Re: PRISM and EME

+1
El 07/06/2013 17:22, "Andreas Kuckartz" <A.Kuckartz@ping.de> escribió:

> I would like to add another reason why the W3C should not endorse EME.
>
> As we all know EME depends on "Content Decryption Modules". These are
> binary executables. The source code of those executables in practice
> will not be made available to users. They can not verify what the
> executables are doing.
>
> It is now known that the U.S. government is involved in large-scale
> surveillance directed against the world population (PRISM). It is also
> widely assumed that this surveillance is supported by two of the three
> companies which are proposing EME (Google and Microsoft). Those
> companies have issued "denials", but the formulations used in these
> denials are very suspicius.
>
> It is also known that the same government has distributed malware (such
> as Stuxnet) to foreign users.
>
> This all taken together implies a significant danger that the CDM
> binaries will not only enable "silent monitoring" (Google Widevine) on
> behalf of media companies but that surveillance malware will be added on
> behalf of the U.S. government. The persons involved likely would be
> gagged by a gag order.
>
> It is unacceptable for an Open Standards body to take part in this by
> endorsing EME.
>
> Cheers,
> Andreas
>
>