Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Trusted Computing

Posted by CmdrTaco on Wed Oct 15, 2003 12:22 PM
from the stuff-to-read dept.
Censorship
derrickoswald writes "John Walker, one of the founders of Autodesk, has posted The Digital Imprimatur, a monograph on technologies such as the Trusted Computing initiative. Some of the prognostications and conclusions reached may not be palatable to Slashdot readers."
+ -
unknown

Related Stories

[+] DRM Based on Trusted Computing Chips 484 comments
An anonymous reader writes "We've always know that Trusted Computing is really about DRM, but computer makers always denied it. Now that their Trusted Computing chips are standard on most new PCs, they've decided to come clean. According to Information Week, Lenovo has demonstrated a Thinkpad with built-in Microsoft and Adobe DRM that uses a Trusted Computing chip with a fingerprint sensor. Even worse: 'The system is also aimed at tracking who reads a document and when, because the chip can report back every access attempt. If you access the file, your fingerprint is recorded.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Trusted Computing 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Damn! That's one long article! 30 pages on legal size paper with 1/4" margins (I printed as a PDF for my Palm PDA - say that 10 times fast). I'll be back on Saturday, after I've RTFA to post some comments. See you all then!

    Anyone who posts in the next hour or so that claims to have RTFA either just skimmed it or is lying. Happy reading!

  • an enhanced HW and OS based trusted computing platform that implements trust into client, server, networking, and communication platforms.
    Hahahahahahahahaha

    Hm, what?
    Oh... so you mean... you mean you're not joking?

  • Lessig said it first (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Minna Kirai (624281) on Wednesday October 15 2003, @12:34PM (#7221376)
    The article's (which is already slashdotted) main idea is that it will be possible for a cooperation of government and corporate interests to change the internet from the freewheeling, content-neutral common carrier we know and love into a strict disciplinarian.

    That was the thesis of Lawrence Lessig's 5 year old book, "Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace". The internet is artificial. It's not a force of nature. Human effort built it, and human laws can change it. With sufficient financial motivation, laws will change it.

    Tired quotations like "The internet treats censorship as damage, and routes around it" are at best observations of recent behavior, not guarantees that truely effective internet censorship won't happen in the future.

    Those who care about freedom cannot just sit back and assume that because the net is fairly free now, it always will be. Eternal vigiliance is the price.
    • Another manifesto/thesis/rant, "World of Ends [216.239.39.104]", raised similar problems, although from a more limited, technical perspective. And it was a shorter document overall. There was a Slashdot discussion [slashdot.org] of it too.
    • The only way I can see the outcome you suggest is to fundamentally change the way the Internet works. They would need to have control of my connection at the packet level. They would have to filter based on protocol. No protocols not approved by the government, etc.

      As long as I can send IP packets between my computer and yours, we still will be able to communicate much as is done today. The value of this is great enough that large numbers of people will do it. Even if it takes new implementations of
      • They would have to filter based on protocol. No protocols not approved by the government, etc.

        That is what may happen. The US Government is already working on getting protocol-analyzers ("Carnivore") installed at major ISPs. Once those are in place and happily scanning all POP3+HTTP, we might expect the feds will discourage the use of formats they can't read, and suggest ISPs block encrypted streams.

        As long as I can send IP packets between my computer and yours, we still will be able to communicate m
        • What sodding nazi ISP do you use for Cthulhu's sake? Or, more to the point, why the hell are you still using them?

          (yes, access to all but a small number of incoming ports to my lan is firewalled by me, but that's for security and it is my choice - I run servers, clients and do what the hell I like, and any ISP that would stop me doesn't get a penny of my money)
          • What sodding nazi ISP do you use for Cthulhu's sake? Or, more to the point, why the hell are you still using them?

            I'm at work. My company makes custom TCP/IP applications, and over the past 20 years our customers have become increasingly inconvienced that we can no longer connect to them directly.

            (It would be a fatal security risk for the Windows(tm) systems that may exist in the LAN)

            any ISP that would stop me doesn't get a penny of my money

            Which ISP is that, exactly? I've been through the website
          • sucks that your connection is a piece of shit, guess YOU particularly (and the few people like you)

            It's true that my selection of ports is more restrictive than average. However, by a big preponderance, the typical (US) internet user is not able to accept incoming connections.

            If you add together all the AOL people, all the college students, all the corporate deskjockeys, and everyone on Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, Time-Warner, and RCN... well, that's much more than half of all people on the internet. E

      • They would need to have control of my connection at the packet level.

        You think they don't already? Or rather, can't?

