Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Intel Your Rights Online

LaGrande, TCPA, and Palladium 343

Posted by michael from the ties-that-bind dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Intel's Paul Otellini gave a talk to developers where Intel's project called "LaGrande" was mentioned. This project is aimed to create a "safer computer environment", that would consist of an advanced TCPA implementation. Some of the features it has deal with physically "protected execution, protected memory, and protected storage". When talking on LaGrande, Otellini said "it's a core technology that things like the Microsoft Palladium initiative can take advantage of to build much more stable platforms.""
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

LaGrande, TCPA, and Palladium More

LaGrande, TCPA, and Palladium

Comments Filter:

  • The scariest part (Score:5, Insightful)

    by darkpenguin ( 442917 ) on Saturday November 02, 2002 @05:27PM (#4585196)
    However the most negative single feature of TCPA and Palladium is the nature of Palladium and the philosophy that has driven Microsoft's development and promotion of Palladium. I think this is probably the scariest part of the whole deal. They recognize what could happen but they press forward regardless.
    • IMHO, the philosophy (and the reason for it) is the scariest part. In that regard, I strongly agree with you. It's just sad for me that a business this large seems to be required (by the people) to tell people what they should think.
      Not that this says anything great about American consumerism either; it simply says a lot about the mores of American consumerism. MS is not stupid; they are in business to make $$$ and those (economic) values will eventually clash with the moral values of their public as a whole. Other than that, what distinguishes this effort from earlier infosec security projects?

      (insert instant slashdot classic here)

      (think Honeywell/Orange Book) in the light of "security projects", even though the respective documents are long out of date they possibly speak volumes about the current expectations regarding information security per se.

      The part about MS that truly scares me is that they seem to be willing *and able* to twist things for mass-market consumption in the name of "security".... [1] [2]

      [1] and still sleep at night, regardless of the seeming fact that their motives could be driven more by internal American business needs than anything else.

      [2] Not that many ppl will take the trouble to d/l and read/understand copy of www.radium.ncsc.mil/pep/library/rainbow/5200.28-ST D.html

  • The sad thing is.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ezekiel Zachariah ( 615718 ) on Saturday November 02, 2002 @05:28PM (#4585200) Homepage
    Most people who hear about these projects don't really understand how little control or privacy these projects will leave us. As far as stable, thats just funny...These projects will not give us more stable software, just buggy software that will let us do less. Next they will be telling us about CPUs and HDs that require MS to work correctly. and I have the first coherent post on this subject :)

    • Re:The sad thing is.... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by shoppa ( 464619 ) on Saturday November 02, 2002 @05:33PM (#4585222)
      These projects will not give us more stable software, just buggy software that will let us do less.

      That's the beauty of the thing. They add complexity, but the slightest bug in the complex software will probably be exploitable to make encrypted data available to "normal" (e.g. non-approved-by-the-Intel-Microsoft-hegemony) programs.

      Just like growing the government has historically added more layers of beauracracy, making the people safer from the more-massive-and-slower-moving government.

      • Re:The sad thing is.... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by jbolden ( 176878 ) on Saturday November 02, 2002 @05:41PM (#4585249) Homepage
        I doubt it. In non protected mode you won't be able to decrypt the files. In protected mode the "exploiting program" will be running in a sandbox. One of the fundamentals of capacity systems (which is where the ideas behind palladium came from) "if programs can communicate they can collude".
        • because we all know the algorithm for discovering the private keys won't be cracked within a year...

          With that many eyes really wanting to break your encryption (basically everyone who can break encryption in the entire world) you stand no chance. I wouldn't doubt MS choses some retarded block style assignemnt method that allows you to throw out 90% of the private keys before you even begin to brute force.

      • They add complexity, but the slightest bug in the complex software will probably be exploitable to make encrypted data available to "normal" (e.g. non-approved-by-the-Intel-Microsoft-hegemony) programs.

        Bugs in software cannot lead to protected data being divulged. The encryption key management and encryption routines themselves are implemented in hardware. The software portion of Palladium is actually pretty small, and Microsoft plans on releasing that code for public review.

        And no programs are approved by Microsoft or Intel- Palladium amounts to an API that is available for ANY developer to use without any need to certify or register that software with anybody.
    • Next they will be telling us about CPUs and HDs that require MS to work correctly.

      Sure, and I bet you'll be telling us about modem that need MS too... Oh wait, that really happened...
      • There are zero modems that require MS.
        However, There are modems that require a software driver, but thats far from requiring MS.
        All you need to do is make a driver for whatever platform you want, and it works fine.

