RMS Urges Opposition to "Trusted Computing" 522
Andy Tai writes "In this Newsforge article, Richard Stallman analyzes the "Trusted Computing" initiative and Microsoft's Palladium, points out that such initiatives are really means to ensure your computer can be trusted by Microsoft and Hollywood (you can't do things they don't want), and urges computer users to organize, to support the Public Knowledge and the Digital Speech projects and to use their consumer power to block "Trusted Computing" in its tracks."
What a shock! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:What a shock! (Score:3, Funny)
Just as long as RMS didn't get with any of the babes on The Screen Savers...
Re:Next week in slashdot -- water is wet! (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of us had gone there hoping that someone would put Brian on the spot. Even those who are friends would have liked to see how he would cope with a difficult question. Unfortunately RMS did not ask a difficult question, he just went off onto a rant. As a result everyone who followed was making sure that they distanced themselves from RMS.
The way to put someone on the spot in a case like that is not to make the most ridiculous assertion about the other side. Instead you should make the question appear to be as reasonable as possible and design it so that it exposes the unreasonableness of the other person.
lol (Score:3, Interesting)
Wait a minute? I do... and so far it seems to work... BLOODY HELL! How am I supposed to make a point of how Microsoft's intentions are evil (which they clearly are), when I can't find a good example where trusted 'fill in the blank' doesn't work... Anyone???
Re:lol (Score:5, Insightful)
MS doesn't have niether competition nor federal mandates preventing computers from being restricted.
Stopping a Monopoly (Score:4, Insightful)
The bank knows that the big, bad SEC will be breathing down its neck in a microsecond if it crosses certain boundaries. Both the banking laws and banking tradition keep its competitive force/greed in check.
The high-tech world hasn't got the equivalent of the SEC. And, of course, it doesn't WANT an SEC looking over its shoulder, although Microsoft's behavior certainly indicates it needs one. :/
Even parts of the high-tech world that overlap on the SEC's territory, like online banking (PayPal, anyone?) or online stockbroking, are often not regulated as the equivalent real-world businesses would be. PayPal, for example, doesn't operate under the same laws and regulations as a bank, although its business is unquestionably banking. That's why I won't use PayPal.
Stopping Microsoft and the RIAA on the "Trusted/Treacherous Computing Initiative" is going to take both a grassroots refusal to use products that have that technology and a significant political effort. Time to call the EFF....
Oy... (Score:5, Funny)
That sentence should be dragged out into the street and shot.
Too bad that Grammar guy isn't here to point out the tragedy of double negatives, improper spelling, confusing wording, and a run-on sentence all in one! It's like looking at a 16-car accident.
Re:Oy... (Score:3, Funny)
Paypal, CDNow, tons of examples come to mind (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, start with Paypal, which a lot of people trusted as a bank but then got screwed when Paypal froze their funds. Google for Paypal frozen accounts and you'll find tons of horror stories.
Then move on to the online storage of credit card data, and think back to when CDNow got hacked and all their consumers' credit cards were tossed around to the public.
I'm sure you'll get hundreds of examples here, but come on, you really don't have to think too hard.
Re:Paypal, CDNow, tons of examples come to mind (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Paypal, CDNow, tons of examples come to mind (Score:5, Insightful)
No, they want to make our to be computers trustworthy -- to them. Hardwired DRM would make them untrustworthy to me. ("You want to install operating system XYZ? Sorry, I can't do that Ron, it would bypass my DRM protection...")
Hell, they control their computers and websites and transaction processing. So why do they make idiot mistakes? Let them install secure operating systems that prevent those kind of fsckups first.
I'd rather hand over all my root accounts or just install BackOrifice for them than give them what amounts to hardware control.
And Microsoft is evil.
An operating system that needs to phone home to properly install.
Software that wants to auto-update. (Blocked suckers!)
And now "DRM" that basically gives them a hardware blackbox that they control inside the machine I paid for? I. Don't. Think. So. (And I still have my hand-soldered 8085 as backup.)
Usually I think RMS is a bit of a loon, but in this I agree. (My initials are RMS too, can I sue him? :^)
Re:Paypal, CDNow, tons of examples come to mind (Score:3, Interesting)
Depending on how pedantic you're willing to get, you could say Palladium is "the working name given to some software" and leave it at that. The referenced article, however, deals specifically with DRM as one of the likely uses of Palladium technology so please be willing to make that herculean logical leap when posting.
No one is forcing you, or will force you to use anything related to Palladium
Gee, ya think? Nobody claims that MS is holding a gun to anybody's head, how on earth does that invalidate comments about the program? Nobody held a gun to your head and forced you to read the previous poster's comments, but I see that didn't stop you from replying.
Windows XP can phone home for you, or you can do it yourself. Big deal.
It is a big deal in that it is completely unnecessary with regard to the functionality of the product, and it presumes every install of XP is a criminal act involving pirated software until that transaction is successfully made to the satisfaction of Microsoft.
That check box clicking thing got you down? Whats wrong with software that offers to keep itself current? On the one hand you say MS sucks for its security problems, and then on other hand when they design software to help reduce exploitability after a compromise is found you freak out. You cant have it both ways.
Irrelevant trolling. The issue is not that MS generously wishes to fix the bugs in its software mere months after the are brought to enough people's attention that they can no longer be successfully ignored; the issue is that MS insists on packaging unknown, untrusted (by the user), unrelated malware and asserting insane levels of control in the attached EULA, which one of course must click in order to have the original bugs fixed.
I have no idea what you are talking about, but its definately not related to Palladium
If you don't understand how hardware-enforced encryption to which I do not hold the key running on my machine might be likened to a blackbox, then your statement is more of a personal admission of general confusion than the smart, stinging rhetorical question you probably had in mind.
Re:Paypal, CDNow, tons of examples come to mind (Score:4, Informative)
Palladium is a set of digital rights for what processes on your computer will and won't do. Go read the FAQ here [microsoft.com] and tell me that doesn't sound like DRM.
"No one is forcing you, or will force you to use anything related to Palladium (well maybe your boss, but he's probably a jackass)."
Question: Can you still run Windows 95 in today's world? You can't say yes without saying "as long as I give up a few things...". If you're a Windows user, you are not running Windows 95 or Windows 3.1 comfortably.
"False. Windows XP can phone home for you, or you can do it yourself. Big deal. "
False? You restated his point and said 'false'. Heh. And yes, it is a big deal. MS can not only deny you from using Windows XP, but your computer's existence is dependent on them remaining in business. They'll eventually cancel support for XP (like they did with Win95), and you'll have no option to continue running it. MS has turned Windows into a subscription model without anybody really realizing that.
"That check box clicking thing got you down? Whats wrong with software that offers to keep itself current? On the one hand you say MS sucks for its security problems, and then on other hand when they design software to help reduce exploitability after a compromise is found you freak out. You cant have it both ways."
Narrow view alert! Heh. What if the auto-update dealie is hijacked? What if the update will break something else on your machine? What if you already fixed the vulnerability another way and don't want to potentially add new problems to your machine?
"I have no idea what you are talking about, but its definately not related to Palladium."
DRM cannot work without Palladium. Palladium will give DRM the toolset it needs in order to work. In a sense, Palladium is DRM (or at least it does the same job), and it is very much a concern.
Re:Paypal, CDNow, tons of examples come to mind (Score:3, Insightful)
Palladium is not DRM. Palladium is hardware enforced encryption.
