Slashdot Mirror

Where is the BSA when you need them?

Good question, but don't hold your breath-- Microsoft is a member of the BSA...

If they're at all consistent with past actions, they would probably stifle any attempts by the BSA to do any serious investigations. In all fairness, though, that's pure conjecture.

That's called the Business Software Alliance, the one with the copyright weasel.

Slashdot stories about the BSA

This is not "goodies", this has some evil nasty shit embedded.

The network connection "accelerator" hardware firewall is nVidia's Active Armor system. When you cut through all of the marketing spin, it is in fact Trusted Computing hardware. It has remote configuration, monitoring, and control. It not only firewalls incoming data, it firewall's your ability to send any outgoing data. It tracks the exact identity of the software you run and reports it to your ISP. The hardware is tamper resistant, it is designed to deny you the ability to connect to the internet if you try to change anything. If you attempt to get at your own master key locked in the hardware it is designed to self destruct.

This is the home user half of the system. The ISP's half of the system was reported on Slashdot some time ago in
Cisco Working to Block Viruses at the Router. Cisco's router does not in fact block virus at all. What it does is handle the remote management of this hardware in your PC. What it does is examine the exact software running on your PC, as reported by this hardware. What Cisco's router does is DENY YOU INTERNET ACCESS unless you have approved Trusted hardware and you are running exactly the software your ISP mandates you must run. The reason they bill this as a "virus blocking router" is that they can use this system to check and enforce that you must run approved anti-virus and/or firewall software.

And if all of this sounds absurd then I suggest you read the US president's Cyber Security Advisor's speech at the Gobal Tech Summit in Washington DC where he called on ISP's to plan on making exactl;y this sort of hardware a MANDATORY part of terms of service to get internet access. The speech starts on the bottom of page 11 and run through page 14. It is all part of the government's plan to secure the "National Information Infrastructure" against terrorist attack, against Osama bin Laden himself.

Oh, and by the way Microsoft gets to impose the ultimate user lock-in and competitor lock out, and by the way the MPAA and RIAA get to enforce DRM on files, and bvy the way the BSA gets to enforce DRM and activation and rental schemes on software.

Oh, and by the way you no longer control or own your own computer. It is remotely managed, the hardware is designed to be secure against its owner and self destructing if you try to open it, none of the new software works if you modify anything, you are denied internet access unless you run approved hardware and approved software, if you attempt to modify anything to run different software you are denied internet access.

-

Game addiction? For some people, this might work.

I know of an organization. Fill the form with your name and address at:
http://www.bsa.org/usa/report/Reporting-Form.cfm

They will help you get rid of software you didn't really mean to use.

Copyright holders look the other way unless money is being exchanged

This is so not true.

Anyone sharing music who has been sued by the RIAA can attest to that. Or how about that guy who ripped "the incredible hulk" and put it online? He got sued without having sold anything.

If I'm not mistaken, back in the 1980s, warez trading was not a crime unless it involved some amount of profit on behalf of the copyright infringer. But today, it doesn't matter. And many if not most copyright owners will go after you whether you're making money or not.

If you really think copyright holders don't care, try starting a "not for profit" warez group and see how long it takes for the BSA to raid your house.

Look, infringement of copyright is illegal. In fact, it's even wrong. People shouldn't do it. But that doesn't make it piracy, except through the unjustified and laughably outrageous co-option of the term by publishers, a long long time ago.

"My God! He never took middle school hygiene. He never saw the propaganda film. It's just lucky I keep a copy in the VCR at all times!"

He presses a button and a film title appears on the screen:

DON'T COPY THAT FLOPPY!!!

As a matter of fact, I believe you should also watch young_girl.mpg.

this would be the first time I've heard it suggested for use in the wider internet.

PDF link From the last two paragraphs on page 11 through page 14 is a transcript of Bush's Cyber Security advisor addressing a Gobal Technology Summit in Washington DC in 2001 and directly calling on ISP's to start making plans to make such a system mandatory as part of ISP terms of service. To fight viruses, to secure our National Information Infrastructure, to fight terrorists, to defend our way of life, to fight Osama bin Laden himself! LOL.

TCPA is a refference to the Trust chip. "Forcing down patches" is done through Trusted Computing, enforcing the use of firewalls, and on and on, all Trusted Computing.

