New Chips Keep Tight Rein on Consumers 381
banannaslug writes "NYTimes (subscription, etc.)
talks about Microsofts Palladium. The article addresses how applications of controlling technology affect competition as well as the consumer, can be used to extend monopolies to new markets and has
very serious implications for what happens to user driven innovation. We'd have the people's operating system, the people's web browser and the people's media player, and 'computers' would be as useful to innovation as a bicycle to a fish.
This is the kind of behavior you expect in a mature industry that tries to add
'law' to preserve failing market models dependent on a lack of competition. Next thing you know they'll want to force customers to upgrade periodically." Point it out to your boss.
forced upgrades (Score:2)
Am I wrong or this is the purpose of the new Microsoft Software Assurance [microsoft.com] licensing program? Not that they force you to upgrade. But when you pay for a year subscription, most businesses will want to upgrade not to waste the money they spent in the Software Assurance, practically forcing their users to update.
Now forgive me if I didn't understand the new Microsoft licensing program, that is just an opinion. Cheers.
Re:forced upgrades v/s allowed upgrades (Score:2)
I wish Microsoft would take the Sun Solaris approach, where programs that ran 5-7 years ago are guaranteed to run on the latest platform. Sun upgrades are available, and I pay for them. But that also gives me 24x7 support. If I don't want to upgrade, I don't have to and everything works fine.
I wouldn't mind paying several hundred dollars a year for a software subscription if decent support came with it.
Re:forced upgrades (Score:3, Funny)
Forthose who dont want to register with NYT. (Score:3, Informative)
Free market (Score:2)
The only complaint people seem to have is that if the general population buys into this, then we won't get the discount of commodity hardware.
The current unencumbered hardware isn't going to go away unless people stop buying it, or a law is made against it.
Re:Free market (Score:5, Insightful)
Under the DMCA, unencumbered hardware could be considered a circumvention device to avoid the Palladium-based DRM hooks. And if that's not good enough for the attack lawyers, just remember - the DMCA got passed.
You bet your ass unencumbered hardware could go away. Give it five years. Five years is forever in the computer industry - remember what hardware you were using five years ago?
Better to stop this now, before it can take root.
Free market (Score:3, Insightful)
Both are more likely than you might think. Never forget that free market models are only applicable to free markets: Consumers do not have a free choice in an almost completely monopolized market. That is: I agree that nothing's lost until people actually start buying and using these Palladium based technologies, but what people buy or what people use is to very large extent a result of marketing. And - as we all know - Microsoft has a lot [slashdot.org] of resources to do "good" marketing...
What I think (Score:3)
Not really, I am almost certain people will buy this crap by the truckload for pennies of savings. I also think most people would rather complain about their rights being taken away then spend pennies buying the unencumbered hardware.
Re:What I think (Score:4, Funny)
Have you heard of DivX? (the hardware, not the file format) No? Why not? ;^)
Er, no, other complaints (Score:4, Insightful)
To you "discount of commodity hardware" is the only complaint?! Gee, the vast majority of the complaints I've been seeing (even here on
invasion of privacy
erosion of Fair Use Rights
the rights of content creators (my complaint), as opposed to the alleged rights of corporative entities like the RI/MPAA
total Microsoft domination of the OS market through a hardware wedge
the possible virtual elimination/obsolescense of the GPL, and/or (GNU/)Linux
And here's a new one: jurisdictional misuse to enforce the DMCA (a US law which doesn't bind those of us outside the US) through hardware. Do you really think all those big US-based hardware manufacturers will make one version for the US and one for the rest of the world? Heh. In my country, we don't have a DMCA...(yet)
Funny, I don't see any (purely) "money" issues in there at all. Then again, as I've said before, there are some things that just don't come down to money, especially since it's damn hard to put a definitive price tag on rights (whether "inalienable" or not) and freedoms, except maybe (as Tom Jefferson said) "eternal vigilance."
Re:Er, no, other complaints (Score:2)
erosion of Fair Use Rights
the rights of content creators (my complaint), as opposed to the alleged rights of corporative entities like the RI/MPAA
total Microsoft domination of the OS market through a hardware wedge
the possible virtual elimination/obsolescense of the GPL, and/or (GNU/)Linux
These are only issues if you buy this new controlled hardware, if you buy the current standard hardware you won't have a problem.
If this new stuff takes over the market, the unencumbered hardware will become an expensive niche product. It may become so expensive that nobody is willing to pay for it.
Re:Free market (Score:2)
Ah yes, the wonder of the "free market".
Let's see how this could work.
1) Microsoft decide that they will not support hardware made by companies that also make non-Palladium versions.
2) Hardware manufacturers see their market disappearing if it won't run with Windows.
3) All hardware is made Palladium-compatible.
4) Non-palladium OSes no longer work on the hardware.
Not too difficult to imagine, is it?
Re:Free market (Score:2)
#4.5 Smaller market consisting of non Palladium hardware for other users
#5 Smaller hardware market has higher costs, customers complain a bunch about their rights and chose to buy the cheaper less usable hardware
#6 Hardware companies realizing that people won't pay for the Palladium free hardware stop making it.
#7 Only Palladium OS's work on the new hardware, because nobody bought Palladium free hardware.
Wow, looks exactly like the free market to me
Re:Free market (Score:2)
Isn't one of the claims of the free market that it increases competition and choice for the consumer?
When one manufacturer can make a decision which uses its large market share to remove the ability for other companies to compete on a level playing field, that can't be a good thing.
Re:Free market (Score:2)
As long as the people continue to pay the cost plus a profit to the company to provide it, I believe the company will continue to make it. However at some point the quantity being sold will become small, and the price very high till nobody wants to buy it and nobody wants to make it.
It isn't that the products aren't available, it is that people don't want to pay for them
Re:Free market (Score:3, Insightful)
Why? Who does that benefit? Shouldn't the system provide for the highest quality of life for the largest amount of people? If maximum efficiency means large amounts people get laid off, or have to work for low wages, or in unsafe environments (which it frequently does), then why is this possibly a good thing?
Re:That argument only works if theres no alt.s (Score:2)
People buying $30k SUV's complain about the cost of cars and gas.
Buy the $10k 2L engined car then. Or a moped, or a bike, or a bus pass.
Microsoft has a partial monopoly because nobody wants the alternative. Enough people want something else, and Linux is becoming a viable alternative.
The don't buy it is your action, it isn't an excuse. People need to realize that the cost of dealing with MS is less then the cost of using an alternative, and THAT is why they are where they are, and that is how they sustain their monopoly.
We could all go install Redhat with openoffice tomorrow, but it just isn't worth the trouble, or else we WOULD.
Personally I don't buy it, because it doesn't offer a benefit which exceeds its cost.
Re:That argument only works if theres no alt.s (Score:2)
Would we? You're assuming everyone is perfectly rational, and has access to all the information needed to make the correct decision. When it comes to computer software, however, most people are "lost in the dark", and so they stick with what they know works, even if something better does exist.
Re:That argument only works if theres no alt.s (Score:2)
Their irrationality just changes the values of particular actions.
*cough* (Score:2)
MS to eradicate GPL, hence Linux
Palladium will essentially prevent you from rebuilding your kernel. It won't stop you from compiling it, but it will make your computer "untrusted", and therefore prevent you from running any program or accessing any DRM-encrypted file that requires the facilities that the "Fritz" chip will provide.
Re:Free market (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Even if it's unlikely without a significant, long, probably dirty revolt from consumers.)
Copyright was brought in to force work intop the public domain. I contend that they missed a very important point - the author is not legally allowed to give exclusive access to that content to one distributor. That should be against the law. In the same way that consumers should be free to participate in the market with a reasonable lack of outside influence, so should distributors all have fair and equal access to content, such that their success is built on how well they can deliver and price it, not how much culture, art and content can they withhold from the market and at what price will the market bear _access_ to that content.
Distributors should be in the business of
Mod Parent Up (Score:2)
Re:Free market (Score:2)
If I write a book, I don't have to sell it to you or anyone, and the government shouldn't make me.
The same for any other entertainment product
Just a few thoughts... (Score:3, Interesting)
Micro$platt is, in essence, accusing us all of being thieves and media pirates in advance, and they're using that position to justify Palladium. All I can hope is that it'll die the same horrible death as DIVX did.
One thing I will say: If this goes through at full bore, it'll probably be a huge shot in the arm for the used-computer industry. Perhaps those who have pre-Palladium PCs, and non-PC systems (Suns, MicroVAXen, etc.), shouldn't be so quick to get rid of them.
Keep the peace(es).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Just a few thoughts... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sorry, but you've been listening too much to M$ rethoric. Trojans and other backdoors don't run by themselves (unless you use Outlook
Kjella
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Just a few thoughts... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Just a few thoughts... (Score:4, Insightful)
Palladium is more about (1) hardware enforced signing and (2) code verification.
I'm all for signing and code verification. I check my package signatures with GPG before I install them and I MD5 all my
The problem lies with the fact that interoperability between Palladium and other systems is only guaranteed if you get a signature from a Microsoft-sponsored system. Guess which source is going to be trusted, no matter what? You're kidding yourself if Microsoft will allow you to "distrust" binaries or media coming from www.microsoft.com.
This is the exact argument for DeCSS. You may be perfectly happy to own DVDs that can only be played on the "Enhanced Windows" system that Microsoft offers, but cannot be decrypted, EVER, on any other OS. Including Macs. (Depending on how much money they pay Microsoft for the right to play your media.
They are going to release the source, which is odd in itself. It leads me to believe in general that MS may being a rather okay-ish thing.
Releasing the source is not a sign of goodwill here. Since Microsoft already has the patent (look at point #7) [cam.ac.uk] on the core idea of Palladium it would mean diddly squat to the GPL community.
My conclusion: Look at smart cards. They offer the same feature set. The only difference is that I'm gladly willing to give up the right to run software on the processor on the card in order to make things like bank transactions possible. The question is, are you willing to give up the right to run any software on your computer not expressly signed by MS, just so you can watch your favourite DVD on your PC?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Go home, shill (Score:5, Interesting)
One problem is that it's impossible to ship such an OS with a level of trust that preserves competition. If only MSFT is trusted by default, and a scary message must be acknowledged before trusting other parties, most users will use only MSFT software. If only MSFT and people it trusts are trusted by default, and a scary message must be acknowledge before trusting other parties, MSFT gains a lot of power over what people do use (and trust can be centrally revoked, enabling MSFT to partake of a number of slimy business models). If VeriSign or similar is at the root of default trust at the OS level, and a scary message must be acknowledged before trusting other roots, shareware/freeware authors have to pay a tax to VeriSign to create their applications, thus stifling innovation. If no scary message is printed at all, then the point of the whole system is moot.