I've worked with hardware enforced encrypted systems, 13 years ago. Tempest-certified hardware. Red Book, Orange Book. Alphabet agencies, I think. I got the joke when Microsoft claimed to have a B2 rated version of NT -- The slightest driver/hardware change meant a recertification, and THEY never told you why it failed. I admit that I worked on the edge of it all, and I'm not an expert. (And have no security classifications to violate.)
The idea of a trusted system is that you have a "black-box" (hardware, or reluctantly software) that is tamper-proof. (Some cards might have had a key-wipe if you opened the case wrong.) Only someone who has the master keys has access inside that black-box and "root" access to everything else.
Has the Palladium spec made it clear who will control those keys? If it's not me, and I don't control even access to the floppy drive, how do I install an operating system that I trust? (Yeah, the floppy, ports and network were locked out on a user basis, damned straight!)
So, I'm thinking of the GE Tempest PCs with fibre-optic keyboard and monitor cables, and an encryption card that tied the harddrive in knots, and hardware 6 years behind the curve and I wonder why I would buy such a thing? Why should I be forced to buy such a thing? That's where I'm coming from.
No one is forcing you, or will force you to use anything related to Palladium
Ah? Someone recently assured me on Slashdot that I would have to -- until I mentioned that I was in Canada. (And how does Palladium encryption protect terrorist data these days? I thought encryption was still classified as "munitions"?) How did that go, "That which is not maniditory will be compulsorily"? (I'm sure I'm misquoting one of the Arthur books. Someone will correct me, this is Slashdot.) Ah, you stated that Palladium is a security/encryption standard, yes? Who certified it? Is it an open standard? (I'm asking, not challenging.)
An operating system that needs to phone home to properly install.
False. Windows XP can phone home for you, or you can do it yourself. Big deal.
It still needs contact with Microsoft to be installed. Ever boostraped an install with upgrade disks recently, even legally? To get Win95 on the 486/66, I needed DOS 6.x. And then I need the Win95 CD to cram Win98 on it. Why don't I trust Microsoft to forever support a product that I bought? (I needed a slow machine for the EPROM programmer.)
That check box clicking thing got you down? Whats wrong with software that offers to keep itself current? On the one hand you say MS sucks for its security problems, and then on other hand when they design software to help reduce exploitability after a compromise is found you freak out. You cant have it both ways.
I turned off any auto-update. That's the firewall complaining that an unauthourized app is trying to access the Internet. (Microsoft isn't alone in that. Corel inhales deeply and others.) I make the decisions about upgrades, and frequently I do upgrade -- after the pioneers have caught the arrows. Mamma isn't Microsoft or RealNetworks. Unauthorized auto-upgrade software is not an option. (Perhaps I was tried too well about security?)
And now "DRM" that basically gives them a hardware blackbox that they control inside the machine I paid for? I have no idea what you are talking about, but its definately not related to Palladium.
I have to learn more about Palladium, but perhaps you have to learn more about secured encryption/security systems? I'm too tired to go another round or make any more sense, but it was a pleasure. Night!
Re:lol (Score:5, Insightful)
Trusted CEOs of Enron and WorldCom?
Trusted polititicans?
In general you can trust people if:
- You through personal experience that they are trustworthy.
- You have thoughouly investigated their background.
- They believe the consequences of screwing you over are bad enough that screwing you over is not to their advantage.
- -- OR --
- The consequences to you of being screwed over are worse than the consequences of not trusting that person.
Of course, this doesn't apply to trusted computing, which actually means that your computer doesn't trust you, not that you trust your computer.And remember, if you lend someone $20 and you never see that person again, it was probably worth it.
Re:lol (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm puzzled how this is more 'flamebait' than 'interesting'. I think he makes a good point. There's nothing wrong with stopping and asking "Why should I follow the anti-MS stampede?". If you guys knee-jerk against every single thing that MS says or does, then how's anybody going to take you seriously when they do something that's really really bad.
As for my response: The main reason I'm against this is that the wrong problem is getting solved, and the consumers get burned for it. The problem is not that computers need to be restricted so that Hollywood can feel safe with digital content, the problem is that Hollywood needs to learn how to make it in this market.
Hollywood doesn't understand that people are happy to pay for service, but they can't pay until the service is provided. Right now, I could go download a bunch of movies from kazaa. What would that experience be like? Well, I get varying quality, unreliable connections, and it takes hours (sometimes days) to get a movie to come down. Now if I could pay $5 to download a guaranteed high quality movie at a speed of 100KB/s, why would I even care about Kazaa?
If the internet got to the point that p2p could work that fast, then the pressure is on Hollywood to provide a better service. "The first 100 people to buy this movie will also recieve a still from the movie..." or something like that.
PC's and the Internet are marketing opportunities, they are not exploits designed to put Hollywood out of business. If they're not willing to get with the times, then they don't have any reason to get computers regulated with technology like Palladium.
Re:lol (Score:5, Insightful)
True enough... but using logic like "I trust banks, so why not trust MS" is pure lunacy..
Banks are required (by law) to be FDIC insured. There is none of this "we take no responsibility for your money - if we get robbed, you'll lose it, even if it was our fault" mentality that MS seems to have (read your EULA some time)
If a bank decided (for no reason) to tell you "I'm sorry, I don't feel like giving you your money", they can be shut down, and the officers thrown in jail.
As soon as MS takes some responsibility for their products and services, maybe I'll start to trust them.
Re:lol (Score:5, Insightful)
And keep in mind that banks weren't always so trustworthy, and that it has taken centuries of bank failures resulting in economic slowdowns before we have reached the current state of "trust". The first central bank in the US was chartered in 1791. Nationally chartered banks were established in the mid 19th century, to ensure a stable consistent national currency. The current Federal Reserve system was established in 1914. Bank failures during the great depression of the early 1930's resulted in more regulation under the New Deal.
Banks were once not considered trustworthy - hence the tales of old folks with their life's savings hidden under their mattress. The current state of trust in banking institution results from a long painful history of experiments, failures (and lost savings) and government regulation. Banks are perhaps the most regulated and most audited commercial organizations in the country.
Banks have had to earn their trust in ways Microsoft never has (and likely never will)
Re:lol (Score:3, Informative)
I thought I had already covered that in my previous post. I guess I can go into a little more detail:
Pay them money, and you can get the video pretty fast. Go through Kazaa, it can take hours, even days for it to come through. In other words, Hollywood actually provides a service.
Secondly, what's to convince me to share a movie? "Dude, if you want the movie, go buy it." I wouldn't have to keep my computer constantly busy to share it. Sharing files on your computer is a chore. It disrupts your net connection, drains on your computer's performance, and it's just not worth it if a reasonably priced alternative is available. The MPAA doesn't even need copy protection (restriction) to make it unattractive to transfer movies. All they need to do make the movie bigger (i.e. higher resolution or less compression) to make it even less attractive to send around. Most'll download a 2-gig movie at 100K/s before I download a 600 meg movie at 15K/s. Those who are willing to trade the files despite the availabilty of that service are over-exerting themselves to save a few measly dolllars.
Third, they could offer streaming. This may or may not be interesting to everybody, but I certainly like the idea of hitting 'ok' to submit my payment, then moments later the movie starts. It sure beats waiting a while to download the video. If they were smart, they'd have a streaming solution that stores to your hard-drive as well for an extra nominal fee.
There it is. There's a business opportunity right there. But Hollywood would rather stop you from doing things that they think is harming sales than take a risk and potentially make more money from you.