Obviously ISP's can't start locking out non-compliant systems until most of their customers already have Trusted-capable hardware. Well, they have just started rolling out ordinary PC's with Trust chips embedded in the motherboard. It is expected to become standard on all new motherboards in under a year. No one will specifically buy a machine with a Trust chip, people will simply be handed a machine with a Trust chip when they by any new computer. My rough estimate is that over a period of four years or so the vast majority of machines will have gone throught the normal obsolecence cycle and been replaced. By default they will all have been replaced by a Trusted capable machines.

So in around 4 years ISP's could fairly safely install these routers and make Trusted Computing mandatory (all in the name of fighting viruses naturally). The few people who do not yet have Trusted hardware will be blamed for having obsolete and non-compatible hardware.

It's a horrifyingly plausible scenario. Anyone who refuses to submit to Trusted Computing and give up control and ownership of his own computer will be effectively excluded from the internet. Refusal to submit becomes an internet death sentence.

But it will start creeping in long before it becomes mandatory. First it will be online music and movie stores that require Trusted Computing to be able to access the files. Then you will start seeing software with optional Trusted Computing "enhancements", and software that will not install execpt under Trusted Computing. And you'll start seeing tons of websites that only work with a Trusted browser. On those Trusted websites it will be impossible to run ad-blockers or anything similar. Trusted Computing will enforce it as impossible to view the website without also viewing the ads. Tons of websites will jump at such a chance to enforce ad display. Other websites will require Trusted Computing to prohibit you from copying any of the pictures or text or other content. Website/community logins can be done through Trusted Computing. It can also be used to enforce all sorts of terms and restrictions. For example Slashdot could do all sorts of client-side lamness filtering and karma tracking and troll blocking and post rate restrictions. Oh, and Slashdot could use it with the membership-fee deal.

Oh, and don't forget that Microsoft has already started touting Trusted Computing based e-mail. You sart getting "secure" e-mail from friends, family, perhaps even your boss. And if you haven't gone Trusted Compliant then you can't read the mail. And according you your friends, your family, and your boss, it's YOUR FAULT for not upgrading to an enhanced and compatible machine. It's YOUR FAULT you can't read their mail. Sigh.

The only thing that can stop Trusted Computing is if there is a massive public backlash.

-

Considering that they have decided to donate the patents on this invention to a non-profit group I would say that we should all like/respect Disney at least a tad. That's a great move.

It may be, but I'd want a bit more information about the details before making such an assumption. If they were donating the techniques to the public domain, then it'd probably b okay to assume it's a good thing.

The Business Software Alliance is a non-profit group, but that doesn't necessarily make it "good" in any way... at least as accepted by Slashdot readers for whatever that's worth.

One of the articles states that Disney hasn't yet decided who to give the patents to. For all we know, it might be a dummy organisation set up by Disney and its partners to protect Disney's interests. Or it could easily be the opposite, which would be great.

And closed licenses are better? Yeah, they never start any flamewars...

Try this link to the BSA

http://global.bsa.org/resources/BSA

I hate to answer my own posts but you MUST download this and this!

I hate to answer my own posts but you MUST download this and this!

Business Software Alliance.

On the other hand, it's unfortunate that there's not a similar committee to focus on issues of copyright/fair use.

Oh, but they *are* addressing copyright and fair use implicitly.

When they talk about "Trustworthyness" and "cyber security" and "securing the national information infrastructure" they are reffering to Trusted Computing.

Trusted Computing exterminates fair use, and it is an attempt to abandon copyright protection and replace it with DRM enforcement.

At an earlier Washington DC Global Tech Summit, Richard Clarke Special Advisor to the President for Cyberspace Security called on hardware manufacturers to embed Trusted Computing in all devices and for ISP's to make plans to deny internet access to anyone not using Trusted Computing compliant system. Read his speech from last two paragraphs on page 11 through page 14. Trusted hardware is already hitting the shelves, and I figure about 4 years for the routine replacement of substantially all existing machines to make it possible to enforce Trusted Computing compliance as part of internet access terms of service.

The PITAC Cyber Security is all about Trusted Computing. Many (all?) of the PITAC members are involved in Trusted Computing. In particular Spafford jumps out at me, he is the author of the PDF's defending TCPA (the original Trust chip).

-

What good would making it GNU/BIOS do?

Day by day, the world is getting better and safer a place for us. I am happy as long as there is a BIOS that allows me to install an OS of my choice on my PC. 90+% of market share doesn't and will not take away my rights to choose what I use.

