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 current unencumbered hardware isn't going to go away unless people stop buying it, or a law is made against it.
Under the DMCA, unencumbered hardware could be considered a circumvention device to avoid the Palladium-based DRM hooks. And if that's not good enough for the attack lawyers, just remember - the DMCA got passed.
You bet your ass unencumbered hardware could go away. Give it five years. Five years is forever in the computer industry - remember what hardware you were using five years ago?
Better to stop this now, before it can take root.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
I'll stop worrying the day that my relatives who don't understand the difference between a CD and a hard-disk, understand at least this.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
> 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...
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."
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
most common forms of trojans and backdoors will be effectively eliminated - assuming people don't set the PC to "trust all" sources
:p), people just don't know that they shouldn't run them. This won't stop one bit of trojans / backdoors / viruses / exploits, and if you think so wisen up.
I'm sorry, but you've been listening too much to M$ rethoric. Trojans and other backdoors don't run by themselves (unless you use Outlook
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
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.
Pray tell why not? Crypto allows me to hide, sign,and verify things; DRM forces me to do these things and prevents me from doing all kind of things with data, possibly my own data.
As to seeing a source code, I doubt it. Sure M$ may show some "trusted" parts some source, but what guarantees can I ever have that it is the same source as what is running on my box? The problem with DRM is, as most of our readers know, that it is incomaptible with my ability to write any programs I want, and run them on my computer. That is why I whine against DRM, and will do my little best to stop such horror from happening.
In Murphy We Turst
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!
If something's for sale, and I purchase it, I would like to believe that it's for my use. Example. I purchase a car. Mine to drive, modify, and use as I see fit. I don't have a rep from Ford checking to make sure I'm using only Ford Approved Parts, and ready to tow my car away if he finds I'm using something that doesn't have the Ford Seal of Approval. I have no problem with paying for something that I find to be useful. I have a problem with buying something that has its' usefulness to me curtailed by design. When I have to call my Microsoft Mommy and say "Mother May I?" to install something new in my computer is going to be the day I finally get off my ass and switch over to Mac.
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
Palladium is a good idea, but not for desktop use. End-users are treated like criminals or people operating under secrecy.
.isos before I burn them. I use HTTPS (where the certificates get handed down via Verisign or some other root server).
Palladium is more about (1) hardware enforced signing and (2) code verification.
I'm all for signing and code verification. I check my package signatures with GPG before I install them and I MD5 all my
The problem lies with the fact that interoperability between Palladium and other systems is only guaranteed if you get a signature from a Microsoft-sponsored system. Guess which source is going to be trusted, no matter what? You're kidding yourself if Microsoft will allow you to "distrust" binaries or media coming from www.microsoft.com.
This is the exact argument for DeCSS. You may be perfectly happy to own DVDs that can only be played on the "Enhanced Windows" system that Microsoft offers, but cannot be decrypted, EVER, on any other OS. Including Macs. (Depending on how much money they pay Microsoft for the right to play your media.
They are going to release the source, which is odd in itself. It leads me to believe in general that MS may being a rather okay-ish thing.
Releasing the source is not a sign of goodwill here. Since Microsoft already has the patent (look at point #7) on the core idea of Palladium it would mean diddly squat to the GPL community.
My conclusion: Look at smart cards. They offer the same feature set. The only difference is that I'm gladly willing to give up the right to run software on the processor on the card in order to make things like bank transactions possible. The question is, are you willing to give up the right to run any software on your computer not expressly signed by MS, just so you can watch your favourite DVD on your PC?
> Government needs to require all entertainment content to be made available to any distributor who wants to sell it subject to RAND (reasonable and non-discriminatory) license payments if they want to establish a free market.
.. distributing. Currently, its ironic that labels and such, the distributors are doing the very opposite of that - opposing all new forms of distribution and attempting to squeeze success out of creating scarcity of content.
Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Even if it's unlikely without a significant, long, probably dirty revolt from consumers.)
Copyright was brought in to force work intop the public domain. I contend that they missed a very important point - the author is not legally allowed to give exclusive access to that content to one distributor. That should be against the law. In the same way that consumers should be free to participate in the market with a reasonable lack of outside influence, so should distributors all have fair and equal access to content, such that their success is built on how well they can deliver and price it, not how much culture, art and content can they withhold from the market and at what price will the market bear _access_ to that content.
Distributors should be in the business of
"Old man yells at systemd"
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.
How they are unfounded? When someone can't copy their own work for fear of hurting someone else's profits, they have lost their rights on that matter.
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
I believe a free market should provide for maximum or at least high economic efficiency
Why? Who does that benefit? Shouldn't the system provide for the highest quality of life for the largest amount of people? If maximum efficiency means large amounts people get laid off, or have to work for low wages, or in unsafe environments (which it frequently does), then why is this possibly a good thing?