Re:lol (Score:3, Funny)
I think I've found a couple...Trusted:
Left-out Milk
Serial Killer
Steve Balmer's anti-persperant
Outlook Attachment
Full-Bladdered Dog
panhandlers
monopoly
little Brother/Sister
Moderation
Romulans
Slashdot the Grammar
Slahsdot Slpeeling
Slashdot Obituaries
Blind barbers
Stoned roommate & leftover pizza
Kazaa downloads
Fox news
Shadow Government
One calorie soda
Lite Beer
Heroin Junkie & nice sterio
Microsoft's User Testimonials
EULAs
Politicians
8 track Tapes
clean underwear
Transvestites
& blood transfusions in Hati.
Thanks, I'll be here all week.
Re:lol (Score:5, Insightful)
This is what the RMS bunch never gets. If you let the other side set the language of the debate, they start out with a huge advantage. If you just sit there and LET the debate begin in a mode where "trusted computing" is always being used to describe "computing in which microsoft, not the owner of the box, is the one who has final say-so as to what happens on that box" (or "computing in which the user is not trusted at all".. really, palladium is a complicated concept, and trying to reduce it to one catchphrase is just silly).. and "anti-piracy" is always used for "prevents copying".. and "digital rights management" is always used for "technology which lets providers of copyrighted material limit the manner in which that material is used"..
If you let that happen, you're always at a huge disadvantage, because people who walk into the debate late will hear RMS or whoever saying "and so, Trusted Computing is bad!" and they'll go "wait, Trusted Computing sounds good! huh?"
This is made even worse in this particular case becuase the technical issues are simply beyond the grasp of the average person. Unless you have a pretty decent idea of how a computer works, you can't understand what Palladium does, and it takes quite a while for someone to explain to you what Palladium's effect for the consumer will be. As such, the average person, upon hearing about all this, will be faced with two sides to the debate: Microsoft's version of things, which is incredibly simple and easy to grasp because Microsoft is oversimplifying the truth to the point where it's practically out and out lying, and the Free Software People's version of things, which is disgustingly, disgustingly complex becuase it tells the whole truth, with all its confusing technical details and collateral damage. (Well, and becuase the Free Software People are a large, disorganized, and largely not very eloquent group, whereas Microsoft has everything being written by PR firms, and a large advertising budget.) Who do you think the average person is going to listen to? It seems obvious to me-- they simply won't be able to wrap their heads around what the Free Software People are saying. People may walk away with some vague sense Microsoft may be up to something shady, but they'll assume that even if it gives Microsoft lots of power, Palladium does the things Microsoft says it does (which it doesn't, not effectively), and will just forget about all those "side effects" that they heard about but didn't understand.
For people who spend so much time haggling over hacker vs cracker and the whole "GNU/" thing, it always seems so wierd to me they don't get that one simple thing. The vocabulary of the debate matters.
Remember, always remember: With Trusted Computing, you are not the consumer. You are the product. You are being sold to entertainment companies by Microsoft-- and they are paying Microsoft not in money, but by agreeing to use Microsoft's platform for "digital rights management", and Microsoft benefits in that they get validation for their secure, locked-down stranglehold on every single step within the computer between your fingertips on the keyboard and the rays of light coming out of the monitor. (And, of course, if things turn out the way MS hopes, eventually things will reach the point where your average computer user can't realistically ever switch Palladium off, because if they do there will be too many programs they can't run and too many websites they can't visit.) Of course, if Microsoft ever does secure that degree of control, you can bet the entertainment industries will wind up paying Microsoft a decent amount of money, if nothing else for the licensing to encode and decode into the formats of Microsoft's secure platform..
Re:lol (Score:3, Insightful)
Misinterpreted (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Misinterpreted (Score:2, Insightful)
RMS May be a Kook!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
I consider myself more of a business person and see the world in shades of grey. Sure that is great for earning an income, the problem though is that my shade of grey might change from a more white grey to a more black grey. And that switch is an erosion of power that I only realize when it is too late... At that point my black grey is a white grey for most people because they have "gotten" used to it.
So hats off Mr RMS...
Re:RMS May be a Kook!!! (Score:3, Funny)
As far as your "grey" issues go, perhaps you should try Grecian formula?
Listen up, square (Score:2, Funny)
YourMissionForToday: and try new pink grey!
See how funny my post was compared to yours? And you know why? Because I use drugs. That's all you need to do. That's the key!
Re:RMS May be a Kook!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
There's a solution to this: Pull Your Head Out Of Your Ass.
It's bad business to ignore the long-term affects of your short-term "compromises"
Re:RMS May be a Kook!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
My first reaction to your post is "screw off."
My second is to make a list of all the things that could not have flourished over the past 10 years if Stallman had not, in an obvious fit of "kookiness," started the GNU project:
Linux
FreeBSD
MacOSX
OpenBSD
OpenSSH
pgp
Free software has more than the wonderful effect of "attending to" your world. It has Ballmer openly crapping himself during keynote speeches. It has some governments considering the radical move of removing their dependency on software made by foriegners with nationalist concerns in a world where freedom and your ability to run software are becoming more and more the same.
Think of what you do in a day: use the ATM, check your email, check your voice mail, get mail on paper, read the newspaper, watch television, get water from the tap, turn on the lights, listen to some music. Now picture that all running on software owned by the "Trusted Computing" infrastructure, which decides what you are and are not allowed to do with the stuff for which you pay. Feel a little "kooky?"
For those who missed it... (Score:5, Interesting)
RMS is a dork. A principled dork, but a dork nonetheless.
Re:For those who missed it... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:For those who missed it... (Score:2, Informative)
Wrong! One missguided person wants him banned. Everyone else thinks that he is annoying but generally harmless.
Most ernel developers understand that censorship doesn't solve anything.
Re:For those who missed it... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:For those who missed it... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:For those who missed it... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:For those who missed it... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:For those who missed it... (Score:2)
Excuse me - why are you straying off topic? The issue is Richard's credibility, so why are talking about "immaturity"? Sure maturity can often be a sign of credibility, but that generalization is only statistical fact.
Consider Feigenbaum in the field of philosophy of science.
Consider Einstein's immature invocation of "God's" name in science.
Do you really want to debate the issue of maturity and credibility? Or would you prefer to stick to Richard's credibilty as an advocate of freedom? Because as an advocate of freedom, Richard is eminently qualified, whatever you stand on "immaturity" is.
Re:For those who missed it... (Score:3, Insightful)
BTW, you've just lost the debate according to Godwin.
Re:For those who missed it... (Score:5, Insightful)
If RMS's ultimate goal is to wield complete power over a populous, to the point of selectively exterminating a percentage of it, he sure isn't making enough friends to build the required army.
Which is to say, RMS' goals are altruistic. Even if on a personal level he's doing it for purely egotistical reasons, his end-game allows us more freedom, which I certainly support. The fact that he's willing to put himself on the hook (I'm sure hes aware of his public image) in order to preserve esotaric freedoms we should have, that he could probably keep (after all, its not like hes going to have to use Windows, right?) regardless of the outcome of this situation is commendable. I'm not sure how you could paint this otherwise.
Hitler, on the other hand, wanted to kill people.
I'd draw you a diagram, but I'm afraid you'll counter with "Hitler drew diagrams."
Aside from his goals being virtuous, in my opinion, you've certainly nailed the point (inadvertantly, I suspect) that the more important part is that the thing he believes in is your and my freedom.
