Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Intel Your Rights Online

Intel to Build DRM into Next-Generation CPUs 952

mdecerbo writes "The Boston Globe is reporting that next year's Intel processors will include hardware support for Microsoft's "Palladium" DRM system. There are chilling privacy implications. AMD, here I come."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Intel to Build DRM into Next-Generation CPUs

Comments Filter:
  • Sorry but... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by secondsun ( 195377 ) <> on Tuesday September 10, 2002 @12:18PM (#4228877) Journal
    AMD has already agreed to support paladium.
  • by nethole ( 126708 ) on Tuesday September 10, 2002 @12:18PM (#4228887) Homepage

    So if we were to use AMD instead of Intel, does this mean we'd be violating the DMCA?

  • by Luke Skyewalker ( 585866 ) <> on Tuesday September 10, 2002 @12:24PM (#4228956)
    or does anyone remember that far back? the pentium III processor architecture was going to allow a special hardware code to be embedded on each processor, unique to each machine so that web transactions would be safer.

    however, due to the public backlash about having "big brother" track what their computers were doing, they allowed users to disable that hardware code from being detected.

    the hardcoded serial on those pentium III were just a precursor to palladium, however. think of it more of a proof of concept that such a device would work. intel was always heading toward palladium.

  • Re:Sorry but... (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 10, 2002 @12:24PM (#4228969)
    From what I hear (father of someone I know is a big guy at AMD), many folks there are edgy about supporting it, but they're in it because they don't want to "miss the boat."

    Germany, IBM, 1938. "Sure we can supply you with calculators to tally up the Jews you are collecting to relocate."
  • What about Transmeta (Score:2, Interesting)

    by mocm ( 141920 ) on Tuesday September 10, 2002 @12:27PM (#4229003)
    Would Transmeta have to emulate the DRM components of the Intel CPUs and will it be effective since it will be in software?
  • by Telastyn ( 206146 ) on Tuesday September 10, 2002 @12:37PM (#4229132)
    Though if Office stays part of microsoft, they might not be too pleased that Mac's don't support DRM, and might be inclined to pull Office from the Mac.

    Maybe not a big deal, but to me (someone pondering buying a mac) that's one of the big things seperating OSX and other *nix. Perhaps I've just not used it enough.
  • *sigh* (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 10, 2002 @12:37PM (#4229138)
    AMD == DRM. You'll find no comfort there.

    On the plus side of this, I can now drop my moral objections to Intel processors and buy chips that won't fry my hand if I touch them after a hard day of computing. AMD is now no better than Intel, it would seem.

    But, on the topic of DRM, who cares? I somehow doubt Linus will suddenly insist DRM be supported in the kernel. If he does, I'd dare the fact that he isn't actually Linus, but some replicant from Redmond, Washington.

    So, who cares? Linux suits my needs now. Win 98 supports my needs, and if I'm still addicted to/if EverCrack is still around by the time MS drops support for Win 98, well, I can move up to Win 2k.

    By the time Win 2k goes down the hole, I'd imagine I won't be too enthusiastic about EverCrack anymore. ;)

    Now, about the paranoia that everyone must use DRM or be locked up. These people are obviously wearing tinfoil hats. These are corporations pushing DRM, not governments, as a previous poster pointed out.

    However, we should heed their warnings about DRM and the fact that Bill Gates is an alien.

    You heard me. Why?

    Look at the Microsoft Anti-Trust trial. They were convicted of being a monopoly. They still haven't been punished.

    Think Microsoft can't buy laws requiring DRM?

    Think again.

    Even if they do, we'd still be able to use old hardware, true. But we all know geeks, and we all know the virtual penis size that's measured in gigahertz and terabytes.
  • by Frank Grimes ( 211860 ) on Tuesday September 10, 2002 @12:41PM (#4229187)
    If both AMD and Intel go ahead and implement DRM, I will consider switching to Mac hardware when the time come to upgrade. This is assuming that 1) Apple does not ever support DRM. 2) Apple chooses the Power4 to replace the PPC, and not X86. And 3) Linux will continue to run nicely on Mac hardware (I'll dual boot OSX and Linux.)
  • Sorry Connectix... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by gsfprez ( 27403 ) on Tuesday September 10, 2002 @12:41PM (#4229190)
    I almost forgot - so long Connectix. :-(...

    No more Virtual PC - well, not any Virtual PC's which require Le Grange.

    Unless they come up with some way to emulate a valid key that changes with each install.

    I don't know - how is Connectix going to deal with this? Can they?
  • by dgb2n ( 85206 ) <dgb2n@com c a s t . net> on Tuesday September 10, 2002 @12:43PM (#4229221)
    Once again, Bob Cringely was way ahead of the /. crowd on this one. This article was written the end of June entitled "See I told you so: Alas, a Couple of Bob's Dire Predictions Have Come True" []. Bob originally warned of Palladium back in August of last year.

    Bob said it much better than I can.

    The point of all this is simple. It may actually make the Internet somewhat safer. But the real purpose of this stuff, I fear, is to take technology owned by nobody (TCP/IP) and replace it with technology owned by Redmond. That's taking the Internet and turning it into MSN. Oh, and we'll all have to buy new computers.

    You said it Bob. Thank you.
  • by catfood ( 40112 ) on Tuesday September 10, 2002 @12:48PM (#4229272) Homepage

    I suppose they're making a decent effort at reporting on this in an even-handed way, but the Globe missed two important points.

    1. Palladium does nothing to protect against malicious code. It's the hardware equivalent of ActiveX "signing," which only verifies (somewhat) that the requested code comes from a known source. As we've seen already with ActiveX, code signing isn't a panacea; it can be subverted at many levels. On this the Globe is incorrect.
    2. Privacy is only half of the downside concern. The other half is that DRM-enabled CPUs and system boards could easily become DRM-required devices at the whim of a major hardware or BIOS vendor. On this the Globe just failed to notice the issue, or to mention it.
  • redhat and AMD. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by wildcard023 ( 184139 ) on Tuesday September 10, 2002 @12:48PM (#4229276) Homepage
    According to AMD, they are doing a joint venture [] with Redhat on their x86-64 Hammer series processor. Do you really imagine Redhat going into this if they had to write closed-source DRM crap into their distro?

    Say what you want about Redhat being the next Microsoft, but they always release their code. I don't see them going into this if there wasn't some non-DRM products coming from AMD.



  • by expro ( 597113 ) on Tuesday September 10, 2002 @12:51PM (#4229293)
    As Microsoft becomes the gatekeeper of digital identity, I predict that Verisign is the next major company who boasted that their part of the market was safe from Microsoft to be crushed by Microsoft.
  • by TheConfusedOne ( 442158 ) < ... m ['ail' in gap]> on Tuesday September 10, 2002 @12:52PM (#4229305) Journal
    I think you have to look at the gestalt of DRM and then you start worrying. Think of it like the current limitation with DVD's. The system "worked" as long as you had licensed hardware accessing licensed data using licensed software. The system broke because there was no way to keep "unlicensed" software from accessing the data.

    For true DRM to work then the system will have to reject all non-licensed software. This is especially true at the OS level. After all, if you can get at the bits (say use Linux or DOS to access an NTFS partition) then you're more than half way to breaking the protection.

    So, generation one support of DRM probably isn't too bad a thing. It'll be an option like the ol' CPU ID thing that Intel got flamed over. It's generations two and three that we have to worry about. (Especially if any of the Disney Senators' legislation passes.)
  • Re:Who cares? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by jreames ( 564587 ) on Tuesday September 10, 2002 @12:55PM (#4229339)
    Actually, I care. For some reason I have visions of the palladium PC's following the Xbox architecture, with a few things to ensure that you cannot run a non-trusted OS on it. Besides, what happens when microsoft brings their antivirus out and marks anything that looks like a boot sector or an ELF binary as a virus, then denies reading it into memory?

    How can you load data into your encrypted (trusted) HD?

    How can you bypass the trusted supervisor and convince it to allow you to do the things we take for granted now?

    The reason MickeySoft wants to trust the computer, is so they can tell the computer to not trust us....

  • by MountainLogic ( 92466 ) on Tuesday September 10, 2002 @01:07PM (#4229467) Homepage
    As peripherals become locked unless you have MS's DRM Linux or Apple becomes even less of an option. And by peripherals I mean every peripheral: CR-ROM/DVD, Floppy, monitor, video card, printer, the works. What hapens when you can't buy a printer or monitor that won't work with out MS's DRM. THey have the market dominance to make this happen. This is more dangerous than it first looks.
  • Not only MS. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by GoofyBoy ( 44399 ) on Tuesday September 10, 2002 @01:08PM (#4229488) Journal

    But every single interest group out there will pressure Apple to conform. Do you really think that they would leave a major American manufacturer to be the hole in the wall? They are going to have enough problems with Taiwan/Asian manufacturers as it is.

    And isn't Apple rumored to start using x86 chips soon?
  • Re:Sorry but... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Dalcius ( 587481 ) on Tuesday September 10, 2002 @01:10PM (#4229508)
    And the personal feelings of some engineer

    I said high up, not an engineer. Let's put it this way, he's very high up in the sales team, and although I will say that I typically hate marketing/sales folks, this guy is no typical sales guy. He knows his stuff.

    As far as Palladium not causing problems:

    1) I wasn't aware that Palladium would be "disableable." Link, please? I would be interested to know...

    2) Microsoft controls ~95% of the desktop market. Palladium gives them a lot of control over one's system. They've proven time and time again their will to stoop low to push out competition. I won't go past that, but you can't tell me we should be care-free about this. We can control our systems, but what about all the other desktops out there?
  • Re:Sorry but... (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 10, 2002 @01:17PM (#4229581)
    I'm sure many of the engineers who work at Intel don't like this either. But unless they sabotage the implementation, they don't really have much say in the matter.

    On a related note, why do Slashdot users have blinders on when it comes to AMD's ethics? They make great CPUs (I run one myself), but how can anyone fail to realize how eager AMD is to kiss Microsoft's ass at every possible opportunity?

    Don't they realize what the "Athlon XP" is named after?!

    I don't exactly blame AMD. Intel is so entrenched that AMD needs all the friends they can get. But I really am embarrassed about AMD's perverse, unnatural relationship with Microsoft.
  • by KelsoLundeen ( 454249 ) on Tuesday September 10, 2002 @01:20PM (#4229621)
    Actually, I encourage Microsoft's work on Palladium.


    Because it will herald a great (and much needed) rebirth of "personal computing." It'll launch (IMHO) a fairly comprehensive reassessment and reappraisal of why we use computers in the first place. And it'll most likely start a significant portion of us back on (or near) square one -- the late 1970's where the notion of "personal computing" really took off.

    I'm serious. For those of us alive in the late 70's, it was a great time to be a "hobbyist." There weren't geeks and no real "hackers" or "script-kiddies". Just a bunch of people who -- especially here in America -- shared a common passion for building little boxes out of solder, wires, and circuit boards so that -- after everything was assembled correctly -- we could watch a couple lights blink on and off.

    Later, once stuff like the TRS-80 and AppleII gained ground, it was really pretty cool. I still remember hanging out in the arcades and trying to write stuff like a TRS-80 version of Pac Man or Donkey Kong in Z80 assembly language with -- what? -- 127 X 47 blocky, black and white graphics.

    (Insert snide comment here about old, outdated graphics, but if you do, you miss the point.)

    I see this sort of "community hobbyism" in the Linux community (even though they don't call it that) but I think if Microsoft pushes forth this Palladium, we'll see a pretty significant split between those who embrace whatever new technology comes down the pike and those who take a hard look at where we've been and what we've achieved vis a vis Palladium and realize that better technology doesn't necessarily mean much. It means better technology, maybe, but it certainly doesn't herald or promised a better "user experience."

    Palladium will also, I think, significant a fairly radical leap in the notion of "personal computing." This DRM technology is not personal computing. It's corporate computing. There's nothing personal about it. There's not much fun about it either. It leaves the "hobbyists" -- now called geeks, I guess -- out in the cold and looking toward all the nifty retro-tech.

    The retro-tech movement, I think, will be stronger than ever if Palladium -- or something like it -- comes to pass. What that means -- retro-tech -- I'm not entirely sure, but I think it will be a gradual awareness that "good enough" really is "good enough" and something along the lines of "personal computing is dead, long live personal computing!"

  • by Jason Earl ( 1894 ) on Tuesday September 10, 2002 @01:37PM (#4229795) Homepage Journal

    I agree with you that the computer is becoming an appliance. But Intel and AMD shouldn't be accelerating this process along! They should be doing everything in their power to make sure that the computer is useable as a general purpose device, and the reason for this is simple, they would make a lot less money if computers had 10 upgrade cycles as opposed to 3 year upgrade cycles.

    The fact of the matter is that Microsoft is happy to switch to the idea of the computer as an appliance because they are tired of forcing their customers along the upgrade treadmill. They want to charge their customers a monthly fee and then pare down their research to a much lower level. As long as the PC remains an open system this isn't likely to work in the long term because Linux will eventually pass them up if they slow down. So Microsoft is using their current market clout to close down the market.

    Not that this is likely to work, but that's what is happening.

  • by Lonath ( 249354 ) on Tuesday September 10, 2002 @01:46PM (#4229875)
    Here's how it will happen. MS will get Intel/AMD to add circuits onto their chips that require the OS running on them to implement abstract thought patents that MS owns. Hence, they will make it illegal to run any OS other than Windows. It isn't a technological hurdle, but it is a legal one. Are you willing to violate laws to run Linux? You will have to.
  • Re:redhat and AMD. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SirSlud ( 67381 ) on Tuesday September 10, 2002 @01:48PM (#4229889) Homepage
    Reminds me of the "Life for a Loom" law Luddites were subjected to in the late 1800s (I think) .. basically, if you attacked a loom, the penalty was death. (Luddites were seeing their jobs being usurped by looms and harsh factory working conditions, lower wages, etc, so they were attempting to stop the industrialization of the textile industry.)

    It's pretty amazing, but this sort of thing has always happened in our technological state. Killing someone is one thing, but impeding "progress" (note the quotes) is severly punished. Of course, "progress" usually involves strenthening the position of the current winners, which is why its usually subject to resistance at some level by the population at large, and why people in power are far more interested in punishing people who impede the furthuring of their interests than punishing the DUI driver who kills somebody they'll never meet.

    I think its crazy, but there you have it. This is pretty much a plutocracy (you need money to have your voice heard a la "lobbiest", "analyst", etc), so I'm not sure what methods we can use to oppose these things.
  • by Zeinfeld ( 263942 ) on Tuesday September 10, 2002 @01:54PM (#4229951) Homepage
    that sounds right to me. palladium is a ms technology due to be built into longhorn (win2004) so running win2k/xp/*nix on a palladium chipset should mean that you're not effected. right?

    You can run on Palladium class hardware if you like and still not use Palladium. The only restriction being that then you cannot receive or display or do anything with Palladium controlled content.

    A ripped CD is not Palladium controlled content. Nor for that matter is any mass produced physical media going to be Palladium controlled unless consumers are going to suddenly take to calling up a hotline to register their copy of the latest U2 album...

    Also note that the original story in the Boston Globe has not been confirmed by an Intel press release. It would be somewhat 'off-message' for a company to announce support for Palladium on the same day they launch a completely new line of chips for laptops.

    What Intel did announce is that they are embedding private keys into their Banias line of chips [] which provide integrated support for 802.11a/b.

    This is a journalist looking to invent a story.

    Paul Otellini, Intel's president, said the chip maker would include no copyright protections in LaGrande, but he acknowledged that digital publishers could use the technology with software programs such as Palladium to create their own.

    You can't do DRM without trusted hardware but DRM is not the only use for trusted hardware, nor is any old trusted hardware sufficient for DRM.

  • Re:I have an idea (Score:2, Interesting)

    by chthon ( 580889 ) on Tuesday September 10, 2002 @02:17PM (#4230220) Homepage Journal

    The problem is that Intel succumbed for installing DRM, after AMD had first said to implement DRM in response to a request of MS.

  • China's Revenge (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 10, 2002 @02:20PM (#4230247)
    Are any of you old enough to remember the 1970s? In 1969, the "foreign car" (not made in america) was rare. By the start of the 70s, the American car manufacturers had become clueless, and thought the American public were all idiots that would buy any old piece of crap they cared to produce.

    By 1980 the American car industry was nearly dead, with AMC gobe and Chrystler (and Dodge and Plymouth) needing welfare from the feds to stay alive.

    They forgot about the Japanese, who had belatedly discovered quality.

    Fast forward to now, when hardware and software manufacturers became clueless, and thought the American public were all idiots that would buy any old piece of digital rights crap they cared to produce.

    They forgot about the Chinese, who have belatedly discovered Linux. My guess is in ten years we will be buying smuggled Chinese processors and the American economy will make the 1930s look like the 1990s in comparison.