        Getting way off topic here, but couldnt you use something like how mplayer loads windows codecs?
        There are existing softmodem drivers, So it could be done. You'd just have to wrap the calls right, and I think its possible to make a universal softmodem-driver-loader.

    • What the hell, I'll ask you, too: Name one privacy or control that you will lose with this. Just one.

      Hint: you will be able to turn it off, since it would break backward compatibility if you couldn't.

      • In terms of usage:

        1) Fair usage writes on media
        2) The right to copy and email many types of files on my own system
        3) The right to use international software without in running in a virtual environment (i.e. international software is unlikely to get certified)

        In terms of privacy
        Most content on my system will be registered to my name.

        • Re:The sad thing is.... (Score:5, Interesting)

          by cheezedawg ( 413482 ) on Saturday November 02, 2002 @06:30PM (#4585427) Journal
          1) Fair usage writes on media

          - The media that will most likely be restricted is media that is not available at all right now (legally) because the media producers fear piracy. Fair usage is a pretty muddy area, anyway.

          2) The right to copy and email many types of files on my own system

          - In general, you do not lose this "right". The cases where you do lose it, it is not legal to copy the file anyway.

          3) The right to use international software without running it in a virtual environment (i.e. international software is unlikely to get certified)

          - Certified by who? The user still decides what software is trusted or not.

          About privacy:

          Each palladium system has a unique 2048 bit public/private key pair. However, the public key is protected by hardware and cannot be tracked by a third party because of a system of nonces (outside parties will never see the same public key twice for the same system). Therefore, privacy is maintained.
          • DVDs and CDs exist today. What the entertainment business produces they do sell today in usable formats. There are certain other things like the video versions of their songs that they could release but pretty much they sell their products. I don't know what products they aren't releasing that they could be.

            As for copy files on my machine. Any doc I have I can copy and distribute. There may be civil penalties for doing so if I cause economic harm. That is far more free then a situation where I am criminally liable even if I am succesful in distributing something and these somethings which prohibit distribution aren't neccesarily things that would cause economic harm.

            Finally the user does not decide what software is trusted. If they did they could run a debugger and get the keys that are being used by the programs running.

          • Re:The sad thing is.... (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Alsee ( 515537 ) on Saturday November 02, 2002 @10:56PM (#4586312) Homepage
            The media that will most likely be restricted is media that is not available at all right now (legally) because the media producers fear piracy.

            In a computer EVERYTHING is data. Media=content=data. Programs themselves can be locked inside the palladium system, as can the entire operating system, or websites. Anything and everything on a computer can be locked behind the Palladium wall, and all it takes is someone at a company to say "Heay, if we use Palladium on [something/everything] it then we could [do whatever]".

            Do you have any doubt that patches are going to be wrapped in Palladium "for your own protection"? Do doubt that websites that require Palladium will be as common as websites require cookies or require javascript?

            Fair usage is a pretty muddy area, anyway.

            The outter boundries of fair use are not well defined, but large areas are crystal clear. Courts have clearly and consistantly stated a wide varietey things are fair use, and that fair use is an ABSOLUTE exemption from copyright protection. You can't casually dissmiss fair use merely because there exist some areas that are unclear.

            >The right to copy and email many types of files on my own system
            - In general, you do not lose this "right".

            Unless the application goes out of it's way to enable you to move a file, you lose this right for every file within Palladium.

            The cases where you do lose it, it is not legal to copy the file anyway.

            Bullshit. (Pardon my french) Not every instance of moving a file is a violation of copyright law, and files inside Palladium are not necessarily covered by copyright protection. As I said before, anything and everything can and will end up inside Palladium. It's quite possible wind up with content to which YOU ARE THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER to be locked up on your machine, unable to move them.

            The user still decides what software is trusted or not.

            Then you do not understand Palladium at all. Trustworthy computing has ZERO to do with you trusting your machine or you trusting/not-trusting programs. YOU DO NOT GET TO DECIDE WHAT IS TRUSTED. Palladium is all about corporations not trusting YOU. THEY get to decide weather they trust your hardware. THEY get to decide weather they trust your operating system. THEY get to decide weather they trust your program. THEY get to decide weather they trust your data.

            privacy is maintained

            IF and ONLY IF the program chooses to do so. Palladium makes it trivial for programs to track you uniquely if they choose to, and companies are already trying to do this almost every chance they get.

            -

      • Re:The sad thing is.... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ealar dlanvuli ( 523604 ) <froggie6@mchsi.com> on Saturday November 02, 2002 @06:13PM (#4585370) Homepage
        and what happens when you can no longer turn it off?

