W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2012

Re: Open Source implementations Re: Encrypted Media proposal (was RE: ISSUE-179: av_param - Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals)

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 09:38:12 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDBi_qWyUsx+r88fzGcoqZOC6t0kXmnD9hAJOEN4iBu+Ww@mail.gmail.com>
To: Clarke Stevens <C.Stevens@cablelabs.com>
Cc: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>, "john@netpurgatory.com" <john@netpurgatory.com>, Andreas Kuckartz <A.Kuckartz@ping.de>, "HTML WG (public-html@w3.org)" <public-html@w3.org>, Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, David Dorwin <ddorwin@google.com>, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Clarke Stevens <C.Stevens@cablelabs.com> wrote:
> I do think the confusion was that the word "adversary" in the technical
> DRM sense is fine, but that usage wasn't clear at first. In the
> nontechnical usage the word is highly prejudicial. I think part of the
> problem may also have been that we were talking about the "user" as an
> adversary rather than the "unauthorized user." This may be semantics, but
> of course we must ensure that the "authorized user" has the necessary
> credentials to remove the encryption.

The authorized user is still an adversary in the technical sense - in
many DRM schemes it is desirable that the authorized user only gain
the ability to view the media, and must not be given access to the
actual data.

~TJ
Received on Monday, 27 February 2012 17:39:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:46 GMT