Have you tried as an individual to get an Authenticode certificate from VeriSign lately? They won't do it because of half-assed reasoning that includes the two meaningless trump words "national security". If, as you claim, this project is about "hardware enforced trust" then how does a user attempting to insert their own hierarchy of trust distinguish themselves from a virus (or, heaven forbid, a competitor) attempting to insert its own hierarchy of trust?This is about software trusting hardware and software trusting software. The hardware doesn't need to trust anything, and hardware trusting software is a well-researched and well-practiced problem which requires nothing short of potting whole systems in epoxy to foil attackers. Read Microsoft's patents, not Microsoft's propaganda.
This has nothing to do with the problems smart cards solve. Smart cards attest to the identity of the user, and as people are movable it makes perfect sense for these to be movable as well. Palladium's version of trust has nothing to do with a user proving their identity and only with proving a computer's identity. People don't care about a computer's identity. State-sanctioned spies, content vendors, corporations, software and software vendors do. What does a secure real-time clock do for the average user? Nothing. This is not about solving problems for the end-user. Incorrect. If there is a patent on loading and identifying a digital rights management operating system [uspto.gov] its use is governed by Microsoft's licensure of that patent. If systems will (as feared) fail to allow use of the cryptographic processor or potentially even the entire system unless every stage of the boot trusts the next one by signature, that seriously degrades the user serviceability of open-source OSes. If users can set the secure real-time clock then it's clearly not secure. To top it all off, Microsoft is not known for handing out code under terms that allow modification or redistribution, and I fully expect the Palladium source to be released under the same viral "shared-source" look-but-don't-compete license as the CIFS specification and MSDN. History has shown they open things just enough to get maximum traction in any particular campaign. I suspect that, as they have done historically, they will disclose just enough info to allow them some slimy claims about openness and then aggressively leverage those claims to gently or brutally exclude competition on many levels.This initiative has nothing to do with consumers except to ensure they consume and pay for the privilege.
-jhp
Re:Just a few thoughts... (Score:2, Insightful)
I can tell you that DRM is not the main focus of the hardware side of Palladium. The hardware focuses on creating secure locations in memory that cannot be accessed by any unauthorized people (other processes, bus masters, bios). This means that applications can store things in memory (including the application code itself) without any worry about it being revealed or modified by malicious people (like procdump for example). Palladium is a solution to one of the big security holes in computer architecture.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Palladium... Isn't it the thing RIAA asked for ? (Score:3, Interesting)
This is something that both Microsoft, in his fight against OpenSource and RIAA/MPAA in their fight to restrict rights of consumers want...
But there are two ways it can be implemented : mandatory or optionnal.
Mandatory means that if the OS don't authenticate, it's access to some of the hardware would be limited. That could prevent OS like linux to run.
Optionnal means that it would be possible for the OS to authenticate with the chip and then, to get access to some cryptographic system that can be used when dealing with DRM-specific content but otherwise don't interfer with the OS.
With many (and more coming) big companies and governments betting on Linux, we can hope that it'd be optionnal... Allowing it to be mandatory would be suicidal for all those relying on Linux (like Disney, IBM, HP,
Future will tell us... But Palladium is a dangerous bet for Microsoft as, in the beginning, there will be both Palladium-enabled and Palladium-free systems available... and with more and more people switching from Microsoft to Linux, these Palladium machines could remain unsold and Palladium could sign the end of Microsoft in OS market...
Re:Palladium... Isn't it the thing RIAA asked for (Score:2)
Next thing you'll probably tell me that Microsoft will recall MS Office for Linux too!
Hmm (Score:2, Insightful)
Situation B: Same as A, except the hacker is now Microsoft. They are slammed, accused, and drilled by the "community," the only real difference being that their code will not be modifyable for distribution while the hacker above's will be. (They're releasing it under shared source remember.)
Shit, click on any crypto article and you will have people whining about how there is no easy to use, open source crypto software installed on everyone's computer. Now we're getting it by the only company who could actually get it on every computer, and you bitch and whine because of one facet of the implementation, DRM, which is inevitable and would happen regardless of who developed the cryptosystem. You either get crypto on every computer, and DRM, or no crypto and no DRM, you can't have one and not the other. Deal with it.
So finally, I can actually send a secret to Grandma via e-mail without anyone being able to snoop in on it. But sure, you can skip over mentioning that part (something rather incredible given it's been 30 years since RSA) because it obviously takes too much effort to actually boycott the RIAA or stop pirating music in order to get them to respect your "fair use" rights. String up Microsoft instead, right?
I'd have issues with it if we wouldn't be able to see the source code, but we will be able to. It doesn't matter that it's not GPLed in this situation.. if there is a bug you can be sure MS will fix it ASAP since their ass is riding on this software. This is not IE.
Also, if you end up not being able to install Linux on your computer because of the hardware, either blame yourself for buying the hardware knowing that Linux was not up to speed yet, or blame the Linux hackers for not supporting your hardware. Don't blame MS for getting crypto in every home -- that's been a something that everyone who knows anything has wanted since the 70's. Don't kid yourself -- without MS doing it, it would never happen.
