Slashdot Mirror
New Chips Keep Tight Rein on Consumers
banannaslug writes "NYTimes (subscription, etc.)
talks about Microsofts Palladium. The article addresses how applications of controlling technology affect competition as well as the consumer, can be used to extend monopolies to new markets and has
very serious implications for what happens to user driven innovation. We'd have the people's operating system, the people's web browser and the people's media player, and 'computers' would be as useful to innovation as a bicycle to a fish.
This is the kind of behavior you expect in a mature industry that tries to add
'law' to preserve failing market models dependent on a lack of competition. Next thing you know they'll want to force customers to upgrade periodically." Point it out to your boss.
The latest word from Microsoft seems to be that if the public and the industry won't buy it then the project will be canned.
Given the almost universal condemanation, my bet is that the project will be "shelved" only to reappear in a whole series of independent moves to deliver the same effect.
Maybe the next codename that MS come up with will be something like "Horse of Troy"
This article is the usual paranoid rhetoric about how Microsoft is evil and going to take over the world, disguised under some serious journalism.
This is the same thing people were whinging on about four years ago, and it still hasn't happened yet.
And DRM technology makes sense in many ways - sometimes I get the impression that a lot of people who post to these discussions don't quite get the fact that if someone has something for sale, and you want it, then you should pay for it and not bootleg or steal it.
You could call it a lack of moral common sense, perhaps.
Am I wrong or this is the purpose of the new Microsoft Software Assurance licensing program? Not that they force you to upgrade. But when you pay for a year subscription, most businesses will want to upgrade not to waste the money they spent in the Software Assurance, practically forcing their users to update.
Now forgive me if I didn't understand the new Microsoft licensing program, that is just an opinion. Cheers.
-- There are two kind of sysadmins: Paranoids and Losers. (adapted from D. Bach)
It's not going to happen ... stop worrying. Microsoft would have to take control of every motherboard, chip, and card manufacturer to do that. Can you say "monopoly?" Don't you think it'd be a little obvious?
name : spamfree pw : spamfree
If you don't like it don't buy it. Nobody is forcing you to buy these computers.
The only complaint people seem to have is that if the general population buys into this, then we won't get the discount of commodity hardware.
The current unencumbered hardware isn't going to go away unless people stop buying it, or a law is made against it.
Considering that our government tends to treat the entire population of the U.S., collectively, like a bunch of rowdy sixth-graders who can't be trusted to so much as tie their own shoes, does it come as any great surprise that the people behind this insanity (the entertainment industry, and probably Senator 'Disney' Hollings somewhere in the background) are taking pretty much the same view?
Micro$platt is, in essence, accusing us all of being thieves and media pirates in advance, and they're using that position to justify Palladium. All I can hope is that it'll die the same horrible death as DIVX did.
One thing I will say: If this goes through at full bore, it'll probably be a huge shot in the arm for the used-computer industry. Perhaps those who have pre-Palladium PCs, and non-PC systems (Suns, MicroVAXen, etc.), shouldn't be so quick to get rid of them.
Keep the peace(es).
Bruce Lane, KC7GR,
Blue Feather Technologies
Oh yea, and i suppose the government controlling everything is better than Microsoft controlling everything. Thanks, but i'd rather have Microsoft controlling everything.
Microsoft has a MONOPOLY.
Look up that word sometime.
"Dont buy it" is a crappy excuse, and you know it.
"Dont like car prices? dont drive"
Same logic.
and when Windows 2005 wont let you open a report you yourself wrote in 2002 because its "unpriveledged", you'll realize that DRM isn't for the greater good.
Digital-rights management can also reduce innovation. The No. 1 song in England today is a remix of a 30-year-old Elvis B-side single, "A Little Less Conversation." Nike commissioned a Dutch disc jockey, JXL, to do the remix for its World Cup ad campaign. He tweaked the instrumental balance and added a techno back beat to create a fresh new sound.
That sort of thing will be simply impossible if digital rights management becomes commonplace.
I heard the DJ in question (Junkie XL (remove "home.html" for Flash intro) describe on Dutch radio how the current owners of Elvis' copyrights/royalties/estate were involved a lot, DURING the production of the mix. AND gave their permission.
Not a very good example.
Everyone seems to be looking at the worse case scenario with palladium though and until we get detail on how things will be implimented none of us really know just how bad....or good it may be.
On the positive side the entertainment industary will finally have a way to make their content available on-line and semi-securely. Corporates and home users should suffer from fewer viral infections and data thefts. Software/media producers may benifit from a reduction in piracy.
On the negative side - what happens to all those DVDs, CDs and other software which are unsigned? Would the process of creating secure media be so restrictive/prohibitively technical or expensive so as to bar the small company/private individual from creating (innovating) new secure/signed software/media?
If MS actually come up with a good implimentation/system/process this need not be a bad thing......its just based upon the current state of things I agree it is likely to be so. I'll wait on the white papers personaly before jumping to conclusions
DRM, authorized application and OS... Isn't it the thing Senator Disney Holling has been trying to put as a law ?
...)
This is something that both Microsoft, in his fight against OpenSource and RIAA/MPAA in their fight to restrict rights of consumers want...
But there are two ways it can be implemented : mandatory or optionnal.
Mandatory means that if the OS don't authenticate, it's access to some of the hardware would be limited. That could prevent OS like linux to run.
Optionnal means that it would be possible for the OS to authenticate with the chip and then, to get access to some cryptographic system that can be used when dealing with DRM-specific content but otherwise don't interfer with the OS.
With many (and more coming) big companies and governments betting on Linux, we can hope that it'd be optionnal... Allowing it to be mandatory would be suicidal for all those relying on Linux (like Disney, IBM, HP,
Future will tell us... But Palladium is a dangerous bet for Microsoft as, in the beginning, there will be both Palladium-enabled and Palladium-free systems available... and with more and more people switching from Microsoft to Linux, these Palladium machines could remain unsold and Palladium could sign the end of Microsoft in OS market...
> The current unencumbered hardware isn't going to go away unless people stop buying it, or a law is made against it.
Both are more likely than you might think. Never forget that free market models are only applicable to free markets: Consumers do not have a free choice in an almost completely monopolized market. That is: I agree that nothing's lost until people actually start buying and using these Palladium based technologies, but what people buy or what people use is to very large extent a result of marketing. And - as we all know - Microsoft has a lot of resources to do "good" marketing...
Situation A: Lonely midnight pasty white hacker codes up easy to use, secure, encryption software for the common user. This is something which can be used for good or evil, but should nonetheless be available for everyone to use. He publishes the code so people can ensure that there's nothing going on behind the scenes. He is praised on high and given verbal rimjobs by the "community."
Situation B: Same as A, except the hacker is now Microsoft. They are slammed, accused, and drilled by the "community," the only real difference being that their code will not be modifyable for distribution while the hacker above's will be. (They're releasing it under shared source remember.)
Shit, click on any crypto article and you will have people whining about how there is no easy to use, open source crypto software installed on everyone's computer. Now we're getting it by the only company who could actually get it on every computer, and you bitch and whine because of one facet of the implementation, DRM, which is inevitable and would happen regardless of who developed the cryptosystem. You either get crypto on every computer, and DRM, or no crypto and no DRM, you can't have one and not the other. Deal with it.
So finally, I can actually send a secret to Grandma via e-mail without anyone being able to snoop in on it. But sure, you can skip over mentioning that part (something rather incredible given it's been 30 years since RSA) because it obviously takes too much effort to actually boycott the RIAA or stop pirating music in order to get them to respect your "fair use" rights. String up Microsoft instead, right?
I'd have issues with it if we wouldn't be able to see the source code, but we will be able to. It doesn't matter that it's not GPLed in this situation.. if there is a bug you can be sure MS will fix it ASAP since their ass is riding on this software. This is not IE.
Also, if you end up not being able to install Linux on your computer because of the hardware, either blame yourself for buying the hardware knowing that Linux was not up to speed yet, or blame the Linux hackers for not supporting your hardware. Don't blame MS for getting crypto in every home -- that's been a something that everyone who knows anything has wanted since the 70's. Don't kid yourself -- without MS doing it, it would never happen.
--
MS can just make it a precondition to using the designed for MS Windows XP or whatever the next version is.
If the only way to get MS signed drivers for your hardware is to implement Palladium, they will likely do it.
Are you nuts? The government, at least, is accountable, and the constitution exists to govern what it can do. Unless you happen to be a major Microsoft shareholder, they don't owe you shit.
There are three types of person:
a) us Geeks which upgrade at the drop of a hat (A GREEN LED instead of a RED one? Ooo, where's my Visa)
b)The folks that buy the multi Ghz serverclass workstation to play solitaire and reproduce the words 'You've got mail!'..and typically buy one computer per decade,
b) and my Mom...who's been living happily on my handmedowns for years. While I'm running a Ghz Athlon with GeForce graphics, she was happy with the PII 300 and the P1 120 before it.