        (the first shot is always free...)

      • Re:The sad thing is.... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 02, 2002 @06:15PM (#4585374)
        Microsoft is a monopoly. "Trusted Office" will not run with Palladium disabled. "Trusted Mediaplayer" will not run with Palladium disabled. Same for Trusted Outlook Express, Trusted Internet Explorer, Trusted Windows, Trusted whatever. You may still be able to turn your computer physically on without enabling Palladium, but you will quickly find it is no more than a paperweight unless you enable Palladium.

        As for Linux, I wouldn't count on being able to run it in the future if Palladium continues unchecked. M$ wants a 'trusted path' to the keyboard and to the mouse - and presumably to the network too. Linux may very well lose the ability to access those devices (either through technical or through legal means), making it 100% useless.

        As for the notion that M$ would NOT abuse their monopoly powers, well I wouldn't count on that...

      • > Hint: you will be able to turn it off,

        Really ? You seem to trust MS/Intel a lot more than I do.

        > since it would break backward compatibility if you couldn't.

        Just like MS worries so much about MS Office 11 being backwards-compatible to Windows before 2K? [com.com]

        And don't forget to ask a few bitter Visual Basic programmers about having to re-write the vast portion of their code to move it to dot-NET.
    • I think the sad thing is how much FUD there is about these technologies. Palladium, LaGrande, TCPA, and the like are NOT limiting technologies. All software that runs on non-Palladium systems will run on Palladium enabled hardware (like Intel's LaGrande). These technologies give developers more tools to protect data (something that is impossible without hardware support).

      how little control or privacy these projects will leave us

      The control still remains with the end user. By design, the user determines what is trusted and what is not trusted. And privacy is always protected, and that protection is backed by hardware.

      These projects will not give us more stable software, just buggy software that will let us do less

      I'm not sure where you are coming with that. Palladium will make it easier to develop secure applications- reduced complexity correlates directly with reduced bugs.

      Basically, Palladium sets out to solve the problem of protecting mobile code from a malicious host (that is, it protects software from software). Without hardware support, developers must rely on obfuscation or tamper-resistant code to completely protect their code and data (something which is provably impossible [weizmann.ac.il] to do, btw).
    • Most people who hear about these projects don't really understand how little control or privacy these projects will leave us.

      Actually I don't see any problem with what Intel is doing. If you are using software that you trust has your interests at heart (for me that is Linux) then you don't have to worry that your software is going to limmit you. However, if you do not trust your software or the provider of that software, then WHY ARE YOU STILL USING IT? If you give money or use software from people who you think are out to cheat you then you only have yourself to blame when it happens. Intel is adding features to thier hardware that could be used for good or bad but I only intend running software that will only utilize these features to my benefit.

  • Safer from what? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by phreak03 ( 621876 )
    A world withought hackers, were the only people who can allow software to be installed on your computer is the nice folks at Microsoft and intel, wait did i forget myself in that list? this is a joke all it will be is Microsoft schemeing to prevent "fair use", open source, and easy government computer spying and restrictions is all that palidinium will be used for. Sounds like the future of the wounderfull digital restrction management is comeing.
    • And I wonder how long it's going to be until MCSEs or other equally annoying "Microsoft Certified" mouse operators gain special codes or smartcards that only allows them to do windows installations and whatnot...
  • Greed is what drives the stock Market Greed is what drives Microsoft Make a protest outside a stock exchange. Investors won't be convinced to dump stock due to ethical concens. They'll dump stock because they fear others will do it first. Then buy the stock once it hits low price. And behold--> Gnu/Windows

  • Money talks (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dcavanaugh ( 248349 ) on Saturday November 02, 2002 @05:31PM (#4585216) Homepage
    When the "LaGrande" and "Palladium" systems turn into unwanted dumpster filler, the tech industry will remember this lesson for a l-o-n-g time.

    • Re:Money talks (Score:2, Insightful)

      by raiyu ( 573147 )
      Thats assuming there is anything else to replace them. If there is another suitable technology which doesnt openly embrace curtailing users right, you are definitely right, but when even AMD agrees, you really arent given much choice in the matter.

      You think you have all of the power, but dont forget that if AMD, Intel, and Microsoft finally get in the same boat, it really wont matter how much you boycott their products, because the reality is, you wont be left with an alternative. Lets see you run the latest and greatest games 2-3 years down the line on your XP or P4.

      • Re:Money talks (Score:3, Informative)

        by user no. 590291 ( 590291 )
        One word: Apple.