        If your packet goes over someone else's wire, that person can do *anything* to that packet they want to. There is you, on one of the wire, sending electrical signals out that represent data -- there is nothing at all that mandates the electrical signals they send back have to be what you want them to be.

        Honestly, if you would not believe this:

        # traceroute my.server.com
        Tracing ro

      • As long as I can send IP packets between my computer and yours, we still will be able to communicate much as is done today.

        Back to the old skool, anyone? Let's set up some dedicated modem links. Or, cache the data for future transfer and then in a predetermined time window have our modems connect and perform a data transfer. Ugly shit ;)

        The Internet (which had government, and now much commercial backing) changed all this because we suddenly had reliable data networks over which to send all our data. N

        • Let's set up some dedicated modem links.

          "He's got a modem! Open fire, it must be a terrorist! Why else would he not use our beautiful Citizen's Internet, unless he has something to hide"

          But seriously, in the long run (15+ years), they won't even have to ban modems. You won't have phone lines anymore, except things that run use VoIP. Sonic analysis and natural-language processors will be able to detect if those VoIP packets contain data inconsistent with verbal communication (even if computers can't
    • First off I agree with the poster. There are an awful lot of headstones at Arlington national cemetary. Every one of them spent a life protecting our freedom. Well at least the sitting president's idea of it, but that's another story.

      Now there are a few technical reasons why the internet CANNOT be retrofitted into pay-as-you-go content restricted affair. For starters, the overhead required to properly meter internet packets would degrade performance to the point of uselessness. The cost of metering the in

      • Now there are a few technical reasons why the internet CANNOT be retrofitted into pay-as-you-go content restricted affair.

        I think that Walker's article does a good job at refuting those supposed technical reasons. If you can point out specifically how he's mistaken, please do so. The question of whether or not something is "techincally impossible" is always a difficult one, and the pattern throughout history is that something deemed "impossible" by one generation is achieved by the next.

        The cost of me
        • Sure you can COUNT packets. Now where are you going to STORE your counted packets? How do you handle the fact that a packet can be copied and sent along multiple routes at once? And how do you prevent someone from setting up a bogus service and simply writing invoices for packets? Or funneling packets through their system? Or designing their systems to maximize router hops?

          What results is a regulatory nightmare. You see with water, natural gas, electricity, even phone calls there is a finite quantity to b

    • Those who care about freedom cannot just sit back and assume that because the net is fairly free now, it always will be. Eternal vigiliance is the price.

      There is an additional price though, responsiblity.

      Unlimited freedom without repsonsibility is equivalent to anarchy, and the net is as close to a functional implementation of anarchy that the world has seen. However, this does not imply that what we have is an ideal. Far from it in fact.

      Spam is one immediately obvious result of this freedom. Giv

      • Is there any technological reason why we can't have both?

        The reason is not technological, but economic. Already most people with internet access are restricted to "consumer" usage, meaning they can open connections to others, but not wait for others to connect to them (run a server).

        ISPs have a strong incentive to divide internet use into separate categories, for stronger price-discriminating power. It may always be possible to buy "premium, unfiltered" internet access, but the additional cost could be

        • ISPs have a strong incentive to divide internet use into separate categories, for strong price-discriminating power.

          There's more to it than that and it's actually quite devious. Remember that telcos, cable networks are all ultimately related to content providers. These are big companies with arms that reach everywhere (think AOL/Time-Warner) and they have traditionally made their money by selling content to consumers. Pay attention to this part: The Internet threatens the traditional model, because it a


  • Actually, it was quite easy to read the whole thing...

    Once you know the trick ;) [slashdot.org]
  • If it takes a while to load, that's because there is 200k of TEXT to download. Maybe a speed reader or the poster can maybe summarize the unpalatable conclusions...
    • I've read about half of it. So far, the gist is that Trusted Computing will require digital certificates for all executables, documents, emails, and web pages (along with images). He claims that since a repository system of certificates will need to be formed (much like we have SSL certs like Thawte now), the power to deny publishing will be concentrated in the hands of the certificate repositories, which presumably will be large corps and governments. He claims this is the "Good Old Days" of producer/co

  • Just a guess (Score:3, Funny)

    by CGP314 (672613) <CGPNO@SPAMColinGregoryPalmer.net> on Wednesday October 15 2003, @12:43PM (#7221462) Homepage
    Some of the prognostications and conclusions reached may not be palatable to Slashdot readers.

    So I'm guessing that it has positive things to say about trusted computing :)

  • Remember... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by SoIosoft (711513) on Wednesday October 15 2003, @12:45PM (#7221485)
    This is just one person's opinion on trusted computing. Nobody really knows where it's going, but there's a lot of people trying to push their various interests into it.

