• From: David Brownell <david-b@p...>
• To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>, jim@a...,xml-dev@l...
• Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 11:46:44 -0700

> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/22404.html

The disinformation there bothers me:  alleging that systems
should be "open except as required for security".  That's
more typically called "security through obscurity", and
is widely known to be a flawed approach to security.

In fact, since patenting requires open disclosure, it's clear
that there are other agendas getting marketed there.
The issue is more likely Freedom vs Control, rather
than Openness vs Security.  Of course as soon as
anyone can be seen to be arguing that media industries
don't have enough control, non-technical issues justly
come back to the forefront ... :)


>        Is DRM a  low-level technology (I would think so)
> or is it high level?

Yes to both.  It's not one technology so much as a framework,
with both low level (secure key storage) and high level (UIs
in the broadest senses, access control policy) components.

- Dave

• References:
  • RE: More patent funnies!
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

• Prev by Date: To continue parsing after a fatal error.
• Next by Date: RE: More patent funnies!
• Previous by thread: RE: More patent funnies!
• Next by thread: RE: More patent funnies!
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread