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.

Received on Monday, 27 February 2012 17:39:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:20 UTC