    My feeling is the idea of trusted computing isn't in itself bad. As a matter of fact, there's probably a lot of very good uses for it to go along with a larger system of security. Some of the ideas in Palladium, if used correctly, really could enhance and improve security. It, in itself, may not provide security, but as part of a larger system with other security geatures, it may well be useful.

    The problem is not trusted computing, but some of these rogue interests. The government, Microsoft, the recording industry, the motion picture industry, and just about everyone else wants a say in where it's going. Hopefully, between the various interests will cancel each other out and we'll end up with the good that comes from trusted computing, but without most of the bad.

    Groups fighting against trusted computing shouldn't fight the technology, in my opinion, but some of the uses of it. This means they should fight some of the DRM aspects of it, not the technology in general. Remember, an extra layer of security isn't a bad thing to have.

  • Imminent Death Of The Net Predicted (Score:3, Informative)

    by Alex Belits (437) * on Wednesday October 15 2003, @12:45PM (#7221492) Homepage
    Explanation is here [faqs.org] -- people were making those predictions for at least 20 years already, though with different reasons to support it.
  • I wont claim to have read the entire article because the damn thing is large. But I believe that he has writen the article in a way that will inspire the open source comunity, if that inspiration is anger then so be it. But read between the lines and dont take things out of context.

    He states at the begining of the article that he sees the internet as a genie that has been set free and that with said genie free all things are posible. When he tells us how he could put this genie back into the bottle he is p
  • Before I begin, I'd like to note that with a document this large, it might be good to post individual "Topics" at the top level, and then others can talk about that topic in general.

    I can confirm the firewall problem. The high schools in the country where I live do not have library catalog servers. I wanted to get a sample server up and running, and maybe let them start using it to record their books.

    Of course, I had a firewalled ISP. I went ahead and asked them to get me connected with IPCHAINS to

    • I don't get it. You tried to get your ISP to do something reasonable? What were you thinking?

      Projects like the one you describe are why the following exist:
      stunnel
      vtun
      ssh
      openvpn
      http proxies
      etc.

      ONE of those should have solved the problem for you...
  • this is the second article in the last two weeks that is qulified as, you won't like this or, this isn't what /. readers see things as, etc. . . . .

    we're all big boys and girls here (well, never enough girls, sigh). i'm sure the article is wonderful, but i would prefer to see either a more insightful comment on the posting or none at all.

  • >Some of the prognostications and conclusions reached may not be palatable to Slashdot readers.

    Do we really need a warning to protect our fragile view of the world?

    Just post it with a quick, brief summary of his points and drop the dramatics/trollish statements.
  • The article's author repeats something that I guess sounds like an idealistic misconception of the 'trust' that supposedly would be 'implemented' by 'trusted computing'.

    He says "users are also protected against corruption of data on their own computers". I haven't seen anywhere any account of how 'trusted computing' would actually improve reliability.

    The most it appears to promise, is simply to block any material that the 'trust' mechanism diagnoses to be unreliable.

    If that's right, then it sounds as if
  • Have these people like John Walker, that are advocating these "control schemes" ever looked in a history book? have they ever read something like a tale of two cities?
    There is an simple lesson to be learned, one that has been repeated countless times over our history... People rebel.
    In an economic system it is much easier to "rebel": some competitor will come along that will not employ "trusted computing", perhaps a company like Apple or a flavor of Linux will force their inferior competitor (perhaps Mi

    • Have these people like John Walker, that are advocating these "control schemes" ever looked in a history book? have they ever read something like a tale of two cities?

      Haven't these Slashdotters that are bemoaning an imagined advocacy ever RTFA? Consider this quote:

      In this document I will provide a road map of precisely how I believe that could be done, potentially setting the stage for an authoritarian political and intellectual dark age global in scope and self-perpetuating, a disempowerment of the

    • In an economic system it is much easier to "rebel": some competitor will come along that will not employ "trusted computing", perhaps a company like Apple or a flavor of Linux will force their inferior competitor (perhaps Microsoft) out of the market.

      EVERYONE participates in the economy. Consumers, producers, observers. Everyone.

      I say this to make a point: trusted computings new attention is the result of free market economics, not something against the grain. In this case, the need in the economy was b

  • I took a gander at his Speak Freely website to check out the reason behind his dropping maintenance to Speak Freely.

    It mostly revolves around his contention that NAT'd LANs block peer to peer traffic. However, while he does concede that you can do port mapping to overcome this issue, he doesn't give people credence to make it work.