    They're not only trying to shoot themselves in the foot, they're aiming squarely at the head of an already shaky economy.

  • by bwt ( 68845 ) on Tuesday September 10, 2002 @02:30PM (#4230341) Homepage
    Soon you will see web pages that you cannot load without Palladium enabled.

    This will happen. DRM is "optional" in that you can turn it on or not turn it on. The trick, of course, is that anyone can ask and rely on the trusted client to tell it whether it is on or off. The countermeasure that we MUST be prepared to do is this: we must configure our web pages, content, and programs to require that it be off. That is, we must force users to choose whether they want to see our stuff or DRM stuff.

    I would go so far to say that we should set up IP blacklists for people who are "caught" turning DRM on. Palladium is a nasty measure -- we are going to have to fight back with equally nasty responses.

    I also predict that when this is finally cracked, somebody will write a virus that cannot be deleted.
  • Re:Sorry but... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by 0x0d0a ( 568518 ) on Tuesday September 10, 2002 @03:51PM (#4231061) Journal
    What happens when Adobe incorporates it into Acrobat and Acrobat Reader

    Adobe is pushing Acrobat as a Web standardd, and has been for years. They make money by making the best, not the only, PDF software out there. They have no interest whatsoever in trying to keep people from using PDF at all.

    This isn't MS we're talking about. Slashdot and Adobe have had differences before, but Adobe has a solid reputation for making good (if expensive) products and beating their competition on merit.

    Microsoft will do the same thing with Office. It will require applications to get Palladium keys from MS before they will run in Microsoft Windows XXP. Those same applications will not run and documents will not be accessable under a non_MS operating system. Bye bye WINE.

    WINE and attempts to read Microsoft formats are fun from a technical perspective, but from a market standpoint, they're mostly pointless. A company does not want to migrate to Linux and have their Win32 pograms work *some* of the time, or be able to read MS Office documents 4/5 of the time.

    Trying to out-reverse engineer Microsoft is a losing game. MS can *always* make their software too complex to reverse engineer. In this case, they would be doing exactly what they did with DR-DOS -- checking to see whether their apps are running in their own OS and terminate if not, and keep trying to patch loopholes that let people get the apps running. Palladium is one of many, many means to this end...and MS pulling something like this was inevitable if WINE got popular enough.

    The other problem with TCPA/Palladium is that you will be forced to use it (probably by law).

    Not a chance in the world. You might not get to play some games if you don't use it, but there will never be a specific law enforcing a particular DRM standard. The best you might get (and this is pushing it) is a set of generic DRM requirements for hardware.
  • by theLOUDroom ( 556455 ) on Tuesday September 10, 2002 @04:10PM (#4231258)
    He's not taking away your rights.
    Hollywood is taking away your rights.
    A few large companies have collectively monopolized movie distribution is the US. They want to keep this monopoly by creating barriers to entry into the market.
    Technology is making it easy to make better movies cheaper. I can got to a story and buy a really decent digital video camera and dvd burner for less than $5000. Then I can go ahead and make my own movie. Sure, a can't do special effects as good as the ones in the matrix yet, but don't forget moore's law. Soon I will be able to.
    The MPAA and it's members seek to keep anyone from competing with their monopoly by creating laws such as the DMCA, which prevents you from making content viewable on their content delivery devices.
    The laws they seek to pass in the name of preventing piracy, have nothing to do with preventing piracy. You don't need DeCSS to pirate DVDs. You don't need palladium in hardware to get security. A software layer could provide the same level of security. The reason MS wants palladium in hardware is so that they can block you from running anything they don't approve of, allowing them to expand their monopoly.
    Whining about hackers and software pirates is only done you get people like you, who don't understand the actual motivation for their actions. They know that kid who downloaded some movie off the internet was probably never going to buy it. They'll claim that they lost $20 he would have spent on the DVD and multiply that by the number of nodes on gnutella to get some staggering figure of annual losses due to piracy, but it's not reality.
    These laws are all about getting control. When CDs came out, they were cheaper to produce than cassettes, yet the cost to the consumer was higher. They could only do this because they had thighter control over the production of CDs than they did of cassettes.
    It's all about getting more control and jacking up prices once you have it. Once every PC can only run MS code, what's to stop them from charging $1000 per user, per year. Certainly not the government, which would never dare interfere with the "free" market or offend one of the biggest spenders on political power.
  • by rogerzilla ( 575012 ) on Tuesday September 10, 2002 @04:10PM (#4231265)
    OK, they might have a crappy FPU and be well behind Intel and AMD at the moment, but surely this is a chance for VIA to stick it to The Man (as they have done with DDR mobos) and clean up?
  • by bedessen ( 411686 ) on Tuesday September 10, 2002 @06:27PM (#4232384) Journal
    Okay, this is something I don't understand about this proposed scheme. Let's say media server A wants to send content to client B. A of course asks B to confirm that B is in secure mode, so that the owners of the content about to be transmitted can sleep well at night knowing that the recipient has paid. What prevents B from running a nonsecure client/OS and reponding "yeah sure, palladium enabled" and receiving the content and storing it unencumbered?

