| 1 |
On Tuesday, November 22, 2005 15:15, Dan Noe wrote: |
| 2 |
> This would enable enhanced |
| 3 |
> virus/malware protection, because the evil code wouldn't be signed by a |
| 4 |
> trusted party. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> I don't know much about the technology at this point, but like many |
| 7 |
> things just because it /can/ be abused doesn't mean it is per se a bad |
| 8 |
> idea. It can be used to make computing safer, especially in an open |
| 9 |
> source environment where the uses are freely criticized |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
I agree with the above. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
I will never tolerate the use of digital restrictions management technology if |
| 14 |
it is required by a third party, however if I wish to use certain aspects of |
| 15 |
trusted computing for my own purposes, I welcome the kernel's support of that |
| 16 |
technology. Dubious uses of the technology are to be expected by corporations |
| 17 |
such as Microsoft, but I believe that it can also be very valuable for |
| 18 |
legitimate implementations. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
Anthony Gorecki |
| 23 |
Ectro-Linux Foundation |
Archives