Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship

Trusted Computing 241

Posted by CmdrTaco from the stuff-to-read dept.
derrickoswald writes "John Walker, one of the founders of Autodesk, has posted The Digital Imprimatur, a monograph on technologies such as the Trusted Computing initiative. Some of the prognostications and conclusions reached may not be palatable to Slashdot readers."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Trusted Computing More

Trusted Computing

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

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

    • You too can learn to read an entire book in seconds! Just follow these easy steps:
      • Read the first paragraph (after the introduction if there is one)
      • Read the last paragraph (before the epilogue if there is one)
      • Make up the middle based on your prior knowledge of the subject matter and try to sound convincing
      • Yep, I modified a little these steps (the first paragraph is usually useless):
        Read the second paragraph (after the introduction if there is one)
        So I got:

        ... I spent the better part of three years developing Speak Freely ... a free (public domain) Internet telephone with military-grade encryption

        Then I searched Speak Freely on the Google, and found lots of "military-grade" remote and local vulnerabilities [insecure.org]

        After this I stopped reading the article.

        • All of the vulnerabilities mentioned there are regarding stack-overflows (or UDP-bouncing), which are different things than encryption. The claim that it uses "military-grade encryption" is true.

          This is a classic example of a logically fallacious ad hominem attack. Because someone working on a FREE project used traditional, error-prone C developement methods, you've decided to discount his opinions on the trends for large-scale networking applications.
  • an enhanced HW and OS based trusted computing platform that implements trust into client, server, networking, and communication platforms.
    Hahahahahahahahaha

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

            Which ISP is that, exactly? I've been through the website
            • Zen Internet in the UK. I used to be with Demon, who had the same policy, but their service became.. less than impressive. I've heard complaints about some US ISPs, but I didn't realise the problem was so widespread. :/

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

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

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

        Honestly, if you would not believe this:

        # traceroute my.server.com
        Tracing ro

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

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

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

        • Let's set up some dedicated modem links.

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

          But seriously, in the long run (15+ years), they won't even have to ban modems. You won't have phone lines anymore, except things that run use VoIP. Sonic analysis and natural-language processors will be able to detect if those VoIP packets contain data inconsistent with verbal communication (even if computers can't

          • Sonic analysis and natural-language processors will be able to detect if those VoIP packets contain data inconsistent with verbal communication

            Not just a few people at my workplace make noises that are so inconsistent with verbal communication.

    • First off I agree with the poster. There are an awful lot of headstones at Arlington national cemetary. Every one of them spent a life protecting our freedom. Well at least the sitting president's idea of it, but that's another story.

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

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

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

        The cost of me
        • Actually I think it's going to happen sooner as opposed to later. Check out this article over at the Register; (http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/33379.htm l )

          "The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) today released a report recommending the introduction of a national road-charging system for the UK, most likely using satellite technology."

          Or how about this proposal in Oregon;
          (http://www.washingtondispatch.com/cgi-bi n/artman/ exec/view.cgi/22/6154)

          "Oregon's Road User Fee Task Force (what a
        • A government could simply declare that use of any encrypted protocol is illegal


          Side channels. There's no way to tell if the poker hand I describe in an email is real or if it's part of a encrypted message [schneier.com].

          • There's no way to tell if the poker hand I describe in an email is real or if it's part of a encrypted message.

            That could work a little, as might the general class of steganographic tricky.

            But Walker already addressed that point [fourmilab.ch] just fine. Basically, they can make it so hard to evade the controls that the end result is indistinguishable from perfect control, even though 0.0001% of people can sneak around it for occasional small messages.
          • Time to brush up on my Navajo.

            In the meantime the Blue Chicken flies at Midnight.

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

      There is an additional price though, responsiblity.

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

      Spam is one immediately obvious result of this freedom. Giv

      • Unlimited freedom without repsonsibility is equivalent to anarchy
        But I like anarchy!
      • Unlimited freedom without repsonsibility is equivalent to anarchy.

        Since none of us possess "unlimited freedom," or ever will, this is a completely irrelevant observation.

        I leave the hardest issue for the reader, how do we encourage those who threaten our freedoms with their irresponsible behaviours to behave responsibly?

