W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-admin@w3.org > December 2013

Re: Call for support for 'citizens to fight back against online censorship and surveillance' and to have a vote on the 'web we want'

From: Casey Callaghan <caseyc37@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 06:01:17 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHoGenMq-r9ovGptvBqy3z4Qz6+Aj0qVzbQNmrEdow2neecBWQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Cc: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Fred Andrews <fredandw@live.com>, "public-html-admin@w3.org" <public-html-admin@w3.org>, "timbl@w3.org" <timbl@w3.org>
On 17 December 2013 21:46, Leif Halvard Silli
<xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> wrote:
> Casey Callaghan, Tue, 17 Dec 2013 06:43:29 +0200:
>
>> DRM […]
>
>> There are two ways, as far as I can see, in which this can be
>> implemented. The first is control; the DRM technology can attempt to
>> take control of the computer … example [ …] the Sony rootkit.
>
> That is: (Rather) Unintelligent “traps” that “jumps to conclusions”
> (e.g. after having counted the number of viewings etc) by technically
> blocking something for the users whenever the trap detects some
> behavior(s), but without "phoning home" about it.

Exactly, yes.

>> The second possible approach is, yes, surveillance; the seller ensures
>> that they know about any uses of the media, and can identify illegal
>> ones or duplicate registrations and take relevant steps. Any system
>> that involves registration of the media on some server, or media that
>> can only be consumed by visiting some website, falls under this
>> approach.
>
> It strikes me that for on-demand services (which thus requires log-in
> etc), the provider would get this information anyhow. Or why would
> ”phoning home DRM”, in this case, still be an issue?

That looks right to me; on-demand services come with built-in surveillance.

> --
> leif halvard silli






On 17 December 2013 21:48, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote:
>
> On Dec 16, 2013, at 20:43 , Casey Callaghan <caseyc37@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> If the spooks wanted to install software on lots of computers

Ah, I think I understand the misunderstanding now. Am I correct in
saying that you understand surveillance to mean specifically
surveillance done by some intelligence agency, with the explicit
intent of building up a dossier of all information on a specific
person?

I will agree that that narrow category of surveillance is a different
thing to DRM. The surveillance that comes with some types of DRM is
the watching of the users of a specific piece or pieces of media,
within the narrow confines of observing how that media is used, with
the intention of taking action if it is used in an unapproved manner.
It is still surveillance, in the sense that it consists of close
observation of an individual or group; but it is surveillance done by
a media company instead of an intelligence agency, and it only covers
certain activities.

>> Is there some approach to DRM that I am missing, some way to handle it
>> that does not fall under either Control or Surveillance?
>
> Yes.

Perhaps I am missing something obvious, but I fail to see how that can
work. If the DRM software does not exert control of some kind (at
least to the limited extent of preventing copying and pasting), and
does not report back to the media owner on the use of the media, then
how can it prevent illegal use of the media in question?

Casey
Received on Wednesday, 18 December 2013 04:03:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:37:35 UTC