The issue here is (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, of course, you will say that we aren't being FORCED to use palladium. Well, that's the problem with Microsoft. Their crap becomes the defacto standard that everybody else follows, for better or worse. Alternatives tend to shrink or disappear over time. Most people here on the dot probably like PGP/GPG. But if Microsoft incororated those into Office and said you could only share documents with people who also had it installed, and had the proper keys (given to you by Microsoft, after you 'signed' a EULA,) then you'd hear the same complaints. And those complaints would be legitimate.
Re:The issue here is (Score:2)
In the the first case, the user has control of the crypto keys and uses it to determine what data to accept into his or her computer, use it to make sure outgoing data securely makes it to its intended destination.
In the second case, the keys are held by the manufacturer of the hardware and the operating system. They determine how a user's computer can be used.
Being forced to use encryption/authentication is not a problem at all; just as long as I can control what things I think are acceptable. I use linux and my files have different levels of access - user, group, superuser - but, as long as I have root on my computer (and no one else does), file access restrictions are a security great benefit to me.
Re:The issue here is (Score:3, Insightful)
Very interesting. This got me to thinking.
Suppose you owned the signing key for your own hardware. That is each computer came with a piece of paper (or some machine readable token) containing the signing key in order to run software on that computer.
Now it would be you who controlled what software can run on your computer. Whenever you want to run some code, you must sign it. Want to install Windows WD 2003? [note: WD = World Domination edition.] Then during the installation process you are asked to "sign" the bootloader and maybe other code.
Suppose you could control all of the code that runs on your computer? No more spyware? (This would be bad for AdAware, as there would be no more need.) Simply don't sign any spyware. Withing being signed, it won't run. This would require an OS that only runs signed code. But you see the principal I'm getting at here.
Suppose it were you who had the signing keys and were in control of the code that ran on your own hardware?
It seems to me like we already have part of this sitation today. At least, today we are more or less in control of what runs on our own hardware. But DRM wuold not be possible, because you the user could run code of your choosing. You could also subvert the DRM code of the **AA's.
So then, it seems like the two principal reasons for Palladium are:
- Control what code runs on the hardware
- DRM
And we aready have benefit 1 today, then the only reason for Palladium is number 2.Re:Hmm (Score:3, Insightful)
Pray tell why not? Crypto allows me to hide, sign,and verify things; DRM forces me to do these things and prevents me from doing all kind of things with data, possibly my own data.
As to seeing a source code, I doubt it. Sure M$ may show some "trusted" parts some source, but what guarantees can I ever have that it is the same source as what is running on my box? The problem with DRM is, as most of our readers know, that it is incomaptible with my ability to write any programs I want, and run them on my computer. That is why I whine against DRM, and will do my little best to stop such horror from happening.
Bullshit! (Score:5, Insightful)
Frankly, I can't see any difference between this and the previous Clinton administration Clipper Chip proposal from eight to ten years back. Except that now instead of the government having control over signing digital certificates we have a single private corporation. That's freedom for you! One further point: you state the system will only be used to control copying of content. Since the most fundamental operation of a computer is to copy, as in moving a byte from memory to a register for example, isn't by definition this also a mechanism to control how one may USE said content? Even if the content is something you created on your own?
I find it utterly amazing to read such large numbers of libertarian conservatives -- folks who presumably support individual liberty and non-authoritarian government -- so easily willing to cave into the demands of huge private corporations at their own detriment. Institutions so large they generate a revenue stream larger than most third world governments, and who clearly use the same monopolistic and exclusionary tactics so hated by the conservative right when the issue turns to government monopolies. And before anyone brings up the fact that government has guns while Microsoft (Disney et all) doesn't, might I point out just who they're buying off in order to obtain the legislation which will force us all to use their cripple-ware?
--Maynard
Why hardware? (Score:2)
Why does this new crypto-system have to be implemented through hardware?
As far as I am concerned, Microsoft can push Palladium all they want (I don't use their products anyway) and put all of the crypto and DRM stuff in as they want as long as they do it only as software...for me, it is the hardware part that bothers me (not that I use any x86 hardware either), because it seems to have (as just about everyone has noted) a very strong potential for abuse by certain monopolies. As long as it is hardware, then people are free to switch... But if the two leading CPU manufacturers implement this kind of thing in hardware, then the options are severely limited.
Of course, if this does happen, and (an even bigger if) Apple decides to lower their prices, then I have a feeling that they won't be able to produce computers quickly enough to satisfy the new demand for non-DRM hardware (assuming they don't jump on the bandwagon).
Anyway, just my stupid, uninformed opinion. Feel free to tear to shreads.
Cheers. :)
oops...correction (Score:2)
As long as it is software, then people are free to switch...
Sorry. ^^;
Re:Hmm (Score:2)
Oh, and when has Microsoft ever got something bug free because their ass was riding on it? I'd say stuff like Windows Product Activation falls into that, and see how effective that was?
Re:Hmm (Score:2)
Situation B: Same as A, except the hacker is now Microsoft. They are slammed, accused, and drilled by the "community,
This is not a fair comparison. We are not talking about someone coding up a piece of encryption software. If that were the case, there would be no fuss. Simply don't run the software you don't like or hack it. (Note this is presently the case with all MS software today. Just say no.)
