- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 09:38:12 -0800
- 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 UTC