      • Re:Money talks (Score:5, Insightful)

        by damiam ( 409504 ) on Saturday November 02, 2002 @05:38PM (#4585240)
        If there is another suitable technology which doesnt openly embrace curtailing users right

        There is [apple.com].

      • Alternatives? No problem. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by dcavanaugh ( 248349 ) on Saturday November 02, 2002 @06:02PM (#4585330) Homepage
        Alternatives include VIA, with their Cyrix chips, as well as the Apple option. You might even see Sun pushing low-end SPARC/Linux systems if they detect a major faux pas by Intel/AMD/M$.

        And then there is the biggest alternative of all: Keeping what I already have. Once investors perceive that Intel/AMD/M$ are losing sales because customers are postponing upgrades, heads will roll.
        • You have to remember that DRM parts of the chip can be shut off. So an "alternative" would be to get the latest chip and then use it with DRM off. But the music and gaming industries will simply write code that can only be executed with Palladium installed and on (unless you crack it, which could be tough). Where are the alternatives then? If all you want to do is program, surf, do art, write, and use "existing" stuff, there are plenty. But if you want to play games, watch movies, and listen to music, you'll have to use Palladium.

          For this reason, I agree that we should not buy the systems when they come out, hoping that lower sales will convince them to call off the project. But I don't think it will work.
      • I was typing a report on my PC when it crashed on me. I had saved it to a floppy so I tried using my kids PC to print it. When I tried to print it I got a Pirate violation and was told I was being illegal.

        The guy at the store said "oh that's just the new controls in MS to stop piracy", he couldn't explain why it would stop me from editing my own documents though.

        I went out and got a Mac the next day, it allows me to open any document I want, and there are no messages accusing me of being a criminal! I look in pain as I see people being called criminals on their new "production stoper" machines, but I get all my documents done with no problems.

        My name is sean fritz, and I'm a software engineer.

  • Real Life (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Trusty Penfold ( 615679 ) <jon_edwards@spanners4us.com> on Saturday November 02, 2002 @05:32PM (#4585220) Journal
    Palladium/DRM/et.al. should work just like real life - you should be able to select the level of risk.

    For example, in real life, I own a small sexy sportscar. I can go very fast in it if I choose to, unfortunately it also catches Mr.Policeman's eye, so the risk of being caught going very quickly is rather high.

    In the palladium world, there should be a set of radio buttons which you select from at installation :-

    O Let me access everything
    O Let me access some copied stuff, but not the really bad things
    O Lock me down - protect me from myself.

    The option you choose must be available to the RIAA, MPAA, PETA, etc.

    So, you have the oppourtunity to break laws, EULAs, licence agreements, etc. but if you choose this option your chances of getting caught are higher.

    • Re:Real Life (Score:4, Insightful)

      by jodo ( 209027 ) on Saturday November 02, 2002 @05:43PM (#4585260)
      "The option you choose must be available to the RIAA, MPAA, PETA, etc."

      Are you being facetious? Or do you literally mean that private trade & political organizations will FOLLOW my movements? Like a stalker.
      That's almost as it would be if law enforcement could secretly look and see what books I'm reading at the library. A free society would never allow that would they.
      Oh, wait...
    • For example, in real life, I own a small sexy sportscar. I can go very fast in it if I choose to, unfortunately it also catches Mr.Policeman's eye, so the risk of being caught going very quickly is rather high.

      Well, if your small sexy sports-car is one of the latest Porsche 911's or a McLaren (both 200+mph), there's a fat chance in hell that a cop-car could catch you, even with nitro-boosters.
      • perhaps, but you might find one of his buddies sitting across your driveway when you get home... 200+ mph doesn't even come close to 300 kiloklicks per sec... :)

        -Rusty
    • Do you seriously believe the software will come with a checkmark that says "let me copy the movies and music this plays" with a warning that it is against the law?

      They think they have a scheme by which the software will be locked to only do the one thing they want with the data. There will certainly be no "option" to turn it off!

      The sad part is that this will do absolutely nothing to stop piracy. Piracy will be greater because the pirated copy is more valuable (same thing happens when software companies try harder to copy-protect their software). People will always have older machines or will videotape from the screen.

      But this will make any competition with MicroSoft absolutely *impossible*. This is because only MicroSoft software will be capable of reading the vast majority of data out there, and it is likely that only MicroSoft software will be able to talk to most new devices.

      Once they have eliminated all remaining competition by making it impossible for it to interoperate, they might actually stop piracy. This will be done by making recording devices illegal. This is done by making the new secure system only play signed recordings. Conviently this shuts up all music/movie/entertainment makers who are not signed, and also stops all public discourse. You will require a license to make a web page.