        "Irresponsible behaviors" do not threaten freedom. "Irresponsible behaviors" is nanny-state code for "That guy over there is doing something with his freedom that annoys me, so make


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

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

  • Just a guess (Score:3, Funny)

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Groups fighting against trusted computing shouldn't fight the technology, in my opinion, but some of the uses of it. This means they should fight some of the DRM aspects of it, not the technology in general. Remember, an extra layer of security isn't a bad thing to have.
    • Can you please explain some of the benefits of "trusted computing" for end-users? Why is it necessary for security?

    • Remember ... if it's not meant to do DRM then they need to give the user the ability to lie (via a physical switch on the machine for example).

      They don't do that, so you can be sure they want it for DRM and for DRM only.

    • shouldn't fight the technology, in my opinion, but some of the uses of it.

      Yes, but some of the nefarious uses for TCPM will be put into place only because the implementation of the technology is permitted. It's the camel getting its nose under the tent.

      Imagine a rollout of IE 7.0 on Windows with built-in mechanisms for authentication based on your hardware. Initially, no big deal. Then, later, some of your favorite websites start returning errors because they can't "authenticate you". Most people will

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      • He is not observing, he is saying that all these copy protection schemes will come to be in the future.
        He may very well be right, but his argument fails to see opposing arguments (which IMPLIES advocacy) - He does not talk about the trusted computing initiative failing in the future, and because you were probably already convinced that copy protection will be the next big thing you failed to see his bias.
    • In an economic system it is much easier to "rebel": some competitor will come along that will not employ "trusted computing", perhaps a company like Apple or a flavor of Linux will force their inferior competitor (perhaps Microsoft) out of the market.

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

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

    • People use dollars not because they're better, but because the US government requires that its manditory taxes be paid in dollars (well, bank dollars, but it ends up being the same).

      So the businesses use dollars. Then, if you want to buy the business' products, you have to pay dollars.

      When the government requires that its departments (Pentagon) and contractors use M$ Palladium (or other "trusted computing"), then its customers will require it. When that happens, then the change will be forced. If

    • People generally won't rebel unless they perceive an immediate threat to their supply of essentials like food, shelter, and safety. The wise government is the one which knows how to contain this rebellious instinct (e.g., through careful deception and appeal to the citizens' emotions, like the draconian laws passed "for the children").
  • I took a gander at his Speak Freely website to check out the reason behind his dropping maintenance to Speak Freely.

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

    I have to call bullshit on this one; all you need to do is set up your network with static IPs on all of your machines, and then set up your firewall to pass traffic to specifi
    • I took a gander at his Speak Freely website to check out the reason behind his dropping maintenance to Speak Freely.

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

      Well that sort of thing certainly is NOT plug and play. It's quite reasonable to say that it's *well* beyond the capabilities of more than 90% of the people on the net.

      But y

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

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

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

    Trusted computing? Trust yourself [bobdylan.com].

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

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

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

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

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

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

    This of course won't stop big companies and big government from trying to restrict things, but the chance that they'll succeed is actually fairly small. I don't see DRM ever completely dissappearing from the radar, but I'm gussing that it'll remain what it is right now -- an annoyance.
    • Buying a Palladium-enabled computer will be like buying a car with a top speed of 65 miles per hour.
      You know what's also a scary thought? That my current desktop computer, with a 2 GHz processor, IA32 architecture, running Windows 2000 may in fact be more functional than a computer from a 5 years in the future.
    • Except that it won't say things like "Error! This computer sucks and therefore refuses to play this music file"

      Instead it'll 'social engineer' and say things like "Error! This music file comes from an untrusted source and could contain a virus that could damage your computer."
    • I'd like to believe that Joe User has some economic power to influence what will happen, but if Windows2005 only runs on secure hardware and the music and movie companies only release DRM material, there isn't a lot anyone can do make them change their minds.

      I want to buy a legal DVD player that lets me skip over the FBI warning; where can I get one? I was able to record my laser disks onto my VCR, but I can't buy a legal DVD player that will let me do that. Yet, I was willing to switch to copy-protected
    • The problem is that the first generation of these computers won't run into programs that "take advantage" of their "advanced features". So people won't know what's happening.