Re:For those who missed it... (Score:5, Informative)
Lets say I develop an application or send a document. And I am not interested in getting a certificate for that application or document. Well Palladium can stop my application or document because it is untrusted. Fair enough, that is true. BUT and this is a big BUT, the control of determining this is not in my hands.
It sort of goes along the warrenty lines. Most people in Slashdot could take apart a computer with their eyes blindfolded. But if you buy a namebrand you will void the warrenty. Fair enough because the company does not know who is twiddling with the computer. The only catch is that I can void my warrenty if I want to. I have that choice!
Palladium will not allow me to void my fair use if a company deems it so. This runs counter to general consumer laws since the person who decides is not the consumer, but the company from where end product came from. This means I do not have a choice.
Big difference. Now about taking them to court? Yeah, yeah, do you happen to have the money to take them to court? The same situation will arise with as with Kaaza. Legally Kaaza is not responsible and hence the companies have to go after those that share. A very difficult scenario. With Palladium the tables are turned in that they can shut off access to one CD and you have to fight to have every CD turned "on". Will society actually go after every instance of wrong doing? Not likely!!!
Now about looser terms? Ha! Time and time again it has been proven that when corporations can increase their profit lines they will do so regardless. Corporations are entities that only care about money and not social ethics. Otherwise we would not have Enron and Tyco messes.
We have these problems now with "stealing" because corporations are gouging for CD's. Here in Europe the big Labels were just fined for price fixing CD's....
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:For those who missed it... (Score:5, Insightful)
RMS is being laughed at by people like you, but I believe humanity has a chance of advancing because of RMS and people like him. People who's vision goes beyond their own good.
No, I don't have the courage to do things RMS does, but that doesn't mean I don't think highly of him.
Re:For those who missed it... (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it wasn't the 'taking' that made him look dumb, it was the screaming and jumping around like an ass that made him look dumb.
Microsoft Palladium Nightmare Scenarios (Score:5, Interesting)
former student, returned to his Alma Mater and gave a talk on some of the
technical aspects of Microsoft's Palladium project. Brian began the talk with
a quick overview of the goals of the project. He stated that Palladium's
goal was to 'Protect Software from Software'. He went on to enumerate some
of the nightmare scenarios that keep the Palladium team up at night, such as
a virus/trojan that launches something worse than a Denial Of Service (DOS)
attack.
These included:
After this brief introduction, Brian went on to describe a hardware based
software security system that would provide 'Fingertip to eyeball security.'
This system would consist of a hardware Security Support Component (SSC)
chip, a special security kernel called the 'Nexus' and user level security
applications called 'Agents'. Palladium would also require alterations to
the MMU for the curtailing of memory and USB for secure input/output.
Brian admitted that Palladium would offer no protection against DOS
attacks and that Palladium would necessarily include a universal serial
identifier (this
would be provided by the RSA key burned into the SSC chip). He also promised
that Palladium would run unmodified legacy applications and drivers.
Problems surfaced during the end of the talk when Brian began taking
questions. Richard Stallman correctly pointed out that Palladium was being
presented as a way of improving the security of personal computers. Indeed,
according to Brian, this was the focus of Microsoft's Palladium project, but
no where in his talk did he present any solution to the crucial nightmare
scenarios that are supposedly keeping the Palladium team up at night.
Indeed, as was pointed out by Stallman and others, if Palladium would run
unmodified legacy applications, then how could Palladium thwart the legacy
virus/trojans without upgrading Palladium enabled Outlook/IE/IIS?
The truth is Brian was being disingenuous when he described the nightmare
scenarios that motivate the Palladium team. In all honesty, there are only
two nightmare scenarios that are relevant to the Palladium project:
internet
has ushered in the end of there ever ballooning bottom line
holders
to effectively eliminate the fair use rights of the public
With Palladium, Microsoft plans to solve the former by introducing the latter.
To get to the heart of the matter, we have to ask _why_?
Brian says Microsoft is concerned that large copyright holders will refrain
from publishing works in formats compatible with the Windows PC. My theory?
Microsoft sees an opportunity to bolster there own
bottom line. Palladium is meant to do for DRM what
for web services.
By providing the infrastructure, Microsoft hopes the content companies will
write applications and release content only for Palladium enabled systems.
Joe Consumer who wants to listen to the next Brittany Spears album on his
computer will be forced to upgrade to the next release of Windows/DRM. Of
course, it doesn't hurt that Palladium could provide quite a few wrench's to
throw at Microsoft's open source competitors.
Nightmare scenarios indeed!
Re:Microsoft Palladium Nightmare Scenarios (Score:5, Funny)
'Fingertip to eyeball security.' ? Sounds pretty low tech to me...
*POKE*
"Arrgh! I'm blind!"
"He won't be sharing any more images"
All they need now is 'Palm-to-eardrum' security, and they can wipe out MP3 sharing too.
Re:Microsoft Palladium Nightmare Scenarios (Score:3, Interesting)
Sandboxes and an agent watching the mail spool.
"Oh, Outlook 2000 is trying to write to the registry! "
"Oh, IE is attempting to send 5374 mail messages! "
Kick the user's head by requiring a certain security clearance for "", and an idiot warning to boot.
Man, I thought OSS folk were smarter than MS coders!
The truth is Brian was being disingenuous when he described the nightmare scenarios that motivate the Palladium team. In all honesty, there are only
two nightmare scenarios that are relevant to the Palladium project:
Stop thinking like a medieval catholic zealot, and start thinking like a modern-day person.
MS et al really, truly believe that what they're doing is the right thing. Their arguments are not "justifications" for "controling your computer"--they're honestly believed arguments.
I could as soon say that Stallman just wants to not pay for software because he's cheap, and be just as accurate as you saying that MS is driven by a desire to disallow fair use.
Of course, it doesn't hurt that Palladium could provide quite a few wrench's to throw at Microsoft's open source competitors.
Maybe... but MS knows that OSS is a competitor, and that OSS will hack its way into useabilty no matter what they try and pull (remember deCSS?).
I suspect that MS will push palladium, and succeed, and license their software along with the Palladium hardware chip--thus allowing them an effectively "free" Linux binary distribution angle, which means that there won't be as many coders working to crack it.
Stallman isn't an unbiased or "reasonable" person in this debate. Trusted Computing ideas are, in some ways, in direct competition with his agenda--but that doesn't mean that they're totally wrong or immoral, or "trecharous computing." It just means that it's not likely to be advocated by the FSF anytime soon.
d'oh! (Score:2)
"Oh, Outlook 2000 is trying to write to the registry! [abort] [inspect] [allow]
"Oh, IE is attempting to send 5374 mail messages! [abort] [inspect] [allow] "
Kick the user's head by requiring a certain security clearance for " [allow] ", and an idiot warning to boot.
Re:Microsoft Palladium Nightmare Scenarios (Score:4, Informative)
Windows User A isn't smart enough to 'demand' trustworthy computing, so I don't believe they're doing it because users are asking for it. MS might be doing it because they think its the right way to win back frusterated users (or at least turn their customers' love/hate relationships into love relationships)
However, can you honestly tell me that MS doesn't smell the yumminess coming from owning the 'Word Format' of pop culture?
Granted, maybe they just think its 'right', in the sense that their tactics to own the
Re:Microsoft Palladium Nightmare Scenarios (Score:5, Informative)
Sure, but then this is not a part of Palladium. MS offered _zero_ ways Palladium might defeat these attacks. Therefore, it is rightly understood that Palladium has absolutely nothing todo with what we normally think of 'security'.