    I have to call bullshit on this one; all you need to do is set up your network with static IPs on all of your machines, and then set up your firewall to pass traffic to specifi

  • Personal computers, originally isolated, almost immediately began to self-organise into means of communication as well as computation--indeed it is the former, rather than the latter, which is their principal destiny.

    Hmmm... The computers were sitting there waiting for the Internet, so they could spontaneously organize?

    The aroma of that argument reminds me a bit of Haldane soup [ox.ac.uk].

    Trusted computing? Trust yourself [bobdylan.com].

  • I have yet to encounter an Internet Prognosticator who gets it right about the history of worldwide communication, and the formation of worldwide communities. Ham Radio operators communicated around the world, drove technological advances and formed virtual communities based upon radio communication, throughout much of the 20th century. In addition there were numerous folks who merely "surfed" the shortwave bands with receivers only, partaking of the worldwide shortwave radio "content." My point here is

  • Gloom, Doom, and Reality (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Lendrick (314723) on Wednesday October 15 2003, @01:15PM (#7221829) Homepage Journal
    Wow, that's quite a scary picture. And while it's admittedly possible that things could turn that way, I'll go out on a limb and say that it's fairly unlikely.

    Take Digital Rights Management, for instance. People put up with it for a little while, until they try to listen to their songs on something other than their own computer -- then they suddenly realize that DRM in fact sucks donkey ass.

    Buying a Palladium-enabled computer will be like buying a car with a top speed of 65 miles per hour. The fact is, everyone bends the law a little bit from time to time ... and a reasonable police officer won't pull you over for doing 68 in a 65. It's just not that big of a deal. Likewise, if someone (God forbid!) decides to install the same copy of Word on two different computers in their house, it's not likely that the FBI will come knocking on their door for a license violation.

    When Joe User runs into stupid problems like "Error! This computer sucks and therefore refuses to play this music file" or "Error! This computer sucks and refuses to allow you to install this program", he'll start getting pissy. He'll tell his friends not to buy any of these "trusted" computers, and pretty soon, everyone's buying computers and software that don't have this sort of crap built in.

    This of course won't stop big companies and big government from trying to restrict things, but the chance that they'll succeed is actually fairly small. I don't see DRM ever completely dissappearing from the radar, but I'm gussing that it'll remain what it is right now -- an annoyance.

  • what's the big hangup here anyway? well...lots.... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jdvernon1976 (242485) on Wednesday October 15 2003, @01:17PM (#7221853)
    To be perfectly honest, I'm not worried about Trusted Computing, "The Theory"

    I buy most/all of my software (okay...maybe not M$ Office, but I buy all my games), I don't write viruses, and it should make spam a trivial non-issue.

    Blah, blah, blah

    However, I am in TOTAL agreement with everyone here that TC is a bad idea in "The Implementation", especially in the (over?) paranoid forecasts in its use.

    My computer won't run unsigned software - no more viruses

    My computer won't run unsigned software - any publisher can create subscriptions (overpriced ones, at that) and revoke the license 10 times a year

    My computer won't open unsigned documents - the macros in the spreadsheet won't crash my computer

    My computer won't open unsigned documents - this person has written op-ed columns against BigBadCorporation Inc, and they've revoked that person's software certificate so they can't send anything else

    We could all go on and on - however, he says in the top of the article that he's not for it! What he says is basically a "Watch out for these kinds of words and messages from your legistators! These are the words with which they will woo you into consent!"

    There is no problem that has a magic bullet. Every decision has good and bad, and I'm firmly convinced that the bad with DRM and TC has little to do with the proposed concept, but with a very foreseeable result and that it grossly outweighs the good.

    Information used to be passed word-of-mouth, and evolved to cave paintings, the written text, the printing press, etc. etc. etc. and now the Internet as we know it. There is money to be made in keeping the spread of information in a one-to-many structure - scads and scads of cash - and with that as the primary (if not single!) motivation for those implementing DRM, as well as the politicians they influence, we the consumers will fall into the backdrop as a minor inconvenience.
  • I'll be damned if I'll listed to the opinion of an American who would join the Taliban.
  • Or merely trussed?

    I trust it not to compute.

    I'm sorry. I have a cold.

  • The last paragraph of the article states that the great grand world of Trusted Computing will get rid of spyware. Why? If a commercial company is willing to publically sign code that is spyware, what exactly stops spyware?
    • I knew there was something about the idea of "trusted computing" that I didn't like, but this scares me. It's like 1984, but turn the quality of life back a millenium.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.