|
1
|
- Edward W. Felten
- Dept. of Computer Science
- Princeton University
- felten@cs.princeton.edu
|
|
2
|
- Device must be a “black box” that user cannot analyze or examine.
- “secure execution environment”
- “appliance”
- “robustness”
- Combination of tech and law makes the box black.
- Device engineered to be “armored”
- Black box design may be mandated by law
- Possibly backed by laws that ban analysis, tinkering, or discussion
|
|
3
|
- Important public policy questions depend on understanding technology.
- Especially true right now for DRM
- Bans on understanding technology cripple the public debate about these
issues.
|
|
4
|
|
|
5
|
- FBI, CIA want to mine commercial databases.
- security vs. privacy tradeoff
- Advocates claim: Don’t worry about abuses by rogue agents; DRM methods
can prevent them.
- Is this true?
- Need to understand black boxes to know!
|
|
6
|
|
|
7
|
- Products claim to block pornographic web sites, without blocking
non-porn content.
- use in schools, libraries, homes?
- Advocates claim: Don’t worry about overblocking; our block-list is
accurate.
- Is this true?
- Need to look inside the black box to know!
|
|
8
|
|
|
9
|
- After Florida 2000, push toward computerized voting machines.
- Convenience and speed vs. risk of fraud
- Advocates claim: Don’t worry about tampering; DRM methods can prevent
it.
- Is this true?
- Need to understand black boxes to know!
|
|
10
|
- Edward W. Felten
- Dept. of Computer Science
- Princeton University
- felten@cs.princeton.edu
|