From: "Scott V. McGuire" <svmcguir@syr.edu>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 22:27:26 -0800 (PST)
To: <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: Re: Executing Encrypted Code
In-Reply-To: <v03007801aedfc6824d72@[207.167.93.63]>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.961220012542.1038A-100000@homebox>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Thu, 19 Dec 1996, Timothy C. May wrote:

> At 7:34 PM -0800 12/19/96, Peter Hendrickson wrote:
> 
> >You could also timestamp the software so that it only runs for a given
> >length of time.  This will encourage people to upgrade regularly.  ;-)
> 
> Or to reset their clocks. Which is what many of us do when software is
> about to "expire."
> 
> (The issue of enforcing "digital time delays" is an interesting one.
> Usually this necessitates some variant of "beacons," presumably on the Net,
> as the local clock can of course not be trusted or counted upon to be
> accurate. I wrote a couple of articles on this several years ago...I'll see
> if I can find them if there's interest.)
> 
> --Tim May
> 
> Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside"
> We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed.
> ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
> Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
> tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
> W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
> Higher Power: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
> "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
> 
> 
> 

Just off the top of my head, the chips could come connected to a battery
to maintain an internal clock and be configured to stop functioning if it
is ever disconnected.  Since the life expectancy of one generation of a
cpu is so short now, limiting the life of a chip to that of a battery is
not much of a problem.  Also, if these are given away as was suggested,
the fact that a dead battery would kill your computer is no big deal.


<<<< NOTE CHANGE IN WHO'S BEING QUOTED >>>>
On Thu, 19 Dec 1996, Peter Hendrickson Wrote:

>

... stuff deleted ...

> The manufacturer of the encrypted-code processor would protect its
> instruction set using intellectual property law.  Given the high
> price of a fab, it is entirely feasible to stop anybody from building
> a new architecture which can execute the code about as fast as
> the encrypting-code processor.
>

It seems to me that this is where this scheme would be broken.  Have
intellectual property laws been (successfully) used in this way?  And even
if so, would they be enforced in all the countries where the chips might
be fabricated?

>
> Peter Hendrickson
> ph@netcom.com
>

- --------------------
Scott V. McGuire <svmcguir@syr.edu>
PGP key available at http://web.syr.edu/~svmcguir
Key fingerprint = 86 B1 10 3F 4E 48 75 0E  96 9B 1E 52 8B B1 26 05




-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: noconv

iQCVAwUBMro1I97xoXfnt4lpAQHD9gQAo0rwSzXmo8Qu46auFGhcp6RaWDDwxHtS
SZNoy2L3VVVECgNb+wuHSdHlPCdocK/sWzncmg4DSipa81r4cUK/8hIbvEJp+rRz
qS6vs2VpxEMaTLUA+RS82Bc/c99b3AjGtjf55uYdgVIbGfH4Tnqc1yvzDcP03G//
mVVQTga4lHA=
=gXr8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----