Stop thinking like a medieval catholic zealot, and start thinking like a modern-day person.
What the hell are you talking about? Do you normally randomly spew incoherant phrases? What do you have against making sense?
Were you at the talk? Are you aware that Brian admitted that the elimination of Fair Use was one of Palladiums goals? This is not in contention. What is in contention: Microsoft passing 'security' off as the primary goal.
Re:Microsoft Palladium Nightmare Scenarios (Score:3, Interesting)
"Oh, Outlook 2000 is trying to write to the registry! "
"Oh, IE is attempting to send 5374 mail messages! "
Kick the user's head by requiring a certain security clearance for "", and an idiot warning to boot.
Man, I thought OSS folk were smarter than MS coders!
Why the heck do you need a Palladium Agent to implement this?
Jack Valenti still rants about "standards for wrapping digital content in uncopyable layers of encryption" and Senator Fritz Hollings is trying to push through a bill to make it mandatory. Do you think Microsoft is responding to this, or do you think they are looking out for their valued customers?
Re:Microsoft Palladium Nightmare Scenarios (Score:3, Insightful)
OSS Zealots ARE smarter than MS coders. They're smarter than MS shills too...
Re:Microsoft Palladium Nightmare Scenarios (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, duh, if the user wants to run insecure applications, fine, Trusted Computing won't stop him. But if he wants to run secure applications, it will let him. The point of Trusted Computing is that, for example, the stock broker's computer can tell
There is no way to tell those things without hardware assistance.
It is fine to point out the potential downsides and abuses of the technology but there really are uses for it to improve security! For RMS to pretend otherwise is wrong.
Word usage (Score:5, Insightful)
What I suspect you really mean is "an application that is doing only what the user intends that application to do". However, that is not necessarily the same as "approved application". (Since software vendors can stick all sorts of cruft and spyware into their "approved" applications) Some Palladium supporters would like everyone to assume that they are the same, and the use of "secure application" supports this confusion.
"Secure application" presumably means, among other things, "an application that is not vulnerable to attempts to make it misbehave". This is also not what "approved application" means.
I wonder - if an approved application contained a buffer overflow or other vulnerability, would it be possible to write a trojan that would operate entirely through that vulnerability as though it were a trusted application? (e.g. a trusted server could be exploited remotely and then the trojan code loaded into memory, running as a thread of the trusted server process) Tricky perhaps, but I've not heard anything that makes me think that Palladium will avoid that scenario.
Re:Word usage (Score:4, Informative)
I was not impressed at all with the mechanics of Palladium. I do not doubt there are some incredibly brilliant people working on it, but they are attempting to solve a hopelessly complex problem. Most of this complexity comes from the business rules that define Palladium. I have no doubt that these people are capable of building a fortress of an OS from the ground up, but the execs are putting an enormous amount of criteria on it ie, Palladium must run with legacy applications and third party legacy apps. That requirement alone makes Palladium look like a big pile of spaghetti.
Re:Microsoft Palladium Nightmare Scenarios (Score:3, Insightful)
"
If Microsoft is really concerned with these insecure applications then they could rewrite them without all of the obvious security holes. Palladium is not needed for this. It is _huge_ overkill. Come on, Microsoft says that Palladium will run with legacy applications and they also say that Palladiums primary purposes are security. But, unless you upgrade all of your software (not to mention drivers) to use Palladium then there is no security?! It is freakin obvious that Palladium has nothing whatsoever to do with 'security'.
Re:Microsoft Palladium Nightmare Scenarios (Score:3, Insightful)
So, while you are putting in place the framework that can enable the elimination of general purpose computing you are also giving the technically naieve a false sense of security.
Re:copy/paste karma whoring (Score:2)
Re:copy/paste karma whoring (Score:2)
Trust? (Score:5, Insightful)
And what of Microsoft? Remember, I don't use their operating system at home - and to reiterate, I've never paid them for anything, so why should I bow to their dictates, especially since I don't use their product?
I thought that was how the free market was supposed to work, but I guess the market ain't so free now.
good article. (Score:2)
Trusted computing creates a potential clique. (Score:5, Interesting)
The Commons, revisited (Score:5, Interesting)
Although RMS does arouse some passions within the slashdot community, in this, I believe, he is right.
There is, in English Common Law history, a subject area, called the Enclosures Acts, where vast quantities of land were removed from common use, and awarded to landowners in what was a thinly veiled land grab.
It had justification, of course. Private Ownership was deemed more efficient by those that grabbed the land. Far be it for the government to disagree. The whole idea of common weal ( as in commonwealth) was called The Tragedy of The Commons.It would appear that history is attempting to repeat itself. If computing can be controlled by a trusted source - Who will that trusted source be?
This age old problem, can be solved in a number of ways - a dictatorship, or, a democracy, or...
Not quite trusting my fellow man, I think I would rather do my own choosing. But then, I use GPL'd software. A lot. And your choice will be?
Re:The Commons, revisited (Score:5, Insightful)
I, for one, will NEVER, ABSOLUTELY NEVER buy any device with this technology in it. And I'd think you'd have to be insane to buy it. Especially businesses. Thsi creates an absolutely unacceptable risk. Imagine a key compromise. Every computer system that used the key could be shut down. What does that do to, say, a bank?
I think this whole idea is inherently nuts. The only people who like it are the monopolists. That should make you think twice.
I can imagine 10 disaster scenarios for every benefit this technology offers.
Fundamentally, whose computer is it? My guess is that Windows OSs will require that TCA be active. My guess is that Microsoft won't allow untrusted code to run, or, if they do, they won't allow untrusted code to use their data. They can kill Free Software just by making a key that will allow interoperation with Windows or
RMSs article points up many of the potential abuses. I don't need to reiterate them here. The point is not that the proposed system will be abused, but that it is the first step in creating a totalitarian computing enviornment. This is not dissimilar in principle to requiring you to give DNA and fingerprints to the government, or to a corporation in order to do business. That the system may not be abused right now doesn't mean that the idea isn't fundamentally wrong.
Get a job writing the TCPA bios for trusted linux (Score:5, Interesting)
-
Boot-Level Programmer-San Jose [craigslist.org]
I figured TCPA was just some buzzword I could pick up out of a book if I got the job. I do that all the time. But no: The blurb about "changing the way people see, hear and play" just didn't register.I hope they do call me though. I'll give them a piece of my mind, followed by the URL of my DeCSS mirror [goingware.com].
Now I ask you this: if they're verifying the "system integrity" of a linux box with the TCPA, are they complying with the GPL?
A Plea to Responsible Computing Professionals (Score:3, Interesting)
We can no longer afford the luxury of being apolitical. We must stand up for our principles, not only in word, but in deed as well. That means refusing to create the tools by which we, our families, and our friends will be subjugated.
I trust that all persons with even the slightest shred of honor or dignity will stay well away from this invitation to sell out the rest of their community.
Schwab
I considered that, but no, I couldn't (Score:4, Insightful)
Thus the only course of action I can take is to not accept the contract if it is offerred.
However, I will be happy to discuss with them that I cannot consider taking the job because I feel that what they would want me to do is morally reprehensible.
I try to abide by what I feel is right. But I have worked for companies whose principles I objected to, because that's what I had to do to survive. I did the best job I could while I had the jobs, but did my best to move on to other work as soon as possible.
But there are some things I just won't do.