At least from an end user (I'm ignoring business pc's for the moment) only 'a' above drives upgrade cycles.
Be honest, how many IT folk have you encountered whos primary computer is, like, five years old? The number is disturbingly high.
"Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus."
but how much would Palladium affect developers (non-commercial, home-brewed programs)? I mean, under this system, only "digitally signed software" would be allowed to run. How would someone go about certifying their own program?, because if someone could do this, it defeats the whole purpose of Pallidum. So maybe VB Pallidum edition would certify your own code, but in the meanwhile would also certify the code of virus writers too. How about if someone writes a program in (C/C++/Perl/etc) on a (*nix/mac/sun/etc) and try to run it on a Windows Pallidum system?
$cat
IT has been itching to seize control over the desktop ever since those rouge PCs yanked control from the terminal/mainframe days. This OS will help that greatly. Say goodbye to Personal in PC.
The home user will most likely reject it. We think about gramps with a computer, who doesn't care, but in almost all family situations, there's a younger and computer literate geek who is called whenever there is a computer problem. Most of them love Microsoft now (look at the flame wars here for examples). Removing Personal from PC at home just ain't going to fly. People will reject it and if future hardware enforces it, the hardware market will take a huge negative hit for years while people hold on to legacy computers until they all die out. For advanced gaming, we'll just buy consoles. For our home box tinkering needs, we'll hold on to our trusty current boxes...
"Next thing you know they'll want to force customers to upgrade periodically."
Well, the Palladium details do go on about a "Secure Clock" and the untrusted system clock.
Presumably that'd be useful if your media files or software are timebombed. 6 months gone past, the OS or your word procesor stops working or degrades unless you pay your next rental (it _was_ mentioned in the EULA, see there, in the 1/2 point type).
Or you go and buy the Blueray DVD of MIB 4. But after a month you've got to cough up a few more dollars if you want to view it again. Your original $15 only covered "reasonable viewing" of course.
Does anybody think this is just a reglossing of the personalization stuff in Passport that didn't fly?
They made a big deal of grabbing and getting control over your personal information and when that went over like a fart in Church they backpedaled and thought:
"Well, will they accept it if we word it _this_ way?"
"Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus."
That's why you vote with your dollar and don't give in to the temptation to purchase products from companies who you don't want to "rule" the market.
The common opinion here seems to forget this rule or throw it aside saying "Consumers don't know whats good for them." This was the same thinking that you had, oh, in ancient theocracies, isn't it?
--
I for one would hope alot of these stories are hype and that things won't be as harsh around this OS as they say. Its my opinion that alot of news is built around exagerration and speculation. It just makes me think about how 60 minutes has at least one segment a week about how Russia could mistakeningly nuke us because of faulty electronics or lack of security for personel. If this happens to ALL be true about Palladium, fine..... It will be a very good thing for alternatives like Linux.
When I opened up an article which discussed, among other things, inkjet printer cartridges which were designed to fail if they were refilled, I found a popup ad telling me that I could save 80% off my inkjet cartridges by refilling them.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
I don't like Microsoft. Let me get that out of the way right now. I consider the company to be a shining example of some of the worst aspects of capitalism.
But Microsoft isn't what worries me. Microsoft does not make me paranoid. Why? Because I know that no matter what happens with Microsoft, I can always choose not to use their products. I can buy or build myself a perfectly usable computer that runs Mac OS X, Linux, or what have you, and is certified 100% MS-free.
What worries me is the spectre of DRM laws mandating how my computer works and what types of programs I may and my not write.
I am concerned about any program, any piece of hardware, any treaty, any law that treats me as a consumer, not a citizen.
I worry that someday, when I sit down to code away on my digital photo managment software that I will have to incorporate government-mandated checks to ensure that no one could possibly use my product in any illegal activity.
As I sit here in England, people are celebrating Independence Day back home in the U.S. I will be later today, too. I'm proud to be an American; I'm proud of the freedoms that I enjoy under the U.S. Constitution. But I am paranoid that many of the basic freedoms that I have always counted on are being swept silently away - in the name of big corporations, in the name of security, in the name of profit.
Security is a great thing, but not at the expense of freedom of speech. Companies and artists need freedom from theft, but not at the expense of law-abiding people. We already have laws for punishing thieves and crackers. Use those laws.
------
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.
I am concerned about any program, any piece of hardware, any treaty, any law that treats me as a consumer, not a citizen
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Here's where the story was first reported in the mainstream press, with far more information, analysis, and interviews: Newsweek article by Stephen Levy. You might also want to read Microsoft's own take on this initiative.
Just how many Microsoft name-plays are out there? M$, Micro$platt, etc...
The important thing to understand about Palladium is that it doesn't improve security for the end user. I can control what software runs on my machine right now, and I can refuse to run incoming code that isn't signed by a trusted party. Pallidum's sole purpose is to give IP owners control my computer, because as long as I have control over my computer then digital rights management is a paper tiger.
If there is hardware that refuses to run without the right signature, then there is no way for me to install anything that bypasses digital rights management. The fact that Linux will certainly not have the right signature is just a happy byproduct of the fact that I can't develop or install certain kinds of software.
This kind of technology makes me shudder.
Computers have yet to penetrate really deeply into the average consumers home.
This type of User doesn't generally create anything really complicated with their computers, they'll hardly even notice the difference between Palladium PCs and Unrestricted Computers.
As long as they have Web, E-mail, Word-processor, something to do Invite cards to parties and work with Digital cameras etc. they'll be perfectly happy.
They will not understand the nerdy minorities issues, and certainly won't raise a fuss as we're carted off screaming by the authorities when we're all branded unmutual or something.
It'll only be the next generation (or the next after that) who realise that their capacity to innovate and progress humanity has been curtailed.
From my Autobiography - "Lifestyles of the Sad and Desperate"...
government accountable? constitution governs? sheeit, you need to read something besides slashdot.
From the sound of this the chips will hardly be useful for quite a while, when even hopelessly old machines have it. There needs to be a critical mass of hardware for content providers to release anything, since nobody is going to run out and replace all their PCs which do nothing different except allow you to play stuff in MS' file formats that they charge you for. For the first few years it won't even matter that its there, none of the detrimental effects everyone here predicts will happen since nobody's using it. THEN they'll turn it on full blast when the only place you can find a machine without it is smoldering in a chinese PC recycling center.
NYT Random Login Generator.
Or you can just click this link to automatically generate you a login and submit it.
You may have to click the link a couple of times until you get a login that's not expired. I'tll take you directly to the article
MS to eradicate GPL, hence Linux
Palladium will essentially prevent you from rebuilding your kernel. It won't stop you from compiling it, but it will make your computer "untrusted", and therefore prevent you from running any program or accessing any DRM-encrypted file that requires the facilities that the "Fritz" chip will provide.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
> That's why you vote with your dollar and don't give in to the temptation to purchase products from companies who you don't want to "rule" the market.
The point he was trying to make is that consumers dont have the luxury to do this. We might think, as individuals we do, but by virtue of existing monopolies (and the fact that they have sprung up in numerous forms over the past 500 years) shows that it is not a viable solution to tell people not to participate in a market where the only viable choices are choices they do not wish to make.
Too often the consumer is forced to pick the lesser of evils instead of the best of breed. That, I think, is what bothers many people.
The alternative to free markets (capitalism), and state-controlled markets (communism) was proposed by an economist called Polyani, post WWII (I think.) He proposed, much like the checks and balances in government, groups of producers and consumers haggling over pricing until both producers and consumers were happy. Thus, no product could be sold until the consumers (now as powerful as the collective powers of producers by virtue of this process, where the might of collective teamwork is finally an advantage consumers can have too) had agreed on what price the market will bear. Everyone pays the same price, and you dont get the phenomenon we have now, where MS extorts higher and higher prices out of fewer and fewer people, but effectively allows them to keep controlling the market by the sheer ubiquity of their product. Remember when MS offered to give away software to schools?
Sure, I can vote by not purchasing something, but as it stands, as individuals, we have difficulty amassing and and using our collective might in the market, while companies have the advantage of making money from working as a team.
This is why, historically, the 'supply' end of the market has been disproportionately more powerful and more prone to natural monopolies in markets where the product is a second-tier need (not air, water food, but telephone, publishing (art and culture), PC and OS, etc) rather than a luxury.
"Old man yells at systemd"
Ya, libertarians are notoriously dumb about anything outside their narrow vision of 'free markets'. 'People's this and that' my ass -- timothy doesn't have a clue. What does he suppose GNU/Linux is?? 'Innovation' is so much a sacred cow with these people that they can only conceive of it in a neo-liberal context. Pathetic.
Enuff with the sneering backhands against socialism. Your enemy is capitalism -- which will always end up in monopoly -- the antithesis of 'freedom'.