    My first thought would be some sort of cryptographic challenge/response would be used to signal this fact. But client B is totally under our control, since we've disabled the secure mode of the CPU, or we're running a non-DRM OS, or we have a legacy CPU, or whatever. So now it appears that we're back to the same situation as the content scrambling system on DVDs. There's some secret key or challenge/response protocol imbedded in the secure OS that's supposed to be running on client B. But we've hacked that software, found the key, whatever. As long as we have the binaries to this OS, someone will eventually find the secret key and that will be the end of that.

    In short, how could this form of digital rights management ever work? The situation is almost exactly analogous to DVDs, as far as I can tell -- you have the "trusted" clients (consumer DVD players -> Microsoft's future palladium OS) and the "untrusted" clients (standard PCs with DVD ROMs -> standard PCs running non-DRM OS.)

    How does this protect anything? Why go to all the trouble?
  • by Bill Privatus ( 575781 ) <last_available_i ... m ['yah' in gap]> on Tuesday September 10, 2002 @09:03PM (#4233677)
    "The Palladium is the wooden statue that fell from heaven and was kept at Troy; for so long as it was preserved, the city was safe."

    How ironic.

    See Palladium - Greek Mythology []

  • Re:I have an idea (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Catbeller ( 118204 ) on Wednesday September 11, 2002 @12:49AM (#4234885) Homepage
    This could be a good way for smaller chipmakers to break into the market. If they refuse to quit selling non-DRM processors, they'll guarentee themselves plenty of geek customers.

    I guarantee that by the time such chipmakers (Cyrix, AMD, Brand X) decide to produce non-DRM chips in defiance of Intel/MS/Hollywood's monopoly, the act of producing or selling such chips will be deemed illegal, in small, politically-digestible steps.

    I also warrant that the penalties for ignoring the law will outstrip those for murder.

    Stockpiles, kids. When the last generation of non-DRM CPUs are made, buy as many as you can, and put them in a safe place. Ditto mobos and components, 'cause data drives will be DRMed to only work with approved "protected" CPUs.

    I'm not saying that some company won't be manufacturing Freedom Chips. I'm saying that the consequences for owning such devices will be so dire that the market will shrivel and the rogue companies will find themselves bankrupt.

    And other nations will not be a safe harbor for manufaturing US-banned equipment for long, either. We're (the U.S.) are the world's only economic and military empire now, and business interests will dictate changes in international and extranational laws at their whim. The majority of the legal shafting has already been accomplished, prepatory to the arrival of DRM-mandates in the near future.

    This is why I'm switching to an art career.
  • POC: Cookies (Score:3, Interesting)

    by DoctorFrog ( 556179 ) on Wednesday September 11, 2002 @02:11AM (#4235130)
    There are so many sites that require cookies, often for no good reason, that setting your browser to always refuse can lock you out of a significant portion of the Web. You're basically left with the choice of accepting the invasion or contantly deciding whether to accept a cookie.

    I suspect most people got tired very quickly of deciding and just accept all cookies. Now site designers say, "Oh, people don't mind, we never get complaints. Most people have them enabled anyway." They don't complain because once you give in you never know how many cookies you're getting (except by the increase in your spam percentage maybe).

    Palladium on the Web will work the same way. Lots of people will leave it off at first, but when half the sites they want to visit (including things like online banking, for example) require PD to be switched on for entry, they'll be worn down into leaving it on all the time.

Did you hear that two rabbits escaped from the zoo and so far they have only recaptured 116 of them?