Re:Get a job writing the TCPA bios for trusted lin (Score:4, Insightful)
...Except that the employer is a Japanese entertainment conglomerate with offices in San Jose (the popular guess is Sony), and the target platform is hinted at being a digital media device. So TCPA, at least in this instance, will be used precisely for compulsory licensing and screwing the user.
TCPA devices have their place -- in banks, brokerages, power plants, and other establishements where you don't want random code introduced without a red flag popping up. And its use and proliferation should be confined to precisely those areas. TCPA has no business being in consumer-level devices.
Schwab
Re:Get a job writing the TCPA bios for trusted lin (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't see any reason for TCPA even here. Any such system should be designed to not run anything unexpected, whether it is "signed" or not. And that is easy to enforce by not letting people who might be interested in running unwanted programs from touching the machine.
The trick with TCPA/Palladium is it tries to keep a person who is interested in running such programs and has complete control over the machine, from doing so. This does not sound good to me, and very bad for banks, power plants, and other places that might really need to modify the software on their machine!
Re:Get a job writing the TCPA bios for trusted lin (Score:3, Interesting)
But that is not always possible to enforce.
Consider your average bank branch. The machines are owned and administrated by the bank, but in daily use by employees, who are of variable trustworthiness. 99.9% of bank employees can be trusted, but for that 0.1%, you need mechanisms in place to thwart attempts to introduce foreign software that hasn't been vetted by the site administrator (N.B: the site administrator vets the software, not Micros~1 or the {MP,RI}AA).
For instances where the software needs to be updated, the site administrator has the digital certificate for all the machines under his/her control. After verifying that the software does what is expected, s/he signs the binaries with the certificate and ships them off to be installed site-wide. So legitimate installations happen without incident, and unauthorized installations are made NP-hard.
Schwab
Typical RMS (Score:4, Interesting)
Stallman's examples this time are rather simplistic. His concerns about "DRM", aside from the "I want to be able to shock myself" degree of control he wants for PCs, aren't all they're chalked up to be. Calling it "trecharous computing" makes him sound like a kook, not a serious voice.
To wit:
"Your boss's e-mails will be written in disappearing ink!"
"You won't be able to send incrimiating documents to the press!"
Any corporate system that causes the main focus of communication to automatically expire with no way to retrieve it is a poor business model, not an aspect of trusted computing. Investigative and Corporate preferences aside (after Enron, do you REALLY think that it'd be hard for Congress to slap a "records requirement" on corporations?), someone should be able to mark their e-mails as "archived." And you can always just print out the document...
And, if some company is too paranoid to keep any e-mails and advanced enough to be truly paperless, there's still a digital camera and the on-screen display. Or the simple expediency of calling the cops...
As for the rest--if MS wants Word to be Word-only, more power to them. It'd keep some large usability problems from arising, and quickly tone down word e-mail.
Postscript 2 really irks me. I'm no programmer, but even I can imagine a system where "untrusted" code & docs are run in a "sandbox," where they can't do any real harm and the user can still use them. Given six months of speed increase, the user probably won't even notice the difference between "game on new system's emulated layer" and "game on old system raw."
*sigh*
Re:Typical RMS (Score:4, Insightful)
I was talking about Palladium with a geek friend of mine the other day and after a while, he pointed out that I sounded like I should be wearing a tinfoil hat.
And he was right. But it was all true. Palladium is one of those things that, if you explain it to non-geeks, makes you sound like a conspiracy theorist.
So, I've resolved to keep my explanation simpler. If any non-geek asks me about Pd, I'll just say that it's just MS trying to protect its monopoly and that it will make it a lot harder to make backup copies of movies and music.
Both are (IMHO) true and plausible and don't make it sound like the evil conspiracy it really is.
The Nightmare that is Palladium (Score:2, Informative)
former student, returned to his Alma Mater and gave a talk on some of the
technical aspects of Microsoft's Palladium project. Brian began the talk with
a quick overview of the goals of the project. He stated that Palladium's
goal was to 'Protect Software from Software'. He went on to enumerate some
of the nightmare scenarios that keep the Palladium team up at night, such as
a virus/trojan that launches something worse than a Denial Of Service (DOS)
attack.
These included:
After this brief introduction, Brian went on to describe a hardware based
software security system that would provide 'Fingertip to eyeball security.'
This system would consist of a hardware Security Support Component (SSC)
chip, a special security kernel called the 'Nexus' and user level security
applications called 'Agents'. Palladium would also require alterations to
the MMU for the curtailing of memory and USB for secure input/output.
Brian admitted that Palladium would offer no protection against DOS
attacks and that Palladium would necessarily include a universal serial
identifier (this
would be provided by the RSA key burned into the SSC chip). He also promised
that Palladium would run unmodified legacy applications and drivers.
Problems surfaced during the end of the talk when Brian began taking
questions. Richard Stallman correctly pointed out that Palladium was being
presented as a way of improving the security of personal computers. Indeed,
according to Brian, this was the focus of Microsoft's Palladium project, but
no where in his talk did he present any solution to the crucial nightmare
scenarios that are supposedly keeping the Palladium team up at night.
Indeed, as was pointed out by Stallman and others, if Palladium would run
unmodified legacy applications, then how could Palladium thwart the legacy
virus/trojans without upgrading Palladium enabled Outlook/IE/IIS?
The truth is Brian was being disingenuous when he described the nightmare
scenarios that motivate the Palladium team. In all honesty, there are only
two nightmare scenarios that are relevant to the Palladium project:
The nightmare scenario of the large copyright holders who fear the
internet
has ushered in the end of there ever ballooning bottom line
The nightmare scenario that Palladium will allow the large copyright
holders
to effectively eliminate the fair use rights of the public
With Palladium, Microsoft plans to solve the former by introducing the latter.
To get to the heart of the matter, we have to ask _why_?
Brian says Microsoft is concerned that large copyright holders will refrain
from publishing works in formats compatible with the Windows PC. My theory?
Microsoft sees an opportunity to bolster there own
bottom line. Palladium is meant to do for DRM what
for web services.
By providing the infrastructure, Microsoft hopes the content companies will
write applications and release content only for Palladium enabled systems.
Joe Consumer who wants to listen to the next Brittany Spears album on his
computer will be forced to upgrade to the next release of Windows/DRM. Of
course, it doesn't hurt that Palladium could provide quite a few wrench's to
throw at Microsoft's open source competitors.
Nightmare scenarios indeed!
publicknowledge.org (Score:2, Funny)
Everything is politics (Score:5, Insightful)
You're more than welcomed to just code in your own little world, do all your work in your own little world, etc. But politics is still involved, whether you choose to ignore it or not, and it still affects you.
RMS realizes this and thus considers politics as integral in any software project.
Palladium is all about politics. Its about the polics of the BSA, the RIAA, and the MPAA conrolling what you do through MS, which will undoubtedly make unholy alliances to please these parties and profit. Palladium is about MS trying to make the GNU/Linux OS an impractical choice for users, as no hardware would run it. MS may say this about technical matters -- i.e., security, virus-prevention, etc etc -- and it is in part; but there is also politics running through the fibers of this idea. Politics is ubiquitous in this Palladium project.
As is predictable, everyone's been more than willing to jump on the "bash RMS" bandwagon. It actually reminds me of the Michael Jordan situation in the NBA. Here's a guy who's done alot for the NBA, alot for his team, and alot for basketball in general, and people are constantly criticizing him for making personal decisions which he had the right to make (i.e., to come out of retirement). Similar thing with RMS.