      This is going to happen. And when it does, you can hang your head in shame for your pathetic attempts to say it is ok.

  • Lemons -> Lemonade (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Meat Blaster ( 578650 ) on Saturday November 02, 2002 @05:36PM (#4585231)
    Is there anything in LaGrande that could be implemented to strengthen the security of a Linux system (i.e. practical uses in addition to whimsical restrictions of what I may do with the hardware I purchase?)

  • Wonderful, more laws. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by LaserBeams ( 412546 ) on Saturday November 02, 2002 @05:42PM (#4585257)
    So many people complain that there are too many laws out there (at least in America) trying to protect stupid people from themselves.

    Now they're trying to stick this idea at the core of our computers?

    I trust my humble non-Palladium Windows box just fine, thank you very much. Someone's going to end up getting screwed bigtime, but I think it's too hard to tell at the moment who exactly that will be. And unfortunatley, the result seems to be dependent on the intelligence of the majority of computer users.

    I don't want to jynx it though.
    • I trust my humble non-Palladium Windows box just fine

      You fell victim to the Microsoft Marketing disinformation that Palladium is supposed to be good for you. It has zero to do with you trusting your computer. It is 100% about weather companies trust your computer and your programs. It is about your computer not trusting you.

      To avoid technical details, think about this:
      Palladium provides strong DRM. Who is it that is trusting the DRM? You, or a corporation?

      -
  • now - with paladium - it's getting interesting: the discussion
    is no longer about "is your OS supporting M$ office?", it's
    going to be about freedom. Sure, many people will miss the
    point until they lost most of their freedom, but that's it.

    I would bet, that in the long run (>5 years) freedom
    will benefit from this paladium stuff.

    some times it has got get worse, before it will get better.

  • Great Name... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Ira-Waru ( 123421 ) on Saturday November 02, 2002 @05:56PM (#4585302) Homepage
    In the classic LucasArts adventure game Monkey Island 2, there is a character called Largo LeGrande. When we first meet him, IIRC, he tells Guybrush (the protangonist) that this island isn't safe, and then procedes to turn him upside down and shake all the money out of his pockets. Also, he has an oppressive embargo on the whole island (The Largo Embargo).

    Couldn't think of a better name, myself. :)
    • It's actually named after a town in Oregon. Intel, being based in Oregon tends to name many of their projects after places in Oregon: Tualatin, Willamette, Yamhill, and LaGrande are ones I can think of off the top of my head.

  • Love ya Billy! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Spackler ( 223562 ) on Saturday November 02, 2002 @06:00PM (#4585317) Journal
    Bill Gates is my hero!

    1. Create an insecure operating system

    2. Profit

    3. Blame computers for your insecurity

    4. Profit

    5. Get hardware vendors to make changes to compensate for YOUR buggy software

    6. Profit

    7. Prevent any software except yours from running securely

    8. Profit (by others demise)

    9. Take away everyones choice.
    10 Profit

    11. Blame the computers some more, as you take away more freedom

    12. Profit. Profit. Profit.

    When there is a wolf guarding the hen hose, why on earth would I need the shotgun named Linux?

  • Useful services, devil is in the details (Score:5, Interesting)

    by astrashe ( 7452 ) on Saturday November 02, 2002 @06:00PM (#4585318) Journal
    I was as afraid of palladium as the next guy before the details started to come out, but I think we ought to try to avoid the knee jerk reaction and think this stuff through more carefully.

    A lot of people are opposed to any scheme that can be used to thwart piracy. But in my view that's an extreme and unreasonable position, even when fair use issues are taken into account.

    For a long time it's seemed to me that the thing we ought to be working towards is an open system of distribution, one that can't be dominated by large media concerns, something that gives a guy who makes music at home the same sort of access to the market as the big record labels.

    To me, the issue is not whether or not my computer is capable of running some sort of protected DRM system -- the issue is whether or not it's capable of running alternative systems, if the existence of a palladium aware media player will break my mp3, ogg, and divx players, or my entire open source operating system. As I read these proposals, that's not the case, they won't break things.

    Microsoft has said explicitly that one of the key design goals of palladium was that it shouldn't break existing software.

    In my view, these sorts of services are useful, and we ought to be talking more about "how" then "if" they are implemented.

    In particular, we ought to be sure that software that will run under linux can provide the same sorts of services as a palladium enabled version of windows. I know that the applications themselves couldn't be truly open source (or at least you'd have to use a signed snapshot of an application that was developed using open source methodologies). But I don't think that's enough of a reason to pull back from this stuff.