EON condensed matter distributed-computing project.
Kind of like any economic graph measuring the elasticity of a product's price. You need to find the sweet spot between achieving your ultimate end goals and what the customer will tolerate before moving to a competitor.
So even if you love Microsoft, your best bet is to publically rally against this thing. When Microsoft sees the public backlash, they will come back with a slightly gentler version.
But make no mistake about it, eventually, it will happen, and they have the market dominance, funds, and patience, to eventually ram it through the market... My very first boss told me that the best way to affect change in a company is to make small baby steps instead of one big giant step. People won't notice it if you change a little at a time. But if you do it a bit at a time, you'll catch them sleeping and by the time they realize the cumulative effect of all the mini changes, it will be too late.
Oh yea, and i suppose the government controlling everything is better than Microsoft controlling everything. Thanks, but i'd rather have Microsoft controlling everything.
Oh yes, I can see it now:
UNITED STATES OF MICROSOFT AMERICAN(tm) - CITIZENSHIP AGREEMENT
By residing in the United States of Microsoft America(tm) you hereby agree:
a) to pay one half of your earnings to Microsoft Government(tm) on a monthly basis, for all the great services that they provide.
b) Microsoft Government(tm) will not be held responsible should you injured, die, be made bankcrupt, or suffer any other type of misfortune as a result of the actions, or inaction of Microsoft Government(tm).
c) Should the United States of Microsoft America(tm) suffer any security breach by a terrorist or another country during times of war, Microsoft(tm) will not be held responsible for any resulting loss of life or property.
d) Anyone publicising any failure, negligence or other fault of the Microsoft Government (tm) will have their Microsoft Citizenship(tm) immediately revoked.
f) etc. etc.
Hm. Not on cnn.com, nor on news.bbc.co.uk, abcnews.com or foxnews.com, including streams (live IIRC) for cnn, abc and bbc.
Hoax, I think. Mod me down for being offtopic - happy to lose karma for exposing it.
The only thing you can accurately describe as "Scotch" is a sticky tape made by 3M. And it's
So the rest of the world will continue to innovate, and the US will be stuck in a rut for at least 10 years.
This is all about restricting your right to choose what you want to do: do you think for one moment that Palladium-disabled computers will:
1> Run Linux?
2> Run Gnutella?
3> Run Freenet?
Suppose that some form of software gets up the Government's nose, say GPG. Pull the certificates for that software, and *boof*, it's gone.
This application fully embraces the centralizing possibilities of public key encryption: control flows up to the top of the pyramid, just like X509 certificates have a chain of authority: validity is drawn from authority. For X509, the Head Honcho is Verisign, and we know how responsible and responsive they are.
The other possibility is GPG's trust model, or SPKI, which embrace bottom-up authority and allow you to pick who you trust: we already have code signing for many applications - MD5 checksums PGP-signed by the authors of the software, common for GPG distributions and many other things.
It's not about the basic technology, but about who is in charge of it.
Hexayurt - open source refugee shelter,
being FORCED to use it. Your argument reminds me of Stalman's contention that all software should be free/open. How can you be an advocate of freedom if you maintain that nobody should release closed-source software (are they not free to do so?) Similarly, while crypto and security are good, the idea that any particular implemenation of same will be hardwired into your hardware, only to work with software that uses the same implentation, is a little distasteful.
Now, of course, you will say that we aren't being FORCED to use palladium. Well, that's the problem with Microsoft. Their crap becomes the defacto standard that everybody else follows, for better or worse. Alternatives tend to shrink or disappear over time. Most people here on the dot probably like PGP/GPG. But if Microsoft incororated those into Office and said you could only share documents with people who also had it installed, and had the proper keys (given to you by Microsoft, after you 'signed' a EULA,) then you'd hear the same complaints. And those complaints would be legitimate.
Evil is the money of root.
Capitalism is good, flaming monopolistic-dictatorships are bad. Billy G and the rest of Redmond are trying to control our lives. If not now, it becomes reality one day at a time.
But they _are_. Test it for yourself before marking me down please!
Why does this new crypto-system have to be implemented through hardware?
As far as I am concerned, Microsoft can push Palladium all they want (I don't use their products anyway) and put all of the crypto and DRM stuff in as they want as long as they do it only as software...for me, it is the hardware part that bothers me (not that I use any x86 hardware either), because it seems to have (as just about everyone has noted) a very strong potential for abuse by certain monopolies. As long as it is hardware, then people are free to switch... But if the two leading CPU manufacturers implement this kind of thing in hardware, then the options are severely limited.
Of course, if this does happen, and (an even bigger if) Apple decides to lower their prices, then I have a feeling that they won't be able to produce computers quickly enough to satisfy the new demand for non-DRM hardware (assuming they don't jump on the bandwagon).
Anyway, just my stupid, uninformed opinion. Feel free to tear to shreads.
Cheers. :)
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
You're welcome.
I hate to break it to you, but Steven Levy is nothing more than a cheerleader for Microsoft. He is about as biased a writer as you're likely to come by when it comes to issues like "intellectual property".
... then they came for me.' idea (he was comparing himself as a victim of copyright infringement to a victim of the holocoust).
I lost all respect for the man when he published an article that was a play on the 'first they came for X and I did nothing
-- Shamus
Bleah!
The second that Intel says it will integrate Paladium into its chipsets, AMD will take the other path and say that it is staying'open'. If AMD sells its soul as well to M$, then a third company will rise up and pledge open chips (Motorola, Fujitsu, Sun, etc.)
davejenkins.com |
Intel should come forward and explain just how their end of the implementation will affect Linux and free software in general, considering that many of their chips for servers running linux would be flinging off this palladium content to windows machines (I think even microsoft isn't stupid enough to limit serving their crummy DRM stuff to MS only servers when there are a good chunk of people explicitly buying other server OSes).
I heard Steven King was there and died. Truly an American icon.
What's obvious is you haven't been paying any attention. The whole PC hardware industry is geared towards making the pieces of junk that will host Microsoft's operating systems, instead of truly inspired hardware designs. The reason? To avoid being shut out for NOT being able to run what everyone else is running. Microsoft says jump and AMD/Intel/VIA/Asus/etc. say, "how high?"
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
As long as it is software, then people are free to switch...
Sorry. ^^;
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
What I'd like to see is those guys and the Palladium guys fight it out at Microsoft first, before they deliver us an OS that makes sure that the spam and Disney advertising gets through, but nothing else.
Careers should combine three things: what you can do, what you want to do, and what you can get paid for.
You are forgetting the third parties. With things like this, commericial software companies like Adobe would love to use it to "register" your copy of Photoshop to your PC. Assuming this DRM system only works in Windows and not anything else. It reduces commerical software availability to Linux and the other players.
... then there will always be a way to avoid DRM and other nasties.
This may be offtopic, but:
Tools->Options->Mail Format (tab)
kvs
1> Run Linux?
Yes. You just won't be able to use the Palladium features of the processor, this has already been discussed previously.
2> Run Gnutella?
I don't see why not. But now you'd actually be able to use it for legitimate file-sharing rather than pirating MP3's and other programs, because the content of the musicians would be protected..wait, you don't pirate things do you?
3> Run Freenet?
That would kind of mean that Microsoft would have to use the chip to block a Java VM from running, and I don't really think Sun would like that..I'm guessing that didn't cross your mind.
While there is a case to be argued about the use of company resources for personal benefit, I believe you are failing to consider all the factors leading to the PC revolution in the workplace.
Those old, slow, overpaid and overstaffed IT departments that were shot down in the eighties died because, once computers became cheap and powerful enough, the mere mortals in accounting and marketing wouldn't have their work controlled by a bunch of nerds. I find it hard to believe these guys will be willing to give the control back to a centralized entity.
Even the supposed benefits of control won't be enough when Jane from marketing and Will from sales go over the CIO head and tell the CEO that those same nerds are again hurting the company profits with their new policies and controls. And that, by the way, the new product launch will be postponed because the nerds couldn't deliver the new server in time for the website launch.
Neither a centrally planned economy, not pure unrestrained capitalism works. Regulated markets are the best we can do. Greed is evil, and self-destructive, but with nothing in it for me, I won't get off my ass. We must forever struggle to find a balance.
The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Why do you hate America so much?
Terrorist.
Both are more likely than you might think.
Not really, I am almost certain people will buy this crap by the truckload for pennies of savings. I also think most people would rather complain about their rights being taken away then spend pennies buying the unencumbered hardware.
One of the many scary uses of this Palladium could be the "Cop in every computer" Fritz Hollings tried to push through the Senate with the Security Systems Standards and Certification Act (SSSCA), and is trying again with the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act(CBDTPA). It could also be used for surveillance. There is just no way to use this technology that isn't evil!
How ya like dat?
1> Run Linux?
Yes. You just won't be able to use the Palladium features of the processor, this has already been discussed previously.
