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.
name : spamfree pw : spamfree
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
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.
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...
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.
yes, probably it was sarcasm.... so I'm the one who looks stupid right now :)
-- There are two kind of sysadmins: Paranoids and Losers. (adapted from D. Bach)
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...
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
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.
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"...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
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
> 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"
The important thing to understand about Palladium is that it doesn't improve security for the end user.
Or indeed anyone other than the corporate publishers who are making noises about DRM. If anything it could make things less secure. Because tools to improve security might not be giving the blessing of these people...
Pallidum's sole purpose is to give IP owners control my computer
No it's about protecting the IP of a tiny minority of IP owners. Like most other DRM ideas, it won't do anything to protect the IP you or the other several billion (probably arround 10 billion if you include corporates) IP owners might happen to own.
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.
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
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.
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!
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?
>> 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.