    There are useful applications for this stuff.

    About a decade ago, one of the hot topics among crypto types was digicash -- cryptographic protocols invented by a guy named Chaum that try to mimic cash, especially its anonymity and security.

    One of the big problems was how to make microtransactions work when you're disconnected from the net. Imagine two palm os devices doing a transaction over infrared. Chaum's answer was to use tamper proof chips.

    Sure, on some level nothing is tamper proof, but it ought to be possible to make tampering difficult enough, expensive enough, and to cap the size of the transactions possible and the rate at which they can be made, in a way that would give people reasonable security. The NSA could hack the micropayment system, but they'd have to spend a million bucks, and all they could get back would be $50, or something like that.

    It seems to me that this kind of hardware could be seen as a more flexible kind of tamper proof chip.

    I think the goal should be that whatever hardware comes out should work with arbitrary operating systems. The trust chain should be decentralized.

    In other words, if I develop an electronic music distribution system, I should be able to develop apps for whatever OSs I choose to support, and I should be able to make my system recognize whatever signatures I feel are trusthworsthy. It ought to be possible for *anyone* to develop such a system, and to use the hooks into the hardware.

    The thing that worries me is that if all we say is "no, palladium is the devil" we won't have any voice in this stuff.

    • Firstly, I like you post.

      Secondly, although an individual system can choose not to use Palladium, how difficult is it to do so? What's the social weight against using something else? Can anyone tell me what I'm going to face if I choose to continue using Linux?

    • Re:Useful services, devil is in the details (Score:4, Insightful)

      by TRACK-YOUR-POSITION ( 553878 ) on Saturday November 02, 2002 @07:17PM (#4585589)
      I agree good things can come from some DRM-type solutions in theory--the problem is that outside of theory the asymmetries of the marketplace mess everything up.

      Theoretically, if anyone doesn't like this-or-that DRM enabled feature of a product, they just shouldn't buy the product. But there's a flaw in this reasoning--just as everyone here who screams bloody murder about TCPA is probably going to have to buy a TCPA computer at some point (because that's the only kind they'll sell). Large well-organized corporations simply have vastly more negotiating power than individual consumers in deciding these sorts of things. You deciding not to buy the latest songs from the record companies doesn't phase them, but if large corporations decide not to sell products with feature X, then you'll just do without feature X, period.

      Which means, left to its own ends, the marketplace will encourage software/hardware suppliers to set anti-fair use restrictions once DRM is common. Basically they'll turn their paper EULAs into draconian DRM restrictions.

      Now, one can get on a high horse and just say "well I'll just run Linux and not purchase DRM content and never have to put up with any of that!" Yeah, we'll see how long that makes sense once all music, all movies, and many e-mails require Palladium. Most people use computers for communication--so if they refuse to buy the kind of computer that allows them to send and receive information from the kinds of computers other people buy, then your computer is going to become very useless. Palladium has far more potential to make this a reality than Microsoft Office file formats or Internet Explorer ever could. Remember, in a world of network effects, you're only as free as your neighbor.

      So, while it may be true (if we're lucky) that TCPA can be used from any OS (though as you say, applications and content would need to be re-written to support it), from a utilitarian view things are going to start sucking for ordinary users unless one of two things takes place:

      1. The government or some other entity outside the marketplace has veto power over allowable DRM policies, and uses it liberally.

      2. We can encourage all consumers to say "palladium is the devil!", because even with the advantages you describe, it would still be a very bad thing from the users point of view.

    • You have obviously never been denied entry to a site because you are not using IE. What happens when you become a second class citizen on the net - because your machine is not TCPA enabled? The Open source development model that you describe is all well and good but what happens when I want to recompile my kernel? How is that possibly going to be compatible with a palladium like service? But I don't think that's enough of a reason to pull back from this stuff. If you break your own spine, you will probably never walk again, but don't let that knowledge cause you to 'pull back from this stuff'!

  • Its a damn good thing .... (Score:5, Funny)

    by bizitch ( 546406 ) on Saturday November 02, 2002 @06:01PM (#4585324) Homepage
    for Intel and M$ that nobody has claimed the intelectual property rights on idiocy (yet).

  • Appropriate.. (Score:3, Funny)

    by kampit ( 48398 ) on Saturday November 02, 2002 @06:03PM (#4585334)
    LaGrande eh, named after Largo LaGrande from Monkey Island II no doubt, he's the guy who steals all of Guybrush Threepwoods money.

    • Re:Appropriate.. (Score:3, Informative)

      by Tony ( 765 )
      No, it's named for the city of La Grande, in the northeaast corner of Oregon. Intel codenames its processors after Oregon locations (such as Klamath).