However, with things like SCCCA and CBDTPA recurring every few years, don't you think you're being a bit naive?
2> Run Gnutella?
I don't see why not. But now you'd actually be able to use it for legitimate file-sharing rather than pirating MP3's and other programs, because the content of the musicians would be protected..wait, you don't pirate things do you?
I do see why not: who said that M$ *had* to give a certificate to anything? Five years after this sucker is adopted, how much do you think it is going to cost to get Microsoft to sign a piece of software? $500? $5000? $5,000,000?
3> Run Freenet?
That would kind of mean that Microsoft would have to use the chip to block a Java VM from running, and I don't really think Sun would like that..I'm guessing that didn't cross your mind.
Java? Big, big security hole there for DRM applications. Hell, interpreted languages pose a big risk:
10 INPUT $A
20 PRINT $A
being a perfectly functional DRM circumvention device, and all.
Sorry, but I don't think you're seeing the big picture, politics and culture included it's pretty obvious at Palladium is a Very Bad Thing, even if technically it looks OK at some levels.
We're seeing the thin edge of the wedge, don't forget that.
Hexayurt - open source refugee shelter,
If were were dealing with straight capitalism, we would just sit back and laugh at things like this. But things like monopolies subvert the normal functioning of capitalism, which means the mechanism to 'punish' stupidity in the marketplace are subverted. So nobody is laughing (except Gates).
"Never, never suspect the dreams within the dreams of dreaming children." ~The Amazon Quartet
To you "discount of commodity hardware" is the only complaint?! Gee, the vast majority of the complaints I've been seeing (even here on
invasion of privacy
erosion of Fair Use Rights
the rights of content creators (my complaint), as opposed to the alleged rights of corporative entities like the RI/MPAA
total Microsoft domination of the OS market through a hardware wedge
the possible virtual elimination/obsolescense of the GPL, and/or (GNU/)Linux
And here's a new one: jurisdictional misuse to enforce the DMCA (a US law which doesn't bind those of us outside the US) through hardware. Do you really think all those big US-based hardware manufacturers will make one version for the US and one for the rest of the world? Heh. In my country, we don't have a DMCA...(yet)
Funny, I don't see any (purely) "money" issues in there at all. Then again, as I've said before, there are some things that just don't come down to money, especially since it's damn hard to put a definitive price tag on rights (whether "inalienable" or not) and freedoms, except maybe (as Tom Jefferson said) "eternal vigilance."
I'm not a geek, I'm just a clever script.
Who did what now?
Yeah, I understand what you mean. Alot of the features MS is working on would actually be pretty cool (assuming they work properly).
The problem is that the reality won't match the claims. The thing won't work properly; that is pretty much a given. However, even worse than the probable bugs is the fact that everyone will have to trust a company that consistently has proven itself to be NOT trustworthy and that freely exploits any advantages it has. That is what we are worried about.
"Never, never suspect the dreams within the dreams of dreaming children." ~The Amazon Quartet
How long can it be until Palladium is r00ted? A buffer overflow in a signed app, a backdoor, a big wooden horse, whatever. Relax.
Is it to get me to do something or is it to just to give me a shock? This dog brain is confused?!?!?!
I can't wait until its a law that my home alarm system has to be MS run and they get to decide who comes and goes into my house. Perhaps we'll have to license our own existence by them.
As I understand it, you can run unsigned code on Palladium. In the patent for their funky new OS, the features MS lists are maily for keeping unsigned codes' hands to itself. Unsigned code can't mess with signed/secure data on the hd or in ram. But it can still run; you can still have that functionality. Your current version of mame will still happily run.
"Never, never suspect the dreams within the dreams of dreaming children." ~The Amazon Quartet
"Ya, libertarians are notoriously dumb about anything outside their narrow vision of 'free markets'. 'People's this and that' my ass -- timothy doesn't have a clue"
you're confusing libertarian with liberal...
people's this and that is just communist...
"Your enemy is capitalism -- which will always end up in monopoly -- the antithesis of 'freedom'. "
That's the funnist thing i've heard all day...freedom is the enemy of freedom...
go suck some commie dick pinko...
I wish more people would figure this out.
Who said Freedom was Fair?
They just alienated a huge amount of knowledgable techies and I think they're gunna pay for it. Here's what I think the possibilities are: 1) A HUGE migration to the Mac platform (if Mac is immune to this?). 1a) If Mac isn't immune there'll be a HUGE migration to basket weaving. 2) A black market of non-Palladium hardware and cracked M$ software. 3) If Palladium is shelved people are gunna switch platforms just for M$ suggesting such a insane plan. M$; go suck a dick with your friends the [RI|MP]AA! http://www.guerrillanews.com/cgi-bin/wwwthreads/sh owthreaded.pl?Cat==gnn=48879=true=gnn=Micro%24oft= Entire%20Phrase=0=25=allposts=48879
I'll bet we have examples of both before Palladium is publicly available.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
It's already here,
Windows XP registration is only the beginning...
Cd's that you cannot play on your PC,
DVD's that can only be played in specific regions of the world...
- Boss has us convert his laptop from Win98 to dual-boot Linux as well. He tries to
use Linux whenever he can, falling back to Windows only when he must. That's becoming
less-and-less.
- Company that does our Manufacturing Resource Planning software gets regular inquiries
from us asking about the status of the Linux client software. (It's in-process, btw.)
- New initiative for production-line modernization will be, client-side, all Java- and
web-based, running on currently moth-balled X-terminals. Needless to say, the server-side
will not be running on Windows servers. (Don't have any of those anyway.)
- Recently showed the boss an "Urgent" letter from MS, delivered via UPS 3-day "priority
something-or-other" mail. Therein was a grave missive about how if we didn't upgrade to
Microsoft's new upgrade trap^H^H^H^Hplan RIGHT NOW, it'd costs us tons o' money
later. He suggested I frame it for future fun & merriment.
What triggered all this on the part of an IT director who had previously standardized the company on Win* PCs and (mostly) MS office solutions? A couple of things. Most recently and most importantly: XP and the "you don't buy it, you rent it, from now-on." Then, I suspect, was the realization that TCO was just getting way, way out-of-hand. Seems that nearly daily there is some kind of problem, no matter how small, with one or the other of the client PCs running Windows somewhere in the company. Yet the Linux and Solaris boxen just keep running, day-in and day-out, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, with nary a hiccup. That thing with MS Media Player didn't impress him much, either, I think.So, you see, my boss already knows. He already understands. And apparently we're already planning to get out from under the Microsoft[r] Thumb[tm].
No, I don't think I'm being a bit naive. I'm being realistic. How long do you think Microsoft would last as a company if they started actually shutting out companies producing Linux distributions? Not a hell of a long time, even with those aforementioned laws. Secondly, I think you're being a bit ignorant about the actual technology itself. For one, the specification of Palladium itself allows for the entire system to be shut off. That's right, you can turn it off, not use it. That might change later on, true, but let's not try to pretend we can predict the future to win an argument, alright? As well, and I believe this is a rather important fact to note, CODE DOES NOT HAVE TO BE SIGNED BY MICROSOFT TO RUN. Caught that? Read it again, just in case. If Nullsoft releases Winamp 4.0 for Palladium machines, you'll be given the option to run a piece of software that's been signed by NULLSOFT, not by MICROSOFT; your whole "signature monopoly" argument is completely ignorant of the facts of the situation. I invite you to actually read many of the available articles that have already been written on Palladium, so that you might actually be able to hold a sensible conversation about it in the future.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I'm writing this posting on a WinXP machine. Before I had Win95, I used 98, then 2000 and now XP. With nearly every upgrade or patch our freedom as users has been decreased ever so slightly. As it is a gradual process, no one will really notice (no, ./ geeks don't account for a substantial amount of Win users) and it is really hard to draw the line. When is enough enough? The big pro in MS products is their usability. As long as the UI stays ahead of the rest users WILL accept the gradual decay of their freedom without so much noticing it.
Maybe I can't speak for the majority of Slashdot users out there, but with every Windows version I owned I thought: 'This is going to be my last Windows version. I'll make the switch after that. This new crap has crossed the line.' And EVERY time I went back and bought the new crap because I could get my apps running easier, because I could play my favorite games, or simply because the UI allowed me to be more productive.
As long as MS leads the industry they WILL shove this stuff down our throats and we WILL swallow it. I can imagine EXACTLY what this future will look like. The bad thing is that the public will see nothing bad in it. And if someone objects just label him as a terrorist...
Won't this resemble the Macintosh market? One entity (MS) will now control both the software and hardware to the system. Macintosh has had great advantages of compatibility for doing this. Why does it not rule the workplace? $. Even a marginal difference in $ makes a VERY big difference.
.), but it is cheaper than conventional PCs to deploy and maintain.
