That's a great point - I was envisioning a scenario in which end users are to be (mostly) trusted not to take efforts to re-distribute the data. <br><div><br><div>John</div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 2:42 AM, Niccolo Rigacci <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:niccolo@rigacci.org">niccolo@rigacci.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class="im">On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 08:53:50PM -0400, John Patterson wrote:<br>
><br>
> I'd say that encryption is the answer here - hang the security on the key<br>
> rather than the code.<br>
<br>
</div>I think that this is not the case depicted by Giovanni; if I<br>
understand well he wants to prevent the letitimate user (which<br>
receives the datasets) from using them freely.<br>
<br>
This is a sort of tivoization [1] on software + data.<br>
<br>
Encryption prevents the use of data only from the non-legitimate<br>
users.<br>
<br>
[1] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization</a><br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
--<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="h5">Niccolo Rigacci<br>
Firenze - Italy<br>
Tel. ufficio: 055-0118525<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>