We are talking about control of the hardware with the specific objective of preventing anyone from coding software. This is designed specifically to prevent any kind of unapproved software from the boot loader up through the OS and on to the applications and media players. Niether you nor anyone else would have control of your hardware anymore. You could probably write software, but only with the permission of those who control your hardware.
Re:Hmm (Score:2, Informative)
Remember Microsoft's "opening" of the SMB protocol? The license agreement stated it could not be incorporated with any code that used the GPL or similar license.
So they can very well open up the source code, but not allow it to be used in any GPL'd system.
Periodic upgrades? (Score:2)
a) us Geeks which upgrade at the drop of a hat (A GREEN LED instead of a RED one? Ooo, where's my Visa)
b)The folks that buy the multi Ghz serverclass workstation to play solitaire and reproduce the words 'You've got mail!'..and typically buy one computer per decade,
b) and my Mom...who's been living happily on my handmedowns for years. While I'm running a Ghz Athlon with GeForce graphics, she was happy with the PII 300 and the P1 120 before it.
At least from an end user (I'm ignoring business pc's for the moment) only 'a' above drives upgrade cycles.
Be honest, how many IT folk have you encountered whos primary computer is, like, five years old? The number is disturbingly high.
Re:Periodic upgrades? (Score:2)
I am a professional programmer.
My primary box (well, at least the mb and CPU, everything else has been replaced at least once...) is pushing on 4 years right now.
Still works ok for anything I usually run on it. Both on W2K and Linux. With the exception of modern games, of course.
I recently thought of upgrading, but decided on a big-ass TFT as my next buy instead.
I simply need it more than one or two extra GHz.
If I should need more powerful hardware, I bring a laptop home from work...
I might be wrong here, (Score:2, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
not quite (Score:2)
Re:I might be wrong here, (Score:2)
You're right. Palladium is an attempt to divide the world into two classes of people -- those who are "trusted" to write executable code (i.e. big companies who pay Microsoft lots of money), and those who are not (plebians, users, and small developers). I, for one, am not looking forward to second-class-citizenship based on my refusal to pay Microsoft lots of money for the right to write code.
It'll be good and bad... (Score:4, Interesting)
IT has been itching to seize control over the desktop ever since those rouge PCs yanked control from the terminal/mainframe days. This OS will help that greatly. Say goodbye to Personal in PC.
The home user will most likely reject it. We think about gramps with a computer, who doesn't care, but in almost all family situations, there's a younger and computer literate geek who is called whenever there is a computer problem. Most of them love Microsoft now (look at the flame wars here for examples). Removing Personal from PC at home just ain't going to fly. People will reject it and if future hardware enforces it, the hardware market will take a huge negative hit for years while people hold on to legacy computers until they all die out. For advanced gaming, we'll just buy consoles. For our home box tinkering needs, we'll hold on to our trusty current boxes...
You exagerate the political strength of IT (Score:2, Interesting)
Those old, slow, overpaid and overstaffed IT departments that were shot down in the eighties died because, once computers became cheap and powerful enough, the mere mortals in accounting and marketing wouldn't have their work controlled by a bunch of nerds. I find it hard to believe these guys will be willing to give the control back to a centralized entity.
Even the supposed benefits of control won't be enough when Jane from marketing and Will from sales go over the CIO head and tell the CEO that those same nerds are again hurting the company profits with their new policies and controls. And that, by the way, the new product launch will be postponed because the nerds couldn't deliver the new server in time for the website launch.
Re:You exagerate the political strength of IT (Score:2)
An excellent point.
I am old enough to remember the story of the software tial that wagged the hardware dog.
With the appearance of VisiCalc, you began seeing the proliferation of Apple ][ computers on the desks of people in corporations. They only used one application. The machine was like any other single-use office machine, e.g. a typewriter.
But they didn't have to kiss up to the mainframe people to get something done. (I don't think they were called IT departments back then. But I was not in that particular culture, so I could be mistaken. I was a kid fresh out of college writing software for these new microcomputers, before the IBM PC.)
Re:You exagerate the political strength of IT (Score:2)
Many companies already have a standard PC config that is locked down so much that employees can't install or modify it as it is.
Sorry, the nerds are back, with a vengence... I agree, it really sucks. I am in IT management, and the struggle to allocate my short-supply tech resources to best serve my company unfortunately requires me to be a real jerk to end-users at times. My ultimate responsibility lies with the big picture in the company, not joe or sally's satisfaction unfortunately. It sucks, I can understand why so many hate us.
However, all is not lost for the anarchists. The latest bane of IT staff everywhere are PDAs. Download all the corporate secrets to them and walk out the door. Currently very difficult to control them...
Re:It'll be good and bad... (Score:2)
I've done this myself at home with several totally diskless nodes for a OpenMosix beowulf cluster, and it works fine. Why would you want crippled systems when you can do it with the technology that exists today?
Palladium = Passport v 2.0? (Score:3, Insightful)
They made a big deal of grabbing and getting control over your personal information and when that went over like a fart in Church they backpedaled and thought:
"Well, will they accept it if we word it _this_ way?"
Irony... (Score:2, Offtopic)
much more informative articles (Score:3, Informative)
Re:much more informative articles. Really? (Score:3, Insightful)
I lost all respect for the man when he published an article that was a play on the 'first they came for X and I did nothing
-- Shamus
Bleah!