      What we can *hope* instead is that people will refuse to buy the programs that lock things down. But do remember that this is a hope, not a certainty, people do lots of stupid things. E.g., even though the RIAA and the MPAA are conspiring with congress to take away their rights, many slashdot readers still purchase CDs and watch mov

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

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

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

    Blah, blah, blah

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    I trust it not to compute.

    I'm sorry. I have a cold.

  • Spyware (Score:2)

    by YoJ ( 20860 )
    The last paragraph of the article states that the great grand world of Trusted Computing will get rid of spyware. Why? If a commercial company is willing to publically sign code that is spyware, what exactly stops spyware?

  • I managed to RTFA (most of it, anyway), and I think he's off base in a few areas. For example, he uses firewalling as one part of the liberty-eroding equation, but doesn't seem to realize these two facts:

    1. Firewalling arose out of a need to block computer-based attacks (he does mention that firewalling helps block attacks, but then ignores it as if that's not a big deal). While it is true that the ISPs have taken advantage of this to restrict you from developing a server on your own and using their hosting
    • but doesn't seem to realize these two facts:
      2. Most users don't care about running their own website.

      He realized that fact, and stated it exactly [fourmilab.ch]:

      "In any case, the key lesson of the mass introduction of NAT is that it demonstrates, in a real world test, that the vast majority of Internet users do not notice and do not care that their access to the full range of Internet services and ability to act as a peer of any other Internet site has been restricted."

    • If you read carefully, you will see that he doesn't mention things like firewalling and NAT as things that were specifically produced to erode freedom. They both came about for viable reasons but their implementation is the problem, particularly when tied to the many other developments cited - some of which are specifically intended to hurt users for the benefit of corporations and other bastards.

      Also, indicating that most people don't want to setup or run web pages is not relevant. What is relevant, an

  • I think that he's proposing that than every web site add some new micropayment technology/system in order to impement metered site access at $0.001 per page, requiring users to install software and establish a paument relationship with some new party in order to access the site. That's not going to happen, as people have been implementing that same model, with virtually no acceptance, for many years now.

    Instead, imagine if the ISP's drove the process. You've already got a billing relationship with them,
  • The definitive proof that he didn't write this but it was generated by a script is the use of the word "fora". NO ONE in their right mind uses the word "fora" when they are talking about forums. ;P
  • Is that it is SOOO compelling! I even find myself going "would that be so bad?" before I shake myself out of it. I wasn't too worried about this stuff before - now I am, and so should you. Good job writing this monster, now how do we counter it?
  • The public will never go for it. You cannot tax air, not beauce it isn't feasible but because it would never be allowed. In the same way, once a perfect implementaion of the copyright and patent system is implemented, it will be annihilated from the law. The reason peopel allow it now is becuase of the many loop holes and imprefrefections inthe present system. If they were removed, people would npo longer waste their time trying to fix the implementation of it and finally start attacking the real cause, the
  • The only way to stop this process is for consumers to adopt, on a large scale, the kind of technology that will be made impossible by the "trusted computing" technologies. Digital video recorders like Tivo are the best example of this. If a huge preponderance of television owners become accustomed to conveniences like commercial skipping and saving shows to watch later they will revolt en masse with the vehemence of the do-not-call list when tentacles of the content providers via DRM remove these features.
  • I found one sentence in his article that really summed up his whole problem - the problem with copyright isn't the concept but rather its granularity

    That is simply false and not true to history. For example, it is a good thing that the letter U is not owned by anybody. It is not a matter of a fair and equitable price, even if the royality is one one millionth of a cent, it would be unjust. It is not a matter of who created it, or what their incentive is - and a failure to understand such is a failure

  • Right now, the Internet stifles artists because writers have a medium that does not allow them to collect money for their content. Anyone can copy a web page or even an ebook.

    But, if there was a mechanism for safely charging for web content, then, suddenly a real independent publishing would emerge. The makers of the trusted software would want everyone to buy it, so, everyone would become or could become a trusted document author.

    I used to be in favor of anonymity on the Internet. Now, I'm dead agains

Slashdot Top Deals

Repel them. Repel them. Induce them to relinquish the spheroid. - Indiana University fans' chant for their perennially bad football team

Close