Okay, so MS gets with some hardware suppliers to make its system. All the hardware now needs a couple extra chips. This makes ALL the hardware a little more expensive (mostly development costs). Since this is new, they will be starting out at very low volumes which means each unit will be much more expensive (carries a larger burden of fixed costs). Meanwhile, the non-member "microtel" company will be making a killing selling cheaper hardware while its competition is busy working with MS to work out the kinks. I am not sure if the majority of businesses are going to sacrifice $ for added security this marginal.
Finally, Palladium's goal is to make the pc more secure at the cost of flexibility. As another poster pointed out, isn't that what a "terminal" based system is for? Not only is a terminal based system just as secure as a bunch of Palladium computers (assuming competent IT staff here . .
So Palladium is an expensive way to get the same results as a terminal. For all that my company's management is lacking, I know they are not THAT stupid.
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
.. in some cases. But a HUGE blow to privacy and civil rights in general. I really don't think you could convince RMS with your singin' and dancin'.
Damn! You mean Adobe will stop selling Photoshop for Linux?
...oh, wait.
Next thing you'll probably tell me that Microsoft will recall MS Office for Linux too!
"First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
CODE DOES NOT HAVE TO BE SIGNED BY MICROSOFT TO RUN.
TODAY code does not have to be signed by Microsoft to run.
TODAY.
Do you get it? How long, given the continued moves to foist DRM on us, do you think it will be until all code requires a "DRM-OK" signature to run? The potential for new law changes the light in which this technology must be seen, and you're being an ahistorical dimwit by talking about the present as if it protects you from the future.
Hexayurt - open source refugee shelter,
Java? Big, big security hole there for DRM applications. Hell, interpreted languages pose a big risk:
No, Java will actually not be supported on future MS operating systems anymore. That's official. MS doesn't care what Sun would like or not, they crossed MS in court and now they're out of the game. As simple as that.
As for other interpreted languages (.NET), those 'applets' or 'classes' will all have to be signed to be allowed to run on a certified (trusted) environment. And that's not only entirely technically possible but also a certainty with Palladium.
Yeah, the whole consumer thing is scarey. Seems like politicians more often voice their concerns for 'the consumer' than for 'the citizen.' And about the only concern they have for the latter is that (s)he be a 'productive citizen,' normally translated as playing a role in cranking out stuff for 'consumers.' It's as if our whole civilization is being reduced to an eating (consuming) disorder - except of course civilization is also having a problem (especially in the States) with its bowels.
If someone would keep track, I'd be happy to cast my future votes for whoever among politicians says 'the consumer' the least. Much as I like the physical world, 'the consumer' just translates to 'slave and addict to commercial output,' which doesn't quite equate to 'appreciator of what has real value in life.'
To bring this back to topic, the issue is enforcement of commercial value over real value in our stuff, which will further alienate commercial value from real value - which long term is not at all good for commercialism. The severe anti-material turn that produced the Middle (aka 'Dark') Ages was the longer-term reaction to the crassness of Roman commercial culture, towards the end of which citizenship was also devalued on the excuse of needing to strengthen the Emperor's hand to meet the threat from barbarian terror.
___
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
VM's, emulated machines. eg. vmware, bochs.
Run an emulated system which insulates you from the hardware based proctection. If they did integrate this stuff, it'd just mean I'd only upgrade after the new systems could run faster
than my old one while emulating. Of course, they'll just make a law saying emulation is illegal.
If they can control what authorized software is, that means they could authorize software to run for only a certain period of time, forcing you to upgrade.
I wish Microsoft would take the Sun Solaris approach, where programs that ran 5-7 years ago are guaranteed to run on the latest platform. Sun upgrades are available, and I pay for them. But that also gives me 24x7 support. If I don't want to upgrade, I don't have to and everything works fine.
I wouldn't mind paying several hundred dollars a year for a software subscription if decent support came with it.
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
i found this url. not worth a full post, but someone please visit.
So far no substancial part of MS desktop customers jumped off because of security concerns. And I can't see that happen for a long while.
Anyway security is by far not the only reason why MS shouldn't have complete control over our systems:
- There are huge privacy/anonymity concerns no matter how secure everything is
- The MS dependence is already overwhelming these days. With Palladium and the laws behind it this dependence will only increase and eventually make MS the sole dictator in charge of our daily lives and our money.
That's paranoid today but people will call it normal and neccesary tomorrow. It's already happening.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Frankly, I can't see any difference between this and the previous Clinton administration Clipper Chip proposal from eight to ten years back. Except that now instead of the government having control over signing digital certificates we have a single private corporation. That's freedom for you! One further point: you state the system will only be used to control copying of content. Since the most fundamental operation of a computer is to copy, as in moving a byte from memory to a register for example, isn't by definition this also a mechanism to control how one may USE said content? Even if the content is something you created on your own?
I find it utterly amazing to read such large numbers of libertarian conservatives -- folks who presumably support individual liberty and non-authoritarian government -- so easily willing to cave into the demands of huge private corporations at their own detriment. Institutions so large they generate a revenue stream larger than most third world governments, and who clearly use the same monopolistic and exclusionary tactics so hated by the conservative right when the issue turns to government monopolies. And before anyone brings up the fact that government has guns while Microsoft (Disney et all) doesn't, might I point out just who they're buying off in order to obtain the legislation which will force us all to use their cripple-ware?
--Maynard
Forum readers,
;-)
I can't beleive whats happening to the USA! First the DMCA and now palladium. All these will accomplish will be litigating US hardware manufacturers out of international markets. Already many forgien countrys use non content scrabling DVD players because they simply couldn't give a flying f*ck about our laws (korea, china, Austriala, etc). This international non complaince seems to be gainging steam too, many coutries like to look DMCA supportive but have never prosocuted anyone for backwards engineering or producing illeagal non-region encoded dvd players.
It looks like the future of US hardware industry will be very limited. US hardware companies will be forced to produce Palladium and DMCA complaint hardware, and will not be able to legally produce any non-dmca/palladium complaint hardware for export. Forgein hardware manufacturers will be selling their hardware to the US though, because they could legally sell DMCA/Palladium complaint hardware to the suckers in the US at the same time they sell unprotected hardware locally and to everyone but the US. There is no way that US hardware manufacturers would be able to beat the volume advantages that international hardware manufacturers would have. IBM and Sun would be stuck with the local US server market, because they couldn't legally make the servers that international markets would demand. International markets are tired of the US domination and it looks like Palladium will be the thing to drive the innovaters out of the US to europe in asia where they could work without fear of persecution. Following them would probably be the rest of our IS field, already countries like India are winning our IS bussiness . We will regulate Americas leading industry out of the country, then we'll be back to Auto manufacturing
At least thats my 2 cents.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
insert into permissions values ("All","Copy / Rip","DVDs")
delete permissions where user = "billg"
delete permissions where company = "microsoft"
Two wrongs may not make a right, but three
I say every body should by a mac and run mac OSX !
"Insanity in individuals is something rare, but in groups, parties, nations, and epochs it is the rule." - Nietzsche
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Internet explorer already has signed ActiveX controls and it doesn't stop people from ending up with Comet, Gator etc which dirupt work more than many viruses. What it does do is make every developer fork $$$ for VeriSign, even for free plugins.
If Palladium's goal is to increase security then it is a worthy idea, but not if users can't control it. Put an entry in the computers bios to allow the depth of control the hardware will allow. This is sort of what we have now with bios virus detection. You have to turn this off to install some software, you can turn it back on when the system is up and running. In an IT setting the computer bios could be set to allow such hardware control, the bios password could be setup and users wouldn't be able to mess with the settings as the ID dept. would hold the passwords. End user geeks would be able to do what they want, opting out at their own perl to viri that the hardware/software would protect them from.
Of course the virus writers could steal signatures and the whole system would be for naught. When you consider that PC hardware is used in embedded products with custom software it becomes clear that an opt-out to Palladium hardware is needed or this thing just won't sell. Want to run Windows? Then you might HAVE to opt-in. That's ok, if your trust MS.
I bought a Panasonic SV-SD75 MP3 player a couple of weeks back. Note the "SD" in the name - yes, it uses an SD-card. Means that I have to use their exteneded Real Jukebox (which incidentally runs ONLY on Win-98, not even any other Win) to pump anything to the card, and it takes >100 times as long as it should, no exaggeration: drag-dropping fills the card in seconds, but it takes Jukebox about 35 minutes to write 2 hours worth of files. Why? Encription. The files cannot be retrieved from the device, except by the device itself, to play them.
This has proven to be a complete showstopper for me, i.e. "Crap functionality that I don't fucking want" and which is supposed to benefit only the producer, the manufacturer, anyone but me, and it's doubtful that it does even that.
Anyway - this kind of stuff is exactly what I expect from Palladium, and I'm not looking forward to it.
yes, we have no bananas
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Ok, Sparkey, let's zoom back a little:
DRM is a what.
Palladium is a how.