Re:much more informative articles (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft Tackles Cyber-Security [cbsnews.com].
Notice the highlighed quote: Ooh, a bold new step for Microsoft, a bold new step for mankind! Now read his actual statement, included in the same article: Now can anyone claim that the press isn't trying to spin this?
Re:much more informative articles (Score:2)
Could Be More Convincing (Score:2, Interesting)
If there is hardware that refuses to run without the right signature, then there is no way for me to install anything that bypasses digital rights management. The fact that Linux will certainly not have the right signature is just a happy byproduct of the fact that I can't develop or install certain kinds of software.
This kind of technology makes me shudder.
Re:Could Be More Convincing (Score:3)
Or indeed anyone other than the corporate publishers who are making noises about DRM. If anything it could make things less secure. Because tools to improve security might not be giving the blessing of these people...
Pallidum's sole purpose is to give IP owners control my computer
No it's about protecting the IP of a tiny minority of IP owners. Like most other DRM ideas, it won't do anything to protect the IP you or the other several billion (probably arround 10 billion if you include corporates) IP owners might happen to own.
Non-Geek Computer Users (Score:3, Interesting)
This type of User doesn't generally create anything really complicated with their computers, they'll hardly even notice the difference between Palladium PCs and Unrestricted Computers.
As long as they have Web, E-mail, Word-processor, something to do Invite cards to parties and work with Digital cameras etc. they'll be perfectly happy.
They will not understand the nerdy minorities issues, and certainly won't raise a fuss as we're carted off screaming by the authorities when we're all branded unmutual or something.
It'll only be the next generation (or the next after that) who realise that their capacity to innovate and progress humanity has been curtailed.
Microsoft is Trolling (Score:3, Interesting)
Kind of like any economic graph measuring the elasticity of a product's price. You need to find the sweet spot between achieving your ultimate end goals and what the customer will tolerate before moving to a competitor.
So even if you love Microsoft, your best bet is to publically rally against this thing. When Microsoft sees the public backlash, they will come back with a slightly gentler version.
But make no mistake about it, eventually, it will happen, and they have the market dominance, funds, and patience, to eventually ram it through the market... My very first boss told me that the best way to affect change in a company is to make small baby steps instead of one big giant step. People won't notice it if you change a little at a time. But if you do it a bit at a time, you'll catch them sleeping and by the time they realize the cumulative effect of all the mini changes, it will be too late.
Democratic Vs. Authoritarian encryption schemes. (Score:2)
1> Run Linux?
2> Run Gnutella?
3> Run Freenet?
Suppose that some form of software gets up the Government's nose, say GPG. Pull the certificates for that software, and *boof*, it's gone.
This application fully embraces the centralizing possibilities of public key encryption: control flows up to the top of the pyramid, just like X509 certificates have a chain of authority: validity is drawn from authority. For X509, the Head Honcho is Verisign, and we know how responsible and responsive they are.
The other possibility is GPG's trust model, or SPKI, which embrace bottom-up authority and allow you to pick who you trust: we already have code signing for many applications - MD5 checksums PGP-signed by the authors of the software, common for GPG distributions and many other things.
It's not about the basic technology, but about who is in charge of it.
Re:Democratic Vs. Authoritarian encryption schemes (Score:2)
1> Run Linux?
Yes. You just won't be able to use the Palladium features of the processor, this has already been discussed previously.
However, with things like SCCCA and CBDTPA recurring every few years, don't you think you're being a bit naive?
2> Run Gnutella?
I don't see why not. But now you'd actually be able to use it for legitimate file-sharing rather than pirating MP3's and other programs, because the content of the musicians would be protected..wait, you don't pirate things do you?
I do see why not: who said that M$ *had* to give a certificate to anything? Five years after this sucker is adopted, how much do you think it is going to cost to get Microsoft to sign a piece of software? $500? $5000? $5,000,000?
3> Run Freenet?
That would kind of mean that Microsoft would have to use the chip to block a Java VM from running, and I don't really think Sun would like that..I'm guessing that didn't cross your mind.
Java? Big, big security hole there for DRM applications. Hell, interpreted languages pose a big risk:
10 INPUT $A
20 PRINT $A
being a perfectly functional DRM circumvention device, and all.
Sorry, but I don't think you're seeing the big picture, politics and culture included it's pretty obvious at Palladium is a Very Bad Thing, even if technically it looks OK at some levels.
We're seeing the thin edge of the wedge, don't forget that.
Re:Democratic Vs. Authoritarian encryption schemes (Score:2)
TODAY code does not have to be signed by Microsoft to run.
TODAY.
Do you get it? How long, given the continued moves to foist DRM on us, do you think it will be until all code requires a "DRM-OK" signature to run? The potential for new law changes the light in which this technology must be seen, and you're being an ahistorical dimwit by talking about the present as if it protects you from the future.
A little paranoia's good, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Cage match (Score:2, Insightful)
What I'd like to see is those guys and the Palladium guys fight it out at Microsoft first, before they deliver us an OS that makes sure that the spam and Disney advertising gets through, but nothing else.
So when the bell rings & I get a shock (Score:2)
I can't wait until its a law that my home alarm system has to be MS run and they get to decide who comes and goes into my house. Perhaps we'll have to license our own existence by them.
