Users and services is NOT drm, was Re: Few comments after reading Wiki

[Ian Stirling]

Attila Csipa wrote:
> On Wednesday 16 May 2007 18:46:03 Ian Stirling wrote:
>> I really think you do.
>> I want to be able to give this phone to my (hypothetical) employees.
>> I do not want skilled lazy, employees able to - for example - edit their
>> GPS logs which corroberate the inspections they are required to do.
>> This is _not_ DRM that stops the owner of the phone doing stuff.
>> It's DRM that stops users of the phone that may or may not be authorised
>> users from doing stuff.
> 

Yes, I should have commented on that. DRM is entirely the wrong phrase.

> I think we have a terminology issue here. How is this thig you call DRM (which 
> it isn't really, since it is not dealing with copyright or authoring issues) 
> different from a properly prepared unix environment, chroot/chmod/chown and 
> all ? 

That's basically all I was aiming at.
Make it as secure as a PC with physical access can be, from the user - 
_NOT_ the owner.

If they are the same, then they have to do a couple of minute process 
once in order to get the key to install custom kernels or bootloaders 
forever.

If FIC completely goes away, or decides to be evil, then the people 
given the private key distribute it, so that anyone can do it.

(If FIC are unconcerned about the warranty returns aspect, then simply 
putting the key in the box along with the neo would work.)