Many criticize RMS for what he says or where he says it; i.e., mentioning such things in newsgroups or forums which are "not meant for discussing those issues". But the politics of what he talks about is relevant to kernel developers and coders, even if they're too stupid to realize it. RMS is not an extremist. Or, if he is, extremism in defense of liberty is not a bad thing.
Re:Everything is politics (Score:3, Insightful)
So what's to be done? (Score:5, Interesting)
Afterall wasn't it Microsoft who lied in court? Or just last week about the "switcher"? They can't be trusted, it's that simple - they've shown that time and time again.
As for Hollywood, well again why should my computer put the needs and wishes above my own? So I buy a DVD, why can't I play that everywhere? Why can't I create my own player? Who says I shouldn't be able to buy a DVD while on holiday and be able to watch it when I get home? If I save a little money by buying it overseas isn't that my good fortune? Why should a commodity like a DVD have such wide differences between price and terms in different places?
No there are legitimate reasons why I might want to do things that MS/Hollywood want to stop - I don't see why my computer should help them take away MY FREEDOM?
Personally I think it's time we started something like FSF for hardware (FHF if you will) so that we can escape the clutches of "the evil Empire".
What happens next? The PC refuses to run any OS without a Microsoft signature, and we're blocked from reverse engineering it? This seems to be happening already with the Xbox, is this just a test case for the whole PC?!
Perhaps Red Hat should make a PCs, and allow anyone to copy the design. For no other reason than to protect THEIR business model.
RMS and Trusted Computing (Score:2, Insightful)
1: Trust is a human phenomenon, not a
machine state.
2: Trust implies motives. Last time I checked,
machines don't have motives. People do.
What are RMS's motives? Microsofts?
Trusted computing's motives are ???
Personally, I think the whole thing stinks of pot, kettle, black on the above mentioned bases. Regardless of all that, I fully intend to look out for myself online using Free Software/OSS to the extent I am able. (currently 100%) I believe I know what's best for me, and don't need much help from M$, RMS, or any "Initiatives".
Strategy (Score:2)
Prohibit connecting old computers to the Internet? (Score:2)
While I knew that the CBDTPA contained language that all new products would have to have the proposed restrictions, I don't recall seeing anything about shutting out old, non-CBDTPA, computers. Is this an accurate reading of the proposal, or a stretch meant work us up?
Re:Prohibit connecting old computers to the Intern (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Trusted is Really Only LogicaL (Score:2, Funny)
OTOH I hold some opinions of my own. RMS says that trusted computing should be called treacherous computing but his reasons are weak. I fail to see how stopping people from illegally trading media over the web should be considered treacherous, in fact it is commendable.
Instead of leaving the internet as a 'wild west' with no laws, Microsoft and the RIAA (along with some politicians) are benevolently expending time and effort to establish some sort of order. I look forward to the day when I can buy Trusted hardware and engage in Trusted computing. That will finally let me sleep at night, knowing that Hollywood and the RIAA are not being robbed of their hard earned money.
Government versus Business (Score:4, Insightful)
The world has started to turn into a scary place. It used to be the government that was most likely to take away people's rights. Nowadays corporations can be just as dangerous; and the massive bulwarks of liberity put up by our founding fathers--the U.S. Constitution and the checks and balances that make up the branches of government--were not intended to protect us from powerful corporations. If we are going to secure liberty for our children, it may take a struggle just as momentus as those struggles that have been fought before. Resting on our laurels is not an option for free men who mean to stay free.
funny you say that (Score:3, Insightful)
"Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism since it is the merger of state and corporate power" -- Benito Mussolini
Fantasy (Score:2)
"Ladies and Gentlemen, as you are about to see it looks the same as always when we boot up......Yipes Crimminy! Um. We have a technical glitch here it seems. I think this demo shall continue another day."
Irrational Security (Score:4, Interesting)
1) The traditional one. This puts the access control of computer resources in the hands of computer owner.
2) The DRM, CP Protection etc: These system wants to take away access control from the owner.
I don't know why the second part is even called "security".
The problem with DRM etc is that once they become more wide spread, someone will provide a method to defeat them. And once defeated, there is no easy way to enable them since the owner doesn't want to enable them! E.g. region code and macrovision disabling in most dvd players. So the only way to implement DRM etc would either be by making it a law and have a very stringent enforcement or don't allow people to buy computers (just allow them to rent only, which will contain license clause that the sytem must be audited, insured at renters expense). Either of the proposition is very expensive.
Dear RMS thank you (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyways I just wanted to give my opinion on why this is bad. MS has over $40billion in cash reserves. This is enough money to subsidize anything they want to, which is a really scary thought. So right now MS is subsidizing DRM development through a network of smaller projects like the Xbox, funding cheerleaders to go to hollywood (RARA RA M$ OWNIN YOUR PC IS GREAT!!) and getting chip makers to make the actual chips to go into the final product.
When it comes time for a "final product" no doubt that will be subsidized too. Unfortunately there are no
Furthermore, when a first time computer buyer goes to buy a pc, will they buy the fully pre built "Compatible with hollywood!" PC or will they pay the extra money to have a non DRM pc built.
Customer "You mean its not compatible with hollywood?"
For us tech hounds, we know we'll end up having to support this shit somewhere down the line. Personally, I don't want to touch it with a 10 foot pole. I can see my CEO now...
CEO, "I tried to access this insider trading site (porn) on my sleek sony vaio (it looks cool)and it said I wasn't Hollywood compatible? Bob from accounting said hollywood compatible computers are cheaper than non holywood compatible ones."
See that's the basic, sometimes flawed logic of the pc illiterate public.
And that's where I see all this going. I see MS and NBC and AOL getting together for one HUGE fucking ORGY to screw us. I see future media being created that REQUIRES you to have this hardware to listen to it. Yet the PC illiterate do not even stop to think "Tape recorder next to the radio" DRM is flawed from the beginning in that sense, so really this is just MS's 3rd reich (1st riech killed os2, 2nd killed beos, 3rd is goin after linux)
Anyways, good luck to you Mr. Stallman, i'll be here in the trenches trying to prevent MS from going onto my friends and families computers. Not many people can sit back and see the whole picture but you can, and should be commended for that.
From the horse's mouth (Score:5, Informative)
"The project began about four years ago as an epiphany among a small group of Microsoft employees who were working to solve the problem of content protection for online movies."
"The end result is a system with security similar to a closed-architecture system but with the flexibility of the open Windows platform."
And to stir up the pot a bit.
Control Structures (Score:3, Insightful)
RMS should really be taken seriously - web services is the next step for commerce that the government will attempt to promote. Web Services will enhance our PKI, allowing for identification, and it will also add controlling code to many devices and systems. Not only developers but the average citizen should be lobbying hard for open networks and open systems. If we don't, the Internet will become the perfect control structure to regulate our lives.
To those that criticize RMS... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's easy to do so when YOU aren't that bright. He might not be a Jeffersonian speaker (well maybe George Jeffersonian) but he has done more to further OSS than you that's for damn sure. You're lucky he's even around after the shit you constantly heap on the guy.
So he's not eloquent: you can't diminish what he's done.
Stop being such a snot and shut the fsck up. Cut RMS some slack. At least he contributes something of substance where it counts. You? Well it's real easy to be enlightened when you're sitting on YOUR ass on a mountaintop somewhere and all you can contribute are some comments that you hope get modded up.