Zorglub

Major Study Finds 36 Percent of Software in Use Worldwide is Pirated

Global Software Piracy Study[sic]

See if you can figure out the model they used to arrive at their figures.

The sky is not back yet, but it is goind exactly as described in Digital Imprimatur. It's a long but important read.

And how is it that the Digital Imprimatur is happening right now? Well take a look at this Slashdot story Cisco Working to Block Viruses at the Router. But guess what? The Slashdot story completely missed one vital point. These new Cisco routers DO NO BLOCK VIRUSES. No, what they really do is check that you are running a TRUSTED COMPUTER and then they remotely scan the software running on your computer. If you are not Tursted Computing compliant, or of you are not running the approved and mandated software (or if you are running prohibited software) THEN THIS ROUTER DENIES YOU INTERNET ACCESS.

Of course it is being billed to enforce that you are running an approved and up-to-date firewall and/or anti-virus software and/or that your operating system has the latest patches. That's how it supposedly "fights viruses".

Of course enforcing that you are using a Trusted Computer means that you no longer own/control your own computer. Of course enforcing that you are running all of that approved software and latest approved operating system patchs also means that you are forced to run only the approved operating system (Palladium anyone?). It also means that if you attempt to change any of your settings or modify your software in any way you get locked out completely, you lose your net connection, you can't open any of your 'secure' files, and most of your software will refuse to run.

It's true that ISP's can't start installing these new Cisco Routers unless most of their customers already have Trusted Hardware - they'd be locking out almost all of their customers. However the plan is to simply include the Trust Chip as standard hardware on all new motherboards sold, starting this year. They don't have to convince you to buy a new Trusted Computer, they simply HAND you the new hardware when you replace your old PC. There's no reason not to accept a computer with the Trust Chip in it, you can simply leave the chip off and the machine can do everything a normal computer can do and run all existing software. Over the course of 4 years or so essentially all PC's get replaced as obsolete. Around 2008 or so pretty much everyone is expected to have a Trust Chip. Then the ISP's can install the new routers and lock out anyone that has failed to comply. It will only be a few percent, and the company will simply say "Your Fault, you have an incompatible computer, go buy a modern machine to replace your obsolete hunk of junk."

At a Washington DC Global Tech Summit, Richard Clarke Special Advisor to the President for Cyberspace Security called on ISP's to enforce exactly such a policy. See the PDF here. His speech starts on page 7, but you can skip to the last two paragraphs on page 11 through the end. He says TCPA(Trusted Computing) is a "Good beginning, but not enough", tells ISPs to use TCPA to enforce the use of firewalls and other software in order to get a hookup, asks them to implement a National Strategy to Defend Cyberspace. He asks them to do so "in the spirit of 9/11", to do so for our National Economy, to do so for our National Defence, to do so for Our Way Of Life For People Around The Globe, and even to defend us against Osama bin Laden himself. And the PDF notes that the audience responded with applause.

If there is no massive public backlash against Trusted Computing it will simply be dumped in our laps and the sky will become very dark indeed.

-

Microsoft are by many considered the driving force behind the BSA, who seems to have co-authored the software patents directive of the European Commission.

It does not require "upgrading the Internet infrastructure and replacing all modern computers in four years". I said in for years the vast majority of home PC's will be replaced. Then ISP's can fairly easily start installing these routers (or activating the additional features of these previously installed routers).

It does not take an overnigh switchover of every computer on earth. But when your ISP installs ONE of these routers between you and the net you will by forced to comply or be denied access. The president's cyber security advisor called on ISP's to make it part of their terms of service. All done in the name of 'fighting viruses' and 'securing the national information infrastructure'. It was at the 2001 Washington D.C. Global Tech Summit. Read his speech, start at the lst two paragraphs on page 11 through the end of page 13. He directly reffers to TCPA, and essentional everything else in that - from forcing down patches to making firewalls mandatory, all of that can only be done through trusted computing.

It will phase in over time, eventually becoming mandatory. Unless there is a massive public backlash against it.

your entire paranoia is based on a single "trust chip"

I'm a programmer. I've been reading the technical specs. I've been reading the architecture and software layers and certificate autorities stuff and all sorts of applications etc etc etc. It all rests on a foundation for a single chip specification, chips made by multiple manufacturers. But as a whole this thing built on top is HUGE. And they *have* extensive and reasonable plans to drive ahead total adoption of the system. It is slated to become standard hareware on all new motherboards. After that everything else falls into place almost on its own.