Any bets... (Score:2)
I'll bet we have examples of both before Palladium is publicly available.
There is really nothing we can do about it (Score:2, Interesting)
Maybe I can't speak for the majority of Slashdot users out there, but with every Windows version I owned I thought: 'This is going to be my last Windows version. I'll make the switch after that. This new crap has crossed the line.' And EVERY time I went back and bought the new crap because I could get my apps running easier, because I could play my favorite games, or simply because the UI allowed me to be more productive.
As long as MS leads the industry they WILL shove this stuff down our throats and we WILL swallow it. I can imagine EXACTLY what this future will look like. The bad thing is that the public will see nothing bad in it. And if someone objects just label him as a terrorist...
They already crossed the line (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, THIS Slashdot user works for a Microsoft Solutions Provider and therefore has access/company purchasing/training on all the Microsoft I can stand, even though I usually work the Unix side of the fence for them. And even though I'm an up-to-date MCSE, at home I back-revved all the Windows boxes to Win98SE. Contrary to what you hear from the Church of Bill, Win2K and its variant/mutant children are NOT more stable, fun or rewarding to use and they're a lot more pesky to nail down regarding matters of spyware, privacy control and consumers' rights in general. And although I have in the past helped maintain my (computer non-literate) friends' boxes for free, I have advised all of them that I will not touch any box with WinXP on it and I'd rather not bother with Win2K unless they have some killer app that absolutely demands it. I have convinced many to backrev to Win98 and without exception, they have benn happier after doing so.
The new crap crossed the line a while back, around the time the Media Player patches screwed up every other manufacturer's multimedia applications on the box. Enough already! I've got most of my friends dual-booting to Slackware, and whenever their boxes' damned internal Winmodems are supported some of those boxes are going to not be running Windows much, if at all.
I forcast Two kinds of boxes. (Score:3, Interesting)
2 General Use computers for word processing, spread sheets, hacking, photography, piracy, CD ripping (you know the obsolete format), low resolution TV recording (Not HDTV digital after 2007) and non-subscription web browsing. This second box will be locked out of the new media formats and trusted commerce standards. New media material will not be released in open formats. Windows, Mac, and Linux fall into this latter catagory. Non protected media content will be barred from the internet at strategic choke points. Media trading in this format will be prosicuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Re:No Worries (Score:4, Insightful)
I'll stop worrying the day that my relatives who don't understand the difference between a CD and a hard-disk, understand at least this.
MS designed for (Score:3, Interesting)
If the only way to get MS signed drivers for your hardware is to implement Palladium, they will likely do it.
Re:No Worries (Score:2)
Re:No Worries - Naive logic (Score:5, Insightful)
What's obvious is you haven't been paying any attention. The whole PC hardware industry is geared towards making the pieces of junk that will host Microsoft's operating systems, instead of truly inspired hardware designs. The reason? To avoid being shut out for NOT being able to run what everyone else is running. Microsoft says jump and AMD/Intel/VIA/Asus/etc. say, "how high?"
Re:No Worries (Score:2)
Paranoia vs Freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
But Microsoft isn't what worries me. Microsoft does not make me paranoid. Why? Because I know that no matter what happens with Microsoft, I can always choose not to use their products. I can buy or build myself a perfectly usable computer that runs Mac OS X, Linux, or what have you, and is certified 100% MS-free.
What worries me is the spectre of DRM laws mandating how my computer works and what types of programs I may and my not write.
I am concerned about any program, any piece of hardware, any treaty, any law that treats me as a consumer, not a citizen.
I worry that someday, when I sit down to code away on my digital photo managment software that I will have to incorporate government-mandated checks to ensure that no one could possibly use my product in any illegal activity.
As I sit here in England, people are celebrating Independence Day back home in the U.S. I will be later today, too. I'm proud to be an American; I'm proud of the freedoms that I enjoy under the U.S. Constitution. But I am paranoid that many of the basic freedoms that I have always counted on are being swept silently away - in the name of big corporations, in the name of security, in the name of profit.
Security is a great thing, but not at the expense of freedom of speech. Companies and artists need freedom from theft, but not at the expense of law-abiding people. We already have laws for punishing thieves and crackers. Use those laws.
------
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.
Consumption and Citizenship (Score:2)
If someone would keep track, I'd be happy to cast my future votes for whoever among politicians says 'the consumer' the least. Much as I like the physical world, 'the consumer' just translates to 'slave and addict to commercial output,' which doesn't quite equate to 'appreciator of what has real value in life.'
To bring this back to topic, the issue is enforcement of commercial value over real value in our stuff, which will further alienate commercial value from real value - which long term is not at all good for commercialism. The severe anti-material turn that produced the Middle (aka 'Dark') Ages was the longer-term reaction to the crassness of Roman commercial culture, towards the end of which citizenship was also devalued on the excuse of needing to strengthen the Emperor's hand to meet the threat from barbarian terror.
___
Re:Paranoia (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Paranoia (Score:2)
Did you read the article? It's like the example they give about printer cartridges: I can legally buy a refill kit for a printer cartridge, but if the cartridge contains a chip that can tell if it was refilled (and consquently refuse to work), then my legal refill kit does nothing for me. And the inventor of the kit is pushed out of the market. Microsoft's technology is along the same line -- it limits your freedom and discourages innovation.
understand but disagree (Score:2)
The problem is that the reality won't match the claims. The thing won't work properly; that is pretty much a given. However, even worse than the probable bugs is the fact that everyone will have to trust a company that consistently has proven itself to be NOT trustworthy and that freely exploits any advantages it has. That is what we are worried about.