We both know that a general purpose computer cannot be made secure for DRM purposes - somebody can write a program which copies files at an arbitrarily low level and defeats your DRM features.
If the government mandates DRM on computers, M$ simply locks Palladium down so that code which has not been signed DRM-OK will not run, claims compliance, and its all over.
What part of this don't you understand?
Hexayurt - open source refugee shelter,
Hmmm.... I really think that in this case, DRM might actually be beneficial for 'innovation' in music. I mean, how innovative is the zillionth 'take-old-hit-add-techno-beat-and-rap-line' really?
PS. for those who might not understand, no I don't want DRM/Palladium/other-four-letter-laws to become reality. I just want an end to the neverending stream of copy-cat 'hits'.
--frank[at]unternet.org
One problem is that it's impossible to ship such an OS with a level of trust that preserves competition. If only MSFT is trusted by default, and a scary message must be acknowledged before trusting other parties, most users will use only MSFT software. If only MSFT and people it trusts are trusted by default, and a scary message must be acknowledge before trusting other parties, MSFT gains a lot of power over what people do use (and trust can be centrally revoked, enabling MSFT to partake of a number of slimy business models). If VeriSign or similar is at the root of default trust at the OS level, and a scary message must be acknowledged before trusting other roots, shareware/freeware authors have to pay a tax to VeriSign to create their applications, thus stifling innovation. If no scary message is printed at all, then the point of the whole system is moot.
Have you tried as an individual to get an Authenticode certificate from VeriSign lately? They won't do it because of half-assed reasoning that includes the two meaningless trump words "national security". If, as you claim, this project is about "hardware enforced trust" then how does a user attempting to insert their own hierarchy of trust distinguish themselves from a virus (or, heaven forbid, a competitor) attempting to insert its own hierarchy of trust?This is about software trusting hardware and software trusting software. The hardware doesn't need to trust anything, and hardware trusting software is a well-researched and well-practiced problem which requires nothing short of potting whole systems in epoxy to foil attackers. Read Microsoft's patents, not Microsoft's propaganda.
This has nothing to do with the problems smart cards solve. Smart cards attest to the identity of the user, and as people are movable it makes perfect sense for these to be movable as well. Palladium's version of trust has nothing to do with a user proving their identity and only with proving a computer's identity. People don't care about a computer's identity. State-sanctioned spies, content vendors, corporations, software and software vendors do. What does a secure real-time clock do for the average user? Nothing. This is not about solving problems for the end-user. Incorrect. If there is a patent on loading and identifying a digital rights management operating system its use is governed by Microsoft's licensure of that patent. If systems will (as feared) fail to allow use of the cryptographic processor or potentially even the entire system unless every stage of the boot trusts the next one by signature, that seriously degrades the user serviceability of open-source OSes. If users can set the secure real-time clock then it's clearly not secure. To top it all off, Microsoft is not known for handing out code under terms that allow modification or redistribution, and I fully expect the Palladium source to be released under the same viral "shared-source" look-but-don't-compete license as the CIFS specification and MSDN. History has shown they open things just enough to get maximum traction in any particular campaign. I suspect that, as they have done historically, they will disclose just enough info to allow them some slimy claims about openness and then aggressively leverage those claims to gently or brutally exclude competition on many levels.This initiative has nothing to do with consumers except to ensure they consume and pay for the privilege.
-jhp
/. -- the Free Republic of technology.
has little to do with anything outside of the software industry.
As it happens there is over two hundred years of copyright law defining the *limited* rights of the copyright holder and asserting, in explicit terms, that the copyright holder's "wants" have very distinct boundries.
You, as the purchaser, ( yes, outside the software industry items under copyright protection are still *purchased* by the 'consumer'), have very distinct *rights,* ( not priviledges, rights), to act with and upon such 'content' even against the copyright holders 'want.'
Have to abide by what the publisher wants? Where on EARTH did you get the idea that anyone is so constrained?
In the words of my dear, sweet, departed granny, " Fuck that shit!"
KFG
See the sig. 'nuff said...
And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another, and every one by his neighbour Isaiah 3:5
Anecdote: yesterday, I phoned one of my suppliers to order a new machine with a dual athlon plus SCSI motherboard. I asked him how many he'd supplied and what operating systems they'd had on them. The answer was thirty-five, and all various versions of Linux. It strikes me that probably ninety odd percent of dual athon machines are running Linux, but at least four manufacturers are producing motherboards. Which tells me that there's enough market for Linux machines - even at the high end - for the capitalist system to go on producing them. Furthermore, none of these motherboards makers are headquartered in the United States. So no matter what Senator Hollings manages to impose in the US, the rest of us will still have usable computers.
Seen from this point of view, Palladium may on balance even be a good thing. Lusers who aren't fit to be trusted will get computers which they can't break, and the rest of us will still be able to buy computers we can...
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
1, The entertainment commerce X-box/Cable/Sat TV box/Subscription Web Browsing appliance box which needs a subscription to use. Even the video link to the monitor and Audio link to the speakers will be bidirectional handshaking encrypted data links. A sniffed copy of the data stream will not play back on another device, or the same device at a later time. It's a pay to play format protected every inch of the way by encryption.
2 General Use computers for word processing, spread sheets, hacking, photography, piracy, CD ripping (you know the obsolete format), low resolution TV recording (Not HDTV digital after 2007) and non-subscription web browsing. This second box will be locked out of the new media formats and trusted commerce standards. New media material will not be released in open formats. Windows, Mac, and Linux fall into this latter catagory. Non protected media content will be barred from the internet at strategic choke points. Media trading in this format will be prosicuted to the fullest extent of the law.
The truth shall set you free!
"We'd have the people's operating system, the people's web browser and the people's media player"
Yeah....riiiight...
as if there's any doubt that slashdot is commie central...
"the people's"...gawd...
Much like communism,however slashdot will fall...
They SAY everyone get's to join in for "the people's" disscussion...only to get banned/modded down/posts deleted
Just like communists crack down on people/beat them down/make them disappear...
Here's a hint...the marxist history you learned in college=bullshite
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I take it you're a Republican? ;-)
I try to avoid politics, but I lean slightly towards the Democrats because I distrust Big Business more than I distrust the Government. Microsoft, I don't trust at all.
"Common Sense Ain't" -Unknown
Re-read my post, dimwit.
Things change. Today, the user decides. Tomorrow, it may be the Feds, or Micro$oft, or somebody else entirely.
You act as if the policies can't be changed once the architecture exists, and that is why I call you stupid.
Hexayurt - open source refugee shelter,
When this Palladrium plan was first announced, I thought it was mainly for secure communications BETWEEN computers. Which led me to think: does that mean that the new computers with Palladrim won't talk to computers without it? This might even create two Internets, one for Windows-Secure, and one for the rest of the world.
At least that's one interpretation of this screwball plan. One that I wouldn't put past Microsoft for an instant.
"Common Sense Ain't" -Unknown
What you are really asking for is a way to prevent auto-installs. So that in order to install a program you would have to sign every binary? That won't work as spyware will juts integerate itself into a massive binary. So instead of installing like 5 programs when you want to install something you would install one, but it would integrate the functions of all five. 3 of which are spyware. Doesn't really solve the problem and makes it hard to install the software. And if it makes it hard to install people won't do it.
What if you had to type in your security code everytime you install something? Comptuter savvy people MIGHT not mind it but normal people would, they will forget it or lose it or just be pissed off by it. Computers should help make things easier.
Historically "optional" in the digital rights world means "will be required by contract".
I was there too, and I am sure they were not called IT then.
I saw people buying their own Apples and bringing them to work. I saw middle managers daring the VPs in charge of the mainframe guys to come and take their small computers away, over the dead bodies of the whole department. But then again, I also saw the secretaries (there were no personal assistants then) of those same middle managers treating disks and printer paper as if they were made of gold.
Eventually the mainframe guys were gone and the IT guys started their long march to centralization again. I agree it is almost done (it would have been done already, if Microsoft and Micorsoft owned media haven't shot down the network computer idea so badly). But I don't really believe it will be able to hold the fort as the mainframe guys once held. Not because it is impossible, but because it is probably far less efficient.
so not a lot to worry about the first 10 years
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
I don't see why it would only work in Windows. If it's just more hardware on the motherboard, a company selling a piece of closed source software could certainly make calls to said hardware. They might need to distribute a binary kernel module (or partially open, like nVidia) and require you to run it. Some people might not like this idea, but these people probably wouldn't want to run closed source programs either.
WMBC freeform/independent online radio.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You can get a frog to allow itself to be boiled to death in the same manner. If you place it in a pot of boiling water, it will try to escape. However, if you place it in a pot of cool or warm water and gradually increase the temperature, it will sit there until it has been cooked.
WMBC freeform/independent online radio.
