W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2012

Adversaries Re: Open Source implementations Re: Encrypted Media proposal (was RE: ISSUE-179: av_param - Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals)

From: Andreas Kuckartz <A.Kuckartz@ping.de>
Date: 27 Feb 2012 20:10:50 +0100
Message-ID: <4F4BD53A.6090409@ping.de>
To: public-html@w3.org
The nontechnical usage of the term adversary is also correct in multiple

For an explanation see for example:

Opposing Digital Rights Mismanagement
(Or Digital Restrictions Management, as we now call it)
by Richard Stallman

"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).


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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:48 UTC