Re: "Enclosed shops" Re: HTML5 and DRM - A Middle Path?

On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 9:51 AM, Andreas Kuckartz <a.kuckartz@ping.de>wrote:

> Mark Watson:
> >> You probably meant to write this:
> >>
> >> Enclosed shops which are operated in the homes of the customers and
> >> might be watching and listening to them on behalf of companies and/or
> >> secret agencies (again: Google Widevine is promoting "silent
> monitoring").
> >
> > You've mentioned this and other similar things a few times and I've
> > explained how the EME approach is an improvement for users in this
> > respect.
> >
> > If a browser integrates a specific CDM, what makes you think that they
> > will pay less attention to user security and privacy with respect to
> > that part of the browser compared to the attention they pay to the
> > rest of the browser ?
>
> That is a question which I consider to be irrelevant in this context.
> Especially while the U.S. government claims the right to issue "National
> Security Letters" with gag orders and is using that alleged right for
> criminal purposes against the world population.
>
> The W3C should not in any way participate in this, stop the work on EME
> and publicly denounce DRM.
>

I'm confused why you think this has anything to do with EME. 


>
> Would Netflix inform the public or shut down its operations when it
> receives a secret order to participate in surveillance by using a
> backdoor contained in a CDM which is already installed on a users
> computer? (After the shutdown of lavabit.com this unfortunately is not a
> rhetorical question.)
>

That question is somewhat above my pay grade, but my point is that it is
no more likely that a browser-integrated CDM contains such a back door than
that the browser itself contains the same thing. And equally, it is no more
likely that an OS-integrated CDM contains such a back door than the OS
itself contains it. So, EME and DRM are completely irrelevant to your
concerns.

...Mark



>
> Cheers,
> Andreas
>