Re:Paranoia (Score:2)
The problem with most DRM schemes is that they go too far. They make perfectly legal activities impossible. They allow corporate interests to dictate how I use equipment and software that I paid for. That I own. Now there is a very good point that people can make stating that, well, if you don't like that particular technology in so-and-so company's product, then just don't use them. Fine, okay. But when so-and-so company represents a monopoly and uses this technology to effect the market place and drive out competition, then that's wrong. In fact, it's illegal. That's the problem.
Re:Paranoia (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Paranoia (Score:2)
Still, this kind of nonsense has been around for years. Why should an independent musician wanting to record his own music have to pay some other record company a levy on the blank media he uses?
All this nonsense is interlinked. On one side, you have the perceived problem of copyright infringement of things such as music and film, and on the other side you essentially have certain technology companies trying to appear to be combating this problem. What they are really doing is extending their control over the computers of other people.
Do you *really* want a computer that can only run pre-approved software?
capitalism isn't here (Score:2)
Re:The real base of the problem (Score:2)
Re:The real base of the problem (Score:2)
Oh yes, I can see it now:
UNITED STATES OF MICROSOFT AMERICAN(tm) - CITIZENSHIP AGREEMENT
By residing in the United States of Microsoft America(tm) you hereby agree:
a) to pay one half of your earnings to Microsoft Government(tm) on a monthly basis, for all the great services that they provide.
b) Microsoft Government(tm) will not be held responsible should you injured, die, be made bankcrupt, or suffer any other type of misfortune as a result of the actions, or inaction of Microsoft Government(tm).
c) Should the United States of Microsoft America(tm) suffer any security breach by a terrorist or another country during times of war, Microsoft(tm) will not be held responsible for any resulting loss of life or property.
d) Anyone publicising any failure, negligence or other fault of the Microsoft Government (tm) will have their Microsoft Citizenship(tm) immediately revoked.
f) etc. etc.
Re:The real base of the problem (Score:2)
Re:The real base of the problem (Score:2)
The point he was trying to make is that consumers dont have the luxury to do this. We might think, as individuals we do, but by virtue of existing monopolies (and the fact that they have sprung up in numerous forms over the past 500 years) shows that it is not a viable solution to tell people not to participate in a market where the only viable choices are choices they do not wish to make.
Too often the consumer is forced to pick the lesser of evils instead of the best of breed. That, I think, is what bothers many people.
The alternative to free markets (capitalism), and state-controlled markets (communism) was proposed by an economist called Polyani, post WWII (I think.) He proposed, much like the checks and balances in government, groups of producers and consumers haggling over pricing until both producers and consumers were happy. Thus, no product could be sold until the consumers (now as powerful as the collective powers of producers by virtue of this process, where the might of collective teamwork is finally an advantage consumers can have too) had agreed on what price the market will bear. Everyone pays the same price, and you dont get the phenomenon we have now, where MS extorts higher and higher prices out of fewer and fewer people, but effectively allows them to keep controlling the market by the sheer ubiquity of their product. Remember when MS offered to give away software to schools?
Sure, I can vote by not purchasing something, but as it stands, as individuals, we have difficulty amassing and and using our collective might in the market, while companies have the advantage of making money from working as a team.
This is why, historically, the 'supply' end of the market has been disproportionately more powerful and more prone to natural monopolies in markets where the product is a second-tier need (not air, water food, but telephone, publishing (art and culture), PC and OS, etc) rather than a luxury.
Hoax, surely? (Score:2)
Hoax, I think. Mod me down for being offtopic - happy to lose karma for exposing it.
Re:DRM (Score:2)
Rolling over and playing dead like you suggest is plain wrong.. Morally and Socially.
I guess the colinists should have rolled over and play'ed dead when the redcoats came running over? How about all the other wars? Maybe we should have listened to the Axis powers during World War II and all just rolled over and played dead?
How about it? DRM is a tool for criminals to extend their ability to extort and control the populace. If you want to put special software or code in your software that you OWN to make it more difficult to copy and in return make it more difficult for legitimate people to use, that's your business... and in fact companies that do that (Dongles for example) either shrivel up and die because their customers find a replacement that doesnt chain them by their nuts.
DRM is about though control, plain and simple. If you can prove to me 100% that any and all DRM is not going to hinder my recording of my own music, movies, and photos. And I can freely distribute them FAR and WIDE without DRM screwing with it, making it impossible, setting off though-police alarms in routers/switches/carnivore-II (the search for money) boxes then Please show me this sane system... Because it doesn't exist, and it CANT exist.
DRM control cannot allow free AND protected to co-exist... otherwise it's easy to defeat the entire system.
No, DRM supporters are evil, they are the worst people on the planet.. and if there was ever a time needed for a witch-hunt and burning at the stake it is now... for everyone that supports DRM and the bastardation of American rights.
Yes, today... I spit in the face of every copyright holder.... as every american citizen should!
But alas, Slashdot, along with the rest of the planet is filled with men and women that only flap their lips in protest... when it comes to action they all cower like cowards under rocks.