      La Grande itself is a relatively pleasant community, in spite of my ex-wife making it her home.
  • Check out IBM's new ThinkPad notebooks [ibm.com], "now with better 'security'"!
    I saw an ad on TV for one of those. Kinda made me cringe. I'm curious as to what kind of TCPA stuff it's got.

  • I see it as good. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Richard_at_work ( 517087 ) on Saturday November 02, 2002 @07:12PM (#4585579)
    Im actually looking forward to TCPA and Palladium. No, really i am. It will lighten the load of my job, being a support engineer.

    What im saying of course is it will have its place, on the business desktop, on the childs computer, on public accessable computers etc etc. They have already stated that there will be a option to turn it off, and to be honest all of those who say "Well yes, but what about when they remove that option?" are just scaramongering. Yes true they can remove it in the future, but will it be that easy? I dont think so, there will be too a big outcry, and there will still be large numbers of eastern computer manufacturers making PCs as we know them now.

    As i said at the beginning of my post, i am looking forward to this. Especially if systems administrators will be able to control it (and i bet they will be able to), as this creates a whole new set of security barriers to wouldbe theives etc. Imagine what the outcries were like when the first user account was created on an OS which didnt have full rights to all the system. This is jsut the same.
    • They have already stated that there will be a option to turn it off, and to be honest all of those who say "Well yes, but what about when they remove that option?" are just scaramongering. Yes true they can remove it in the future, but will it be that easy? I dont think so, there will be too a big outcry, and there will still be large numbers of eastern computer manufacturers making PCs as we know them now.

      If done right (and here is where MS may falter), there won't be a big outcry if they turn the option to disable Palladium off. Never underestimate the spinelessness of the average person.

      The PC manufacturers (the ones who count, anyway) are already in their pocket. Both AMD and Intel have pledged support for Palladium. In the future there will be no PC manufacturers making "more free" PC's because doing so will prevent them from being profitable.

      I'd rather "scare-monger" (as you call it) then leave people with a false sense of security by telling them things will be alright when they won't.

  • This is important. But everything I can find via Google is just rehashes of Intel's press release. Is any solid info available on this yet?

    This could be both good or bad. On the good side, it might support multiple virtual machines a la VMWare without the horrid hacks needed to make that work. On the bad side, it could mean that you can't develop code that will run on consumer machines without permission from Microsoft.

  • One component that seems to be missing in the whole Open Source realm is hardware control. I wonder if it would be viable or even possible for the Open Source community to co-develop, or at least be able to provide specifications to hardware manufacturers.

    Many hardware vendors are finally waking up and embracing Open Source, e.g. (3ware, Adaptec, Intel, AMD), but it seems as if the community is always fighting with hardware. If worst came to worst, we could all boycott a particular vendor and pledge as a community to buy non DRM (Digital Restrictions Managemet) devices from a competitor in volume.

    After all, DRM is NOT LAW! (Well at least not until Microsoft donates $20,000 to a couple of congressional campaigns).

    Open Source should have Open Hardware!

    Also, I am not worrying too much about Palladium or other "copy protection" type devices. They will be defeated just like every other type of "copy protection" that has ever been invented. In fact reverse engineering Palladium in compliance with the DMCA will probably be a sourceforge project.
  • Does Intel like losing European Union Sales? All the countire sin this union have expressed the desire to refuse to allow TCPA in their computer systems..They hate oppression by big us companeisand they hate Intel and MS..
  • Now, this is about as good as it gets.

    History is replete with Bad Things imposed by powerful entities (be it governement, warring factions, religious institution, corporations, etc). Usualy, those entities attempt to reduce resistance to those schemes by publicising them as good, advantageous, desirable even.

    Censorship is a reccuring favorite. "It would be bad to let the counter-revolutionnaries / heretics / competitors to speak against the System". Another common theme is "We have to protect the weak / children / people against harm and/or themselves".

    This is, however, the first time that I see something so obviously nefarious portrayed in such a positive light!

    The only raison d'tre of Palladium (and the underlying mechanisms) is to prevent people from using their tools to process the data of their choice in the manner they choose. Be it to prevent the "evil pirates" from listening to their CD on their computer, or *gasp* using such-and-such technology without the "safe" and "approved" program (how much are you willing to bet that "approved" software will always be commercial, proprietary and expensive?)

    This would be horrible enough to get even the general populace to react and protest... if it wasn't described as an "enhancement". "Safer" They say (for whom?). "More reliable" (at what?).