To put it simply, it is massive "embrace and extend" manuver exactly like Microsoft is notorius for. We both know that embrace and extend (and exterminate) *is* a sucessful strategy.

Embrace: The new computers can do *everything* that an old computer can do. There is absolutely no reason ever *not* to have a computer with a Trust chip. It would be like buying a computer without speakers, you could just accept the standard computer with speakers and leave them off.

Extend: These chips provide new 'security' features. Software will be written that uses these features. It will start with Music download sites and benign software like anti-virus software and be optional. You start getting software with extra features that only work on an "enhanced" computer. Then you start getting software and files and websites that *only* work on a Trusted Computer. The software will simply refuse to install uness you go through Trusted activation and registration. The encrypted files will be unusuable. The websites will start returning error messages if you don't have a Trusted browser, much like many websites currently give error messages if you have cookies off or javascript off or if you try to block ads.

More and more software companies will start using or requiring this hardware for many reasons, particularly 'anti-piracy activation'. More and more content publishers will start requiring it for DRM. More and more websites will start requiring it for a number of reasons (enforcing ad views, enforcing registartion, tracking, blocking deeplinking, new 'enhanced' features, enforcing terms of service, and more). More and more ISP's will start requiring it for a number of reasons (to fight viruses, to throttle banmdwith, to enforce advertizing on discount or free access, to enforce terms of service, for tracking, and more more more).

Once half the public has a machine with a trust chip inside there are all sorts of independant companies that will jump at the chance to take advantage of it. It gives them control over the user's PC. There are a million reasons people would want/demand that control given the chance.

And anyone without a Trusted computer

1. Convince all the software manufacturers in the country that they need someone to manage their industry.

And likely your employer has legitimate copies of MS software. If not, the Business Software Alliance may want to speak with them.

BTW, I wonder why Boy Scouts of America didn't get www.bsa.org.

If your employer won't let you use another OS, maybe you should change employers to a Linux friendly employer.

I think what you want is here:
http://www.bsa.org/usa/report/Reporting-Form.cfm

I am not sure if they still offer the reward though.

Who modded this flamebait tripe as "insightful"?

Perhaps you were ignorant of the fact, but:

In Asia, nearly 54 percent of software programs were pirated. Reducing the rate 10 points to 44 percent by 2006 could create 1.1 million new jobs, increase economic growth by US$170 billion, and generate another US$15 billion in tax revenues.

how long is that list of acceptable hashes going to be? And how often is it going to change?

Their main plan is that Certificate Authorities will handle all of that. Once the system is set up you are just supposed to check for a CA certificate. If the system has a valid certificate then presumably the system is DRM-secure. Of course you can manually check anything and everything yourself if you like.

>you know exactly which peice of software you are talking to.
No, if you have allowed "Owner Override"

I guess I wasn't clear. That part of the post I was talking about Trusted Computing and DRM systems without Owner Overide.

A system with OwnerOverride, or a system when the owner know his key, secures the computer FOR the owner, not AGAINST him.

Side note: My solution is to give the owner his key. Knowing your key is actually more powerful than Owner Override, but more complex. If you know your key then it is possible to implement an Owner Override system in pure software. no need to revise the hardware at all.

if the system is set up so that anybody (I.e., any machine owner) can "sign" random values with the TCPA key, then that signature doesn't mean anything at all

Actually it does mean something. It means that there's no software running that the owner doesn't specificly know about or doesn't want running. No viruses, no trojans. And in the vast majority of cases the attestation will be 100% accurate. The only time it wouldn't be accurate is if the owner decides he has a signifigant reason for running different software and makes a signifigant effort to substitute software and implement an override.

It's his computer. It works for him. It does what he wants. And you know his computer is just as secure as he wants it to be.

demand for this type of functionality is very high in a corporate environment

My solution was that the owner gets a printed copy of his key with the machine. As the owner of the machines it would be the corporation itself that gets the printed keys. The fact that the company knows it's own keys does not diminish any of the benefits of having such machines on their network. As far as the employees are concered there is no difference - the employeese don't have the keys either way. The result is identical, except that the company doesn't have to fear irretrievable data loss if one of the chips croaks.