I have been asking for a while for a dumb terminal, I only use a small numbers of applications, as do most people I work with. PC's for jobs come in on a project by project basis, so for installing extra applications for a job, it is usually on the project bought PC's. I dont like having a monstrous 21 inch monitor on my desk. I dont like having three different PC/Server's in my room for different projects I am doing. I want a thin terminal running what I want, and IT wont give it to me. So who is to blame.
macom..
So yeah, of course you moron, things change. But Palladium doesn't change that one or antoher.
Erm... bullshit. Read some Lessig - Palladium is an architecture - it changes what is possible.
If DRM is mandated, but manufacturers can't or won't produce DRM compliant systems, the law will fail. If there is an eager, gloating manufacturer's alliance, all ready to go... think of the commercial pressure...
It's an attempt to abolish competition, curtail freedom of speech and hand over the domestic computer industry to a select few players; you may be lulled into thinking "oh, it's just some crypto hardware for making sure unsigned code can't run" but in the long run (which you seem to be so blind to) it matters.
You can't legislate the impossible: Palladium makes it possible, which makes legislation mandating it or an equivalent system all the more likely. By changing the landscape of potential, you can change the landscape of the actual.
Hexayurt - open source refugee shelter,
M$ Outlook worms are nearly all scripts. Scripts, being run by the interpreted, which will be authenticated, won't be effected by palladium.
If they go through with this, I'll start boycotting any PC, winshit or otherwise. (Thank goodness Linux can be ported to Sun and Mac systems.)
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
. . .as George Bush (the First) might have said, will kill this. It's what killed DivX as a competitor to DVD.
In the hardware market, these Palladium hooks are known as "features." Features cost money. . . so anyone who wants to sell a computer built for Palladium has to explain why consumers have to pay more money for a system that tells them what they can or cannot do with it.
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
>> Maybe I can't speak for the majority of Slashdot users out there, but with every Windows version I owned I thought: 'This is going to be my last Windows version. I'll make the switch after that. This new crap has crossed the line.' And EVERY time I went back and bought the new crap because I could get my apps running easier, because I could play my favorite games, or simply because the UI allowed me to be more productive.
Well, THIS Slashdot user works for a Microsoft Solutions Provider and therefore has access/company purchasing/training on all the Microsoft I can stand, even though I usually work the Unix side of the fence for them. And even though I'm an up-to-date MCSE, at home I back-revved all the Windows boxes to Win98SE. Contrary to what you hear from the Church of Bill, Win2K and its variant/mutant children are NOT more stable, fun or rewarding to use and they're a lot more pesky to nail down regarding matters of spyware, privacy control and consumers' rights in general. And although I have in the past helped maintain my (computer non-literate) friends' boxes for free, I have advised all of them that I will not touch any box with WinXP on it and I'd rather not bother with Win2K unless they have some killer app that absolutely demands it. I have convinced many to backrev to Win98 and without exception, they have benn happier after doing so.
The new crap crossed the line a while back, around the time the Media Player patches screwed up every other manufacturer's multimedia applications on the box. Enough already! I've got most of my friends dual-booting to Slackware, and whenever their boxes' damned internal Winmodems are supported some of those boxes are going to not be running Windows much, if at all.
Palladium changes a lot: the major chip manufacturers and M$ in an alliance to make DRM a reasonable technical and legal reality.
I'd say that's news.
And nobody is talking about control of the world: only restriction of the freedoms we've grown used to on the internet.
Hexayurt - open source refugee shelter,
No. What'll happen is that hardware vendors will offer "unencumbered" hardware for a much higher price than DRM hardware -- because the CPU vendors will charge much higher prices for unencumbered CPUs.
So if you want to be free, you'll have to pay for it (rather handsomely, I might add). Or you could get DRM hardware for much cheaper. Your choice.
Guess which choice most people are going to take? Right: most people don't give a f*ck about freedom.
Oh, by the way, just because the spec right now might say that the computer will boot an "untrusted" OS doesn't mean they won't change the spec later (once the basic technology is entrenched) so that only "trusted" OSes will be allowed to boot -- they will. Count on it.
And if you think a law won't eventually be passed in the U.S. requiring the use of DRM-enabled hardware (the law will probably be written in such a way that one could apply for and obtain an exemption, and you can bet that the process of getting such an exemption will be very expensive -- so that only large corporations and the very wealthy can afford to get one), think again. Who owns the U.S. government? Right: the large corporations. Most of which would benefit in one way or another from such a law (especially if the exemption mechanism is included).
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
Now, what will happen is that some CPUs will offer cryptographic code checking, and that some .NET and Java runtimes will do the same for bytecodes. When they run in "normal" mode, they will check that the checksums are OK. I doubt it will help much with viruses or DRM, but, hey, Microsoft is floundering when it comes to security, so they need to do something.
I think Palladium isn't worth the extensive discussion and fear that it has caused. It's just another hare-brained Microsoft scheme, along with their nth iteration of "the file system is a database" and "intelligent assistants that ask whether your computer is turned on"; nothing much will come of it. And if Microsoft really goes through with it, all the better for the rest of us--there is no faster way than that to give marketshare to PCs based on embedded chips from Motorola--like the Macintosh for example.
I must say I am _amazed_ by how big companies are allowed to cripple civil rights over there. A country previously recogniced as one of the greatest democracies. ;)
Millions of people have given their lives to protect the rights that you are now giving away because it's profitable?
Don't get me wrong, I beleive in strong, open market economy. But is that really where you are headed?
(If I was older, this would be where I'd start talking about "the good old days"... but unfortunately I'm not
-- Black holes are, where God is dividing by zero.
At our company, IT has a lot of people building Web apps, corporate data warehouses, etc., a moderate number devoted to the physical infrastructure (keeping the phones, servers, network bandwidth, etc. working), and a handful of "help desk" people in charge of setting up and supporting people's PCs and Macs. They are not, in general, interchangeable.
Our company has a lot of tech-savvy employees, which is admittedly different from many companies, but we're hardly unique. We engineers don't usually care if the help desk guys want to make and enforce rules about shared resources, such as email or servers. We won't throw a tantrum about not being able to use elm or pine against the company MS Exchange email server.
But we also won't allow the help desk to control our local apps. Even within IT, the Web apps engineers aren't about to let the help desk guys decide whether they can install Perl or not.
Things could change. Security risks could increase, networking could make "local" have less and less meaning, client management could become more valuable, etc.
But for the foreseeable future, I don't see us taking much power out of the hands of the experts (each in his own area) and giving it to these guys.
I understand the cost-savings of standardized and centralized management of certain things shared by all. But we wouldn't want to overdo it and make the people doing the work we sell less effective in order to make the internal help desk more efficient.
"Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
Besides this, I just read Levy's article in Newsweek. Some things are still not clear to me. How will Intel, AMD, and others implement the hardware? Will the feature be ignored unless explicitly exploited by software, e.g. the OS? Hopefully so, otherwise the new architecture will only run Windows, at least until others catch up.
And how will others catch up? Even if the security features can be ignored, users will want to use them even if they run, say Linux or BSD. And who among the users of a multiuser system will "own" the processor? We can hardly expect Intel to build respect for UNIX file permissions into the CPU, can we?
Finally, what will happen if I swap a piece of hardware? What will I have to do to make a new chip do the same as the old one, if they are unique in some way?
The sleeping sheep are sheared each year,
by Microsoft which seems to hear,
the public's needs and hopes and dreams,
Palladium, is all it seems,
to combat awful crime and spam,
(by Bill's defining words, young lamb)
trust them now, again, once more,
they had your future planned before,
so don't stray from the proper plan,
entrust the deepest thoughts you can,
to Word, Excel and trusted tools,
Don't leave the farm and act like fools,
For once you leave the reservation,
you'll suffer from a safe filtration,
So be a safe and docile herd,
And use the system most preferred,
By 9 of 10 sheep with a choice,
ignore the one that has no voice.
... I have an aptitude. :)
--
Free Software enthusiast; Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc) developer
I see this back firing in the following way. because companies are in bed with each other and do buy each other products, big companies especially, will be the first to welcome an operating system like this. Joe User too, is not completely tuned into what is happening and really don't care to know if u try to enlighten him/her. So they too, that is--the average user, will also be there with the big companies to buy it. no matter how i advice my window savvy user, who aren't too ignorant about computers and M$ anyway, not to use or move to WinXP, they still did. It is kind of baffling to me how they would say yes, i understand the implications, but would still turn around and support the regime.
but here is how i see it falling apart and back firing. because such tight control will be exercised on the users and companies, they will eventually realized they are not free to innovate. this will pissed most people off. remember, the PC got particularly popular in part because it was cheap, easy to develop for--get info, and so on. hence why there are and was so many people just writing a little program to do some crap everywhere. just visit download.com or 32bits.com to see this. consider how long simtel was around and i think it has more dos utilities than just about any other archive.
well, all of this control on the user and their inability to innovate and be free with their PC will result in them using something else. like one of the many freely available OSes. right now, Linux looks just about capable to satisfy those user.