    My OS and computing environment are safe enough for the tasks I give them as it is. I don't need "help" protecting me against myself!

    We need to cry, shout and yell loud enough to be heard. The CDA was nothing compared to this, because our computer remained ours, we could always choose to obey the law or not.

    They are trying to take that choice away from us.

    -- MG

  • Who is paying for this??? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dcavanaugh ( 248349 ) on Saturday November 02, 2002 @10:04PM (#4586152) Homepage
    When companies invest R&D money into bigger hard drives, faster CPUs, video gizmos, and slicker GUI interfaces, we all understand the motivation -- increased sales.

    From what I have heard about "LaGrande" and "Palladium", there are benefits for the "gatekeepers", but no benefit for end users. Nobody is projecting increased sales because of these lovely DRM "features". Indeed, many are wondering if people will buy this stuff at all. This would be like McDonalds working on a way to make greasier french fries, because it would help the lard industry.

    So my question is this: "Who is bankrolling this operation?" If Intel/AMD/M$ are really spending their own money on this, it's a mass outbreak of corporate stupidity. Is Saddam Hussein attacking our tech industry with some kind of "dumb-down" bio-warfare weapon?

    My conspiracy theory is that the "LaGrande/Palladium" boxes will be blown out at firesale prices, subsidized by someone who really wants this stuff to be deployed -- kind of like Xbox on a massive scale. The payback will have to come from the victims^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h customers -- endless fees and hidden surcharges built into everything they do.
  • Well, I feel good that I'm running on AMD at least. Next best thing will be when I can switch to Apple equipment.

  • Could this be a Good Thing? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Tokerat ( 150341 ) on Saturday November 02, 2002 @11:57PM (#4586513) Journal
    From what I understand, all that will basically happen (besides a few hardware changes to accomodate) is that new commands will be added to the Intel CPUs to allow a portion of memory to be designated as "protected", and I assume possibly even only accessable with a public key perhaps? So, a program can allocate a hardware-locked portion of RAM.

    This would not stop Linux from running. Linux would simply not utilize the feature (or, it could even be added to Linux), and run it's own memory management scheme with software as it does now.

    It will not stop your MP3s from playing. They'll just play in a protected address space. Or maybe they won't depending on your player software.

    This will not stop your DVD ripper from ripping. An alternate driver and ripping program designed to simply not use a feature designed to provide hardware security for applications is not a violation of the DCMA (even if the ripping of a DVD is, which is a different question).

    This will stop someone from using an external program to cheat at a game (the game locks off its memory, the cheat program cannot change the data).

    This will prevent someone from, say, running a malicious program which essentially "core dumps" your RAM at a specific time, maybe when opening your e-mail reader?

    This will possibly stop things like Outlook viruses, as Palladium/LaGrande-aware applications are hardware-isolated into their own address/execution space and cannot interefere with other applications.


    Did I miss something? Should I really believe M$ is dumb enough to make a move which will cause outcry and backlash from the most tech-savvy of users all the way down to the e-mail granny, at a time when the DOJ, along with every man, woman, and l33t-preteen on the planet is breathing down their necks in anger?

    C'mon people, I hate MS too, but they where smart enough to get this far, even if they did hire Balmer...I think that's an obvious move to NOT be making, if they value their asses (assets?) at all.

    Please correct me if I'm wrong, and please post links.

    • Re:Could this be a Good Thing? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Todd Knarr ( 15451 ) on Sunday November 03, 2002 @02:43AM (#4586931) Homepage

      It will not stop your MP3s from playing. They'll just play in a protected address space. Or maybe they won't depending on your player software.

      I think you misunderstand the use of the protected area. Your MP3s will be encrypted. the keys to decrypt them will be stored in the protected area. Only "trusted" programs will be allowed access to the protected area, so only "trusted" programs will be able to get the keys and decrypt the MP3s. One requirement for "trust" will be that the player provides no way to save the unencrypted datastream anywhere. Possibly it might not even send the stream to a sound card unless that sound card was also "trusted".

      The fundamental problem isn't even the word "trust", it's who can trust the computer. This whole thing isn't intended to insure that you can trust your computer or the software on it. It's to insure that other people (eg. the RIAA, MPAA, Microsoft) can trust your computer. Trust it, that is, to do only what they tell it it can do and nothing else. If you wonder why MS would want that, think back a couple of years to their floating of the idea of annual subscriptions for Windows licenses. Now imagine the glee when they discover a way to guarantee that, if they impose that, you the user can't do a thing to bypass their check of whether you've paid or not because the hardware won't let you touch that data.

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close