On 16/05/14 05:56, Eelis wrote: > On 2014-05-15 21:54, Scott Ferguson wrote: >> On 16/05/14 05:41, Eelis wrote: >>> On 2014-05-15 21:36, Scott Ferguson wrote: >>>> On 16/05/14 05:20, Eelis wrote: >>>>>>>> Because there are no restrictions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No restrictions? >>>>>> >>>>>> That's correct. It's a sandbox. The sandbox restricts the close >>>>>> plugin. *You* are only restricted in how you can *playback* media >>>>>> encrypted by the plugin. *If* you choose to install it (and why >>>>>> would you?). >>>>> >>>>> The article talks about "preventing users from saving the content". >>>>> That's content that the closed-source CDM plugin decrypted and passed >>>>> on to Firefox, isn't it? >>>> >>>> Yes. >>>> (sigh, it's 5:30am here, I'm tired) >>>> Perhaps the article and I haven't been clear - the sandbox is the big >>>> change. In itself all it does is restrict the plugin (protect *your* >>>> privacy from the closed source plugin). >>> >>> If the restrictions in the sandbox are for restricting the plugin, then >>> why would Adobe need to audit the sandbox source code to make sure >>> restrictions imposed on users are respected? >>> >> Huh? You know you answered your own question (well done!) >> "to make sure restrictions imposed on users are respected" >> >> To make sure we haven't modified the sandbox and t-ed the stream off to >> PirateBay where the companies lawyers make mountains out of molehills >> counting views as missed purchases. > > Ah good, then we now at least agree that there are restrictions in the > sandbox for restricting users.
No. Wrong again. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53751db6.7060...@gmail.com
