes Mints is not authority
> bearing. Again, the author of the object could, if there is no
> mintmaker available, include mintmaking code. Again, it is "pure
> computation", no authority is born.

Likewise. It's authority, but this is ineffective in preventing the use
to do the computation.

> Ah, but now consider an existing mint, being used by other people. We
> consider the ability to manufacture money inside this mint *is* an
> authority. Is it pure computation?

I'd say no. In an ocap system, access to the state that represents the
mint is restricted. So authority to an object that is able to modify the
mint isn't pure computation. It is authority to a mutable state.

So I would tend to think that authority is objective.

Subjectively,
Pierre
-- 
nowhere.man at levallois.eu.org
OpenPGP 0xD9D50D8A
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://www.eros-os.org/pipermail/cap-talk/attachments/20070623/88e3958d/attachment.bin