The president's cybersecurity advisor called on ISP's to...
I'd also love to see a reference.

Fortunately I happened to already have the link and choice quotes saved.

Refference - Washington DC Global tech summit.
Starting from the bottom of page 11 he says the following things:

"I think we need to decide that from now on IT security functionality will be built in to what we do, to the products that we bring to market."
"That in effect we are saying together, and you are saying as an IT industry, that from now on the default settings on all of our products as they come to market is for high security."
"TCPA, the Trusted Computing Platform Alliance, is an example of bringing hardware and software manufacturers together. But TCPA is not enough."
Direct TCPA refference
"I think we need to have operating systems and applications that incorporate security functionality into them."
"It is not beyond the wit of this industry to figure out a way of forcing down patches"
The only way to FORCE down patches is with Trusted Computing
"ISPs and carriers can insist that when cable modems and DSL hookups are made, firewalls are installed. It is not enough for an ISP or carrier to say, oh, and by the way, you might want to think about a firewall."
The only way to insist that a firewall is running is to use Trusted Computing to check exactly what is running and deny the connection if it isn't.
"So we have to defend our cyber

So, that's how it started...
I've never seen the Business Software Alliance charter before.

$300K. Wow. Thats an astounding chunk of change. Let's see now, the LA Unified School District's 2003 budget was $403 million dollars (out of just under $5 billion in revenue), while Microsoft's total revenue figures for the same year were $32 billion dollars.

Even ignoring (for your argument's sake) that it's legal to pirate and steal commercial software, and even assuming that the school district indeed paid $5M (which is not true), $300K is equal to 4 hours of budget expenditures by the district and 1/29th of a day's revenue for Microsoft. So I have trouble reconciling this with your claim that "Microsoft is stealing from children", as if some kids in San Mateo were denied their lunch so Microsoft could pad their books.

BTW, just in case you fail to read the BSA press release, here's a relevant quote:

Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), the second largest school district in the country, agreed to pay BSA $300,000 relating to unlicensed copies of software programs published by Adobe, Autodesk, Corel, Lotus, Microsoft, Novell and Symantec installed on its computers.

Thanks for the opening, I love looking up links like these.

Want some more, bugni man?

It's Bungi, please. And yes, sure. Hit me again.

That Microsoft has bullied cash strapped public schools over copying stupid stuff like M$ Word is a shameful matter of public record

I think we've taken care of the "cash strapped" part. That you consider "M$ Word" to be "stupid" is another matter, and I don't see how enforcement of a license is "shameful" or "bullying", except from your peculiar point of view. I suppose you also believe that "sharing" copyrighted music is A-OK. Do you regularly shoplift at Wal-Mart as well?

Free software, of course, comes with no such strings attached

Of course it doesn't! That's why the LA School District dumped "M$" and went to Free Software in 1998, right? They did that, right? I mean, since "M$" "bullied them" to the tune of "$5M" and essentially bankrupted them, they must have dumped "Windoze" and gone to Debian. In 1998. Right?

I'm happy people like you and him are bothered by my little posts.

No, not bothered. Merely amused. Entertained at seeing you trip all over your bogus arguments, certainly.

"Why aren't there software-piracy raids?"

They happen relatively often. They are simply not reported on Slashdot. Most fees for piracy are paid out of court but the feds do occasionally put on the blue jackets and bust in with guns drawn. A few years back Microsoft worked with the feds to bust several Microsoft software counterfeiting rings.

They certainly do in Karachi. I'm not sure about Djibouti, but they, like Pakistan, are WIPO signatories, so I'd say there's probably a small BSA lobby there too.

Basically if there's anywhere PCs are being used - refurbished or otherwise - you can be damn sure the BSA is right there.

What about using software in politics? Case in point: the daily whinings of the open source zealots about governmental software use. Why is that zealots insist on open source having an advantage over commercial software? Aren't they being a little disingenuous? Unbiased sources know that there is a higher TCO with Linux as opposed to Windows. As a taxpayer, I sure as hell don't want my government wasting tax dollars on a poorly thought out OSS migration. Just look at the disastrous results in Munich. Government software decisions should be based on performance not open source bias.

and IF it were as EASY to pirate software as it is to copy music, there would probably be a SDAA

No, Microsoft equals capitalism. They are single-handedly keeping the commercial software industry afloat. With enterprise Unix dead and Steve Blowjobs converting his OS to open source, there isn't too many platforms for commercial programmers to go to.