So i say let M$ go ahead and do their thing and keep tighter control of the user. eventually it will break. i am not worried. they are implementing their own down fall better than anyone else could.
Microsoft has already bought AMD's soul. It came out in the Mock Micro$oft Anti-Trust trial.
http://www.asdf.org/~fatphil/MS/bloopers.html
"All DRM is going to do is prevent people from copying data and/or code in ways the author has deemed inappropriate"
I'm not willing to give the "author" (what a nice fuzzy word, pictures of a bearded kindly man on the new england shore writing The Great American novel) that level of control.
If an author sells me a book, then I can loan it to my friends, I can read it out loud to my son, I can write a review of it in the NY Times ALL WITHOUT THE AUTHOR'S PERMISSION!
Now, lets look at DRM based hardware. The author (actually the rights holder; a huge Time/AOL conglomerate because as an author with this scheme you won't be able to "sign" your own works) has decided that its only viewable on one machine at a time, but not during weekends. And you can't use it to criticize the work.
If you think that's okay, then by all means, buy DRM crippled hardware.
For me, I'm only going to own hardware that *I* control, not something controlled by TW/AOL.
Let me say that I'm an old timer. I was part of the original PC revolution. PC's were about breaking away from this kind of control. Back then, you could only do things with a computer that "the man" said you could. We fought hard for the right to own unencumbered computing power and we got what we wanted. We thought we won forever. Apparently not.
And now some punk-ass kid with no sense of history will give it away just so he can get "Star Wars" in HDTV.
Pardon me, but I'm enraged enough to say that I think you're being a fucking moron. Media and entertainment isn't enough of a carrot to give up basic rights that your elders (and apparently, your betters) fought hard for.
Why do you think Steve Jobs still runs apple that way: He remembers what we fought for 30 years ago. I mean, i think the guy is a prick, but he's on the good guy's side, so I support him and apple.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Even without hardware its possible to gain high security. Just delete the root password and account after the install and lock the bios from booting into anything but the harddisk used at the install (coded into bios and harddisk). Lock it by a manual switch and you have in principal higher security than with Palladium. Think, if noone has root acess noone can change anything in the os. The OS would have its one shielded space on the hd, like sandboxing. I wouldnt like this as i want to have full control over my os but for joe it can be good until he learns enough to stand on his own legs.
HTTP/1.1 400
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
... I should point out that some sources actually say that Ulysses got the Palladium by getting Helen's cooperation. Also several cities copied the Palladium - I doubt that licenses or copyright laws were followed. Last of all, Ulysses was known as a crafty, shrewd man who was "never at a loss" - in fact, as I'm sure you know, the Trojan Horse was his idea.
It would be a fair statement to say he had the mentality and abilities of a hacker. So, Microsoft named its security model after a theft committed by a hacker of the ancient world.
Just call me Cassandra.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
We need the larger DRM debate. That is important.
I agree. We should figure out what "fixed" looks like before we end up with a proprietary, patent-bound solution from the Ogre of Redmond.
Not that I wouldn't be worried if Sun were behind this, but we've seen the M$ approach to open systems too often to take this as anything other than a direct threat to the availability of OS-neutral hardware and potentially to the viability of open source all together.
Hexayurt - open source refugee shelter,
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Or something.
Don't ask me, it's not like _I_ make a point of giving them a fair shake with their new proposals. I feel I understand their motives and behavior patterns well enough by now, and that I know what to expect from them.
After all, these are the people who came up with a twist on 'open source' that, far from being unencumbered, is just as viral as the GPL but carries an opposite payload- namely, legally binding admissions that could be used against undesired software projects for the life of the programmer.
Its because you say copying music is theft.
Its not. Its a copyright enfringement.
I used to be dead set against this sort of thing. Now, based on the actions of the RIAA, MPAA, and our elected officials, I no longer believe those statutory rights are valid.
Poof.
They're gone.
And all the DRM shit in the world won't save it.
You're the worst kind...the kind of person who would give up all their rights so you can see some movie with better resolution. You're pathetic.
20 years ago, they had a couple bright guys.
But what's left at MS is either old and creaky, or young and stupid.
The good guys left in about '96, and what we have now is a company that specializes in mediocre software because they can only attract mediocre people these days.
Its not cool to work for MS any more.
Of coz' you could click buttons here and slide sliders there all you want, but what's that going to help? MS still has the final word and could set your system to ignore those buttons.. just switch over to *nixes already.
Preserve old classics: copy your collection onto all hard drives.
Its not a good thing, but it seems to be the price to pay if you are to have a system that encourages that entrepreneurial spirit - the sense that there's a killing to be made ...
you say legal, the justice dept says it isnt.
you say legal, the SEC says it isnt
you say legal, the FTC says it isnt
hmmm, who do we believe?
I say it isnt legal, and 3 govt agencies agree with me
ptooie on youie
I must say I am _amazed_ by how big companies are allowed to cripple civil rights over there. A country previously recogniced as one of the greatest democracies.
Yesterday I attended a party in Evanston (a suburb of Chicago). My host asked that I bring a bottle of wine, so I took along a magnum of 2000 Yellow Tail Shiraz.
5 cops were guarding the entrance end of the platform, searching everyone. Apparently, in the Land of the Free, an adult American is no longer permitted to carry a sealed bottle of wine onto a train (even though I had no cork screw or wine glasses on my person). In other words, if you are too poor to own a car, you cannot transport alcohol, even in sealed form, over any significant distance in this country anymore, especially not on our "Independence" day.
Fortunately for me the El Train was far less stringently controlled, so while I was an hour late to my friend's 4th of July party, I was at least able to make it.
We have already lost most of our freedoms in this country.
We have lost the freedom from search and seizure without due process.
We have lost (much) of the separation of church and state, which means most minority religions (and non-religions such as agnostacism or athiesm) have essentially lost much of their religious freedom.
We have lost much of our right to bear arms. Not a personal pieve of mine, but relevant nevertheless since the act requred widespread violation of the constitution and judicial tolerance of those violations.
We have lost the right not to be detained without charges, without due process, and with access to an attourney. People are now routinely "disappeared" into our Gulag, always under the excuse of anti-terrorism, where they are held incommunicado for weeks or even months. Some may in fact be terrorists, but most are not.
We have lost numerous personal, daily freedoms (like the ability to take a bottle of wine over to a friend's home who doesn't live within walking distance), many within the last few months.
Now, through Palladium and/or Disney Holling's DRM efforts we are about to lose our very freedom of speech in the digital age. Based on all of the other lost freedoms, given up in the name of War on [drugs|sex offendors|terrorism], I do not hold out much of any hope for preserving the remaining tatters of the constitution as our illustrious leaders open up Yet Another War, this time on (cracking? viruses? copyright violation? technical savvy that surpasses the FBI's?) Whatever they end up calling this farce, I'm sure they'll find a term that evokes the proper level of fear and dread in the general public to justify the removal of these last, tattered freedoms from our all-too-willing hands, and as one of our founding fathers has warned, we will find in our haste to trade the last of our freedoms for the perception of a little security that we, in fact, have neither.
Certainly the police stopping me for wanting to take a bottle of wine to a friends weren't protecting anyone, for indeed these encroachments on our liberty have absolutely nothing to do with protection and security, and everything to do with simple Power.
Unfortunately, by the time the majority of the people understand that all of this nonsense is about an unprecendented Power grab by an unconstitutional secret police (FBI, ), it will be far too late to do much of anything about it. If it isn't already.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
If you guys think you'll need to hold on to legacy hardware becuase M$ comes out with a new spec, I think your underestimating your power as a consumer group.
There will always be hardware for *nix systems. Linux is really taking off. I just got into the whole thing (used a little BSD in '95), and with the newbie perspective, I can tell you more people know what Linux is than don't.
This will increase dramatically in 3 years. I predict 35% of desktops will be running *nix by 2005 (20% at the least). 3 years ago Linux was...well...shite. Now it's stable and usable by non-uber-geeks like me. I like to be a user, not an admin, so in 3 more years it outta be very user freindly.
Not only that, but corporate research and development into Linux outta double by next year. So it's only a matter of time before M$ dies, or plays ball with the rest of us. They really have no choice, it'll just take time.
I have no market research to back up my claims, just intuition and un-biased-ness. If XP was unobtrusive, I'd probably upgrade and not fork my OS. I like to be a user, not be used.
can you say Winmodems?
Microsoft and the entertainment industry excel at buying politicians and convincing people that the tech/media industries will implode if users aren't controlled by DRM.
Maybe the way to fight the current is to get laws passed forcing EULA's to delete clauses limiting liability for viruses, trojans, and violations of privacy or security if the OS claims abilities to control digital content.
The above just about completely proving my point.
Up the Revolution -- and up yours, fella.
EON condensed matter distributed-computing project.