- From: Andreas Kuckartz <A.Kuckartz@ping.de>
- Date: 27 Feb 2012 20:10:50 +0100
- To: public-html@w3.org
The nontechnical usage of the term adversary is also correct in multiple ways. For an explanation see for example: Opposing Digital Rights Mismanagement (Or Digital Restrictions Management, as we now call it) by Richard Stallman http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/opposing-drm.en.html "Content protection" might sound better as a propaganda term for this malicious scheme but it means the same thing. It is about a technology which aims at restricting users (such as myself). Cheers, Andreas --- On 27.02.2012 18:17, Clarke Stevens 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. > > -Clarke
Received on Monday, 27 February 2012 19:11:15 UTC