Because of the viral GPL, it's impossible to develop for Linux. That's why there's no games and Photoshop on it.

When all the developer jobs are shipped to turd-world countries and the Western software engineer's job is dead, you'll begin to understand. Maybe you might remove your asshat and learn why commercial software is superior to open source.

Ever since I started getting those threatening postcards from the Business Software Alliance, I have been determined to do whatever I can to get Microsoft out of my business. It has not been easy at all. In fact, I wonder if my extreme hatred for Microsoft has clouded my business judgment.

My work has not been all for naught. I have easily and painlessly jettisoned Microsoft from all of our critical Internet infrastructure. No more Microsoft http servers, smtp servers, file servers, etc. This is where open source excels. It does not make much business sense to use Microsoft for stuff like this.

Another huge open source success is the use of Postgresql instead of Oracle or SQL Server. It was easy to re-program our proprietary apps to use Postgres. We save a ton of money by never paying for an Oracle license. Unless you can't live without DB clustering or other advanced features, Postgres is the answer.

My efforts to get rid of our proprietary point of sale/order entry system have taken me down a long, complicated road, and I have decided that the best solution is developing a completely custom system. This has cost a ton of time and money, and in two years has still not resulted in a functioning alternative or the decomissioning of a single Microsoft server! One day, though, I swear it will pay dividends. My stubborness here has so far been a big can of worms. But who knows, even massive, expensive fiascos like The Big Dig can one day "go live" and everybody is grateful.

OpenOffice is a no-brainer, unless you need to exchange documents with other firms, or you need some of MS Office's advanced features. My employees initially revolted (they were just not used to it). But OO is surprisingly feature-rich, if not intuitive or robust. Of course, even though OO has been a GREAT success story, it is still deployed on Windows machines. However, I now have a migration path to Linux workstations.

I do not even have any desire or plans to get rid of all the Microsoft boxes. We will still use Quickbooks for the back end accounting. We will still do desktop publishing using BSA-approved software (although the GIMP has replaced Photoshop in our non-print work).

The one shining beacon of hope for me is that, even though I have not significantly reduced the number of Windows machines at my business, I have significantly increased the number of FreeBSD and Linux servers, and I have not ever upgraded my Windows NT 4.0 workstation licenses!

My advice is to use OSS whereever you can, and proprietary software whereever you must. Always make technology decisions that give you the option to migrate to OSS if the option presents itself.

Is this just a minor side effect of a basically beneficial system that will simply work itself out as the patents are challenged? Or does this have to be fought?

If this is something that needs fighting, it would be good to know who is doing this, either on a grassroots level or as elected officials.

In the US, I guess it's mainly the EFF and FSF, but I'm not very familiar with the situation there.

Unlikeley, as SCO is not a Business Software Alliance member

The continued vitality of all software development models depends on the merits of their respective products, and not the method of development chosen. [pdf]

Which sounds great, but this is an organization that also supports evils such as the DMCA and DRM.

As for choice, I never understood why IT managers haven't been fired en masse when they've commited a business or university to Microsoft products. MS has a proven history of closed standards based on embracing and extending open standards for the sole purpose of creating an artificial dependence on their products. Based on this fact alone, products build on open standards are superior...

And we all know that with the Business Software Allaiance as one of there is no possible way this could lead to the effective outlawing of Open Source (not allowed to contribute if you don't hold a license).

In all likelyhood, any government regulation over development or licensing scheme for developers will only lead to protecting the high profits of a few of the largest vendors and hurt everyone else in the industry.

The digital equivalent of building a shopping mall.

No, they are trying to force Trusted Computing into every new computer and electronic device. They want to seize control of everything. Before you accuse me of being a paranoid loon, look at this:

Richard Clarke
Special Advisor to the President for Cyberspace Security
March 16, 2002:
"I think we need to decide that from now on IT security functionality will be built in to what we do, to the products that we bring to market."
"That in effect we are saying together, and you are saying as an IT industry, that from now on the default settings on all of our products as they come to market is for high security."
"TCPA, the Trusted Computing Platform Alliance, is an example of bringing hardware and software manufacturers together. But TCPA is not enough."
"I think we need to have operating systems and applications that incorporate security functionality into them."
"It is not beyond the wit of this industry to figure out a way of forcing down patches"
"ISPs and carriers can insist that when cable modems and DSL hookups are made, firewalls are installed. It is not enough for an ISP or carrier to say, oh, and by the way, you might want to think about a firewall."
"So we have to defend our cyberspace. No one else will do it. America built cyberspace, and America must defend its cyberspace"

The president's Internet advisor is calling for Trusted Computing to be built into ALL new computers and devices. Take special note of being able to FORCE down patches and for ISP's to INSISTING that firewalls be installed. Then look at this:

Cisco NAC allows network access to compliant and trusted endpoint devices (PCs, servers, and PDAs, for example), and restricts the access of noncompliant devices.

