A NetworkCentric Design for Relationshipbased Rights Management Martin

A Network-Centric Design for Relationship-based Rights Management Martin Röscheisen, Terry Winograd Stanford Digital Library Project Computer Science Department Stanford University Power. Point Template Design: Andreas Paepcke

Overall Objectives l A rights management service layer for the Infobus, that: – Supports a variety of service types – Integrates with Infobus interfaces and functionality l More generally: an open standards rights management framework that unifies rights and privacy management protocols and accommodates: – legacy systems – heterogeneity of trust – spectrum of enforcement options – institutional distribution

A Mismatch in Languages Social/Legal Framework “. . . for US citizens” “Employees…” “contract” “obligation” “owner” “. . . for students” “possessor” ? ? “Web browser’s IP address” ? “Owner of Unix file” Technical Infrastructure

Current Solutions Control Server-based Client-based Third-party Example Systems file systems, HTTP ACLs; security firewalls expiring demo copies; trusted clients [Stefik] Page. Maker license server è Disparate set of protocols (special-purpose, proprietary, …) è More uniformity? Interoperability?

Enforcement Choices l l Not only “technical locks” But also: – – – Police/courts Prevention Fail-safe Monitoring Reputation-based “Panoptic” èProgrammable framework that allows use of most appropriate enforcement?

Overall Approach: Relationship-Centric … rather than content/property-centric l l Support relationship management Realize security, privacy, … as ancillary of it

Commpacts l l Computational relationship objects, “smart contracts” FIRM interface + Code + State + Text Authorization function Get. Description Site License The following parties agree to the conditions t n u o C h rc a e S t Ge Commpact es t 1] igh mise e. R [Pro cis is rom Get. P Exe r Term inate l status: valid count: 4

Managing Commpacts: Network-Centric Architecture Commpacts are l interpreted at “commpact managers” anywhere on the network l managed independently of controlled objects Newsletter Journal Steve’s Pay. Per. Use Tim’s Site License Martin’s Subscription Commpact Manager Article Server Lexicon Book Commpact Manager Web server

E-persons l Current person representations: disparate – e. g. Unix account, browser profiles, LDAP, etc. èHave object that uniformly represents (roles of) persons: “e-person agent” – Users articulate basic preferences e. g. Auto-Accept, Auto-Fulfill – E-person executes FIRM protocol actions Client Get Result Server delegate Tom’s e-person FIRM rights protocol

Towards a Rights Management Service Layer Web browser FIRM-enabled Services FIRM-ready Clients DLITE viewer E-persons Contracts. . . FIRM rights management service layer DLIOP -- items, collections IIOP/CORBA HTTP TCP/IP UPAI -- payment API COM RManage components “Infobus” FIRM: Framework for Interoperable Rights Management RManage: prototype implementation of FIRM

Trust Management l l Architecture accommodates people’s varied trust preferences Examples: – – – Trust every site: èCommpact can be anywhere on network Trust only one’s own server èKeep commpact local [traditional access control] Trust specific third party èHave commpact managed by third party …

Domain Extensibility and Interoperability FIRM: Framework for Interoperable Rights Management Carefully separate generic from specific info: e. g. fact that contracts have rights and obligations vs. right to print at 300 dpi resolution Two-level specification [“like MIME”]: Generic interoperability specification Format for contributing domain-specific “rights vocabularies”