I got a shitload o karma to burn baby so mod me down and flame as high as possible you unappreciative shits.
</TANTRUM>
"Downloaded from the Internet" (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's a reason why Microsoft should not want to implement treacherous computing in the future: while North America, Western Europe and a few Asian countries are pretty well wired, the majority of computer users is not yet connected to the Internet. Those who don't have a PC yet (the enormous market potential), will always get Internet access after they get a computer, not before. Thus, if you start selling software that absolutely requires Internet to run properly, you automatically hand over a huge potential market to your competition.
On a personal note, there's a small group of people (just like me) who choose not to have Internet access at home, and could not care less what software they are using at work.
Yes. (Score:4, Insightful)
I understand the appeal of having an account that floats to any terminal that you log into - but having someone else in charge of that makes me nervous.
I mean - think of credit companies on steriods here.
For example - having a bank have some ability to control your money is one thing - but here you would have an account that could have much more information that you "own" but dont have full control over.
In your profile in the next 5 years will be such info as:
bank info
documents, both personal and professional that are kept or written by you
habits file, browsing, shopping, reading, viewing etc.
personal machine preferences
owned/installed programs you use regularly.
plus more
Now I cant understand why I would want to give anyone control over any aspect of this. Banking is a necesity in todays world - but that's as far as it should go. I dont wnat my bank to handle any information other than exactly how much money is in my account and when I access it. I wouldnt trust them with my personal documents etc... so why would I trust MS.
One argument against this could be the handling of hotmail accounts.
If you think MS is responsible enough with all you info then you have never been one of hundreds of thousands of whom who had their hotmail accounts "misplaced" [wired.com] with not so much as a sorry. (cant find a very good article on it - but I remember it when it happened)
What about how hotmail handles information as simple as your email address - and how much spam you get. What levels of access will "affiliates" and "advertising partners" have to all the info in your
There is already a proven track record to show why you would not want this info placed outside your control.
A simple question (Score:4, Insightful)
The same question that I have in my sig:
How is Microsoft supposed to roll this out? How EXACTLY are they supposed to take over the world such that ONLY signed code can run, and maintain backward compatibility?
No backward compatibility, no sales.
Once again it has to be pointed out: Microsoft is in business to sell operating systems and software, not to take over the world.
Palladium will ALWAYS be able to run unsigned code. There's no other way it can happen.
Palladium - evil or just misunderstood? (Score:3, Funny)
Palladium will just sit there until you choose to run software that uses it. Not install, but run. That means you have to:
1. Have Palladium hardware.
2. Have a Palladium OS.
3. Have a Palladium application.
The above three will allow you to access Palladium-protected content. Guess what? If you don't want to use something protected, you don't need Palladium!
Now, what happens if your favorite band or software company or whoever decides they're going to use Palladium? Well, you tell them you're not buying anything. All Microsoft is providing is a secure delivery vehicle. If you don't want to do business with those who use DRM, or trusted applications, or any of the other uses for Palladium, then you don't have to. Sure, it means you have to go without the latest version of the software you love, or that new album from that band, or whatever else you might want, but that's the sacrifice you make. If enough likeminded people feel the same way, then Palladium will fail.
Palladium is all about layers of security. If the hardware's secure, a secure OS can load. If the OS is secure, a secure app can load. If the app is secure, a secure file can load.
If the system is secure, content providers will be able to provide media with confidence. In a controlled environment with limited legacy software, unauthorized code such as virii can be halted before damaging or spreading. Truly effective copy protection can be implemented if backwards compatibility is left behind (ah, the age-old quandary.)
In short, it's not going to stop you from running your own OS.
So, vote with your wallet. But don't give in to paranoia.
Relax, Palladium won't happen in America (Score:5, Insightful)
Do they really think asian/european PC hardware manufacturers are going to radically redesign their products to serve the needs of American capitalism?
Not a chance.
The TCPA may be the end of free computing in America (though I doubt it), but the rest of the world will continue on its merry way.
Get over yourselves!
I apologize in advance to all open minded Americans, you know who you are.
Re:Relax, Palladium won't happen in America (Score:3, Insightful)
From a practical standpoint, this planet has only ONE consumer operating system producer. All of the PC manufactures in Europe and Asia need Microsoft just as badly as Dell and Compaq do.
In fact, unlike the rest of the planet, the US has a few companies that might be able to sell PCs without Microsoft's help: Apple (of course), Sun, and IBM. (Sony could give it a shot, but they've shown no inclination. They have enough to benefit from the content business that strong DRM will be right up their alley.)
All of today's Wintel-clone builders will move as a group to either accept or reject Microsoft's hardware demands en-mass. Any of them who lags- whose customers start returning computers because it was incompatible with MS Word 2004- will be dragged down into bankrupcy.
Besides, the "OneWorldGovernment" thing is happening- its not coming from traditional governments though, but from multinational corporations. They influence the political process of each state to maximize their profits, molding the "developed world" into a conforming shape. (Laws which don't directly business profits will be left alone for a while, so nations will retain distinctiveness on "irrelevant" things like gun control, abortion, and taxation patterns.)
Pseudo-governmental entities like G7, IMF, and WIPO drive this conformity forward. WIPO tries to convince all nations to increase their intellectual property laws- they promoted some kind of "copyright duration parity" as support for the Sonny Bono act, for instance.
The citizens of the world CANNOT sit back and laugh at the hapless American consumers who are locking themselves into subjugation- soon the tendrils of DMCA-equivalency laws will penetrate their homelands, bootstapped as conditions of Favored Nation trading status, or by more insidious means.
I'm being pessimistic here- maybe Germany et all will be smart enough to read the fine print on some of these treaties before their parliaments rubber-stamp them- but its safer to assume the worst, and spread the warning about it.
I think Palladium is great!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
One thing it offers is the ability to run a program which has it's own secure connection to the input devices and the screen. I think I'll write a little encryption utility which makes use of these features. By using a screen-based soft-keyboard for passphrase input I can make it impervious to every known keyboard sniffer, hardware or software. I bet I can find a few Mafia bosses who would pay a pretty penny for that! Thanks Microsoft(tm)!!!
Palladium will also let a client download software from the net which a remote server can verify is running untampered. I think I'll write an encrypted communications tool which uses this. Imagine being able to walk into any Internet cafe in the world and securely download an encrypted comm program with no worries about man in the middle attacks or keyboard sniffers! I hear the bin Laden's make good money in the construction business. I bet they'd pay good money for software like this so their "contractors" could check and submit bids online securely and anonymously from anywhere in the world. Thanks again Microsoft(tm)!!!
I bet I can find product opportunities in every market from P2P pirates to child porn collectors. Thanks Microsoft(tm)!
Step three: Profit!!!
Of course, the FBI and CIA are unlikely to let encryption tech that works that well out into the mass market. It's a safe bet that Palladium will either ship with a hidden back door or will include everyones favorite forgotten boogeyman key escrow. Thanks again Microsoft(tm)!
One point ... (Score:3, Insightful)
If RMS really wants to tell the world that they should oppose "Trusted Computing" then he really should find a better outlet than an OSS online newspaper.
Theres nothing wrong with Newsforge per se, but if he wants people to actually sit up and take notice then he really should try and get his articles published in places with larger distributions (BBC, WSJ, FT, Business and Computing publications for example).
Re:GNU/Whatever (Score:2)
Re:Where the hell does this guy make his money? (Score:3, Funny)
They say he eats windows for breakfast.