Yes, Cisco just announced new routers to do exactly that. They can FORCE down patches and they can ENFORCE that you have an approved firewall (they can check for any sort of mandatory software). First the router checks if you are running a Trusted Computing system. Then the router uses Trusted Computing to check that you are running a firewall or any other software. Any non-Trusted Computer is denied internet access.

And of course Intertrust's "Universal DRM System" runs on top of Trusted Computers. Encrypted data is "securely" moved from one Trusetd PC to another, or onto Trusted iPods and the like. Except you now no longer have any control over your own computer, you don't own your computer anymore. I have been reading the technical specifications - it's a %$@#!& evil system! If you don't "voluntarily" comply you will eventually be denied internet access. We are sill a few years away from that final step of univeral enforcment by ISP's - but at that point it's game over, everyone MUST submit.

This isn't some friendly "mall" they are setting up. It's an attempt to ram-rod a DRM system into every electronic device and seize control of everything. It's a "Universal" system, remember?

-

The article says that it, and the earlier "No Electronic Theft Act" (who's heard of that one?), make copyright infrigement a felony.

Just need to slay those groups of plantation holders that remain called the Business Software Alliance, the Software & Information Industry Association, and the like that tried to bring back the Old South to IT.

Its called the BSA.

Stop reading dilbert, he is a spokesperson for the B.S.A. bsa another site

Say I later start a company to do the stuff I've learned for profit. Would I risk committing a crime by using my personal use version? I think not.

If this hypothetical statement held true, then the Business Software Alliance would never exist.

Many companies, of all sizes, do rationalize their illegitimate use of software in order to save money.

Jay (=

• Different hardware?
• Different OS?
• Different programming language?
• Different programming model?
• Different requirements? Oops!

Follow this train of thought for S(2), the 2D sphere in 3D space, or the Earth

Nope, it's S(3) moving through 2D 'space'.

Now make the analagous visualization for S(3), the 3D sphere in 4D space.

In a similar manner, it's S(4) moving through 3D 'space'.


The best way to popularize Open Source Software is to support the BSA.

No they're not telemarketers, but they are researchers. The people that call during dinner and ask for 'opinions' in efforts to 'improve customer service'. Yeah it's legal. I know cause I "USED" to work for them. and they suck.

BRG Research Services
Operation hours:
7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. (MST)
Phone:
(801) 373-9923

Toll free:
(800) 800-8784

Fax:
(801) 374-2751

Address:
50 East 500 North, Suite 200
Provo UT, 84601

Sign them up for mailing lists etc. And JAM their phone lines.

Oh yeah, call the Microsoft Dogs on them. They have illegal copies of Windows , illegally registered copies of winzip (you can tell when the registration name is X and code is obviously hacked). and a multitude of pirated software on their systems.

I know, I work there. And I dont' care of the company goes under. They suck [goatse.cx]

Actually software does have a governing body, the BSA. Sure not every software company is a member, but not ever musician is on a label that is in the RIAA, and not every movie is made by a member of the MPAA..

No they're not telemarketers, but they are researchers. The people that call during dinner and ask for 'opinions' in efforts to 'improve customer service'.

BRG Research Services
Operation hours:
7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. (MST)
Phone:
(801) 373-9923

Toll free:
(800) 800-8784

Fax:
(801) 374-2751

Address:
50 East 500 North, Suite 200
Provo UT, 84601

Sign them up for mailing lists etc. And JAM their phone lines.

Oh yeah, call the Microsoft Dogs on them. They have illegal copies of Windows , illegally registered copies of winzip (you can tell when the registration name is X and code is obviously hacked). and a multitude of pirated software on their systems.

I know, I work there. And I dont' care of the company goes under. They suck

There is this study (you need powerpoint to read it, doesn't that suck)