[cap-talk] Computer Bill of Rights: (was Re: "ambient authority" on wiki.erights.org)

[John Carlson]

On Jun 14, 2009, at 4:22 PM, David-Sarah Hopwood wrote:

> Rob Meijer wrote:
>> On Sun, June 14, 2009 15:46, David-Sarah Hopwood wrote:
>>> That is why I/we think the Wikipedia article is correct in  
>>> describing
>>> "ambient authority" primarily as a way of exercising permission (and
>>> therefore authority) rather than primarily as a category of systems.
>>
>> At this step you lost me. To me neither "a way of exercising  
>> permissions"
>> nor "a category of systems" could fit a definition of "xxxxxx  
>> authority".
>
> Well, perhaps the term should have been "ambient permission".
>
> I am skeptical of the value of trying to change it now, though.

I am skeptical about the use of "permission."  I think we should focus  
on what *rights* a person has on a computer system.  I think our  
concepts of permission derive from our families, like "Are we  
permitted to go to the party?"  "Are we permitted to use the car?"   
"Are we permitted to use the computer?"  If there is a mathematical  
description about it, I would feel more comfortable about its use with  
computers.  Permissions are derived from authorities, namely, our  
parents, educators and the government.  How many times do we sneak out  
to go to the party, break laws  such as the speed limit--do things we  
are not permitted to do?  Is something based on permission really  
secure?  The only authority on the computer appears to be the  
operating system.  The definition of operating system seems to be  
things which run in a certain hardware mode.  Permissions in a typical  
ambient authority operating systems appear to be things wielded to get  
the operating system to do something for you.  I have zero experience  
with capability operating systems, but I would hope that permissions  
would be something granted to you by the operating system, like a  
right.  The difference between a right and a permission appear to be  
that your permissions can be revoked or attenuated, whereas rights  
cannot.  Is it true that we have zero rights on computer systems?   
What rights should users have on a computer?  Like:  the right to know  
how their personal information is being used.  Let's focus on what  
rights users have instead of what permissions, and I think we'll come  
up with a better operating system that everyone will want...the wiki  
is on e*rights*.org, right?  Does anyone want to come up with a  
computer bill of rights?

John