Slashdot Mirror
RMS Urges Opposition to "Trusted Computing"
Andy Tai writes "In this Newsforge article, Richard Stallman analyzes the "Trusted Computing" initiative and Microsoft's Palladium, points out that such initiatives are really means to ensure your computer can be trusted by Microsoft and Hollywood (you can't do things they don't want), and urges computer users to organize, to support the Public Knowledge and the Digital Speech projects and to use their consumer power to block "Trusted Computing" in its tracks."
I'm absolutely flabbergasted that RMS would oppose this. Flabbergasted. :P
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Ya, just like I 'trust' the banks with my money, and I 'trust' the .... ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H
Wait a minute? I do... and so far it seems to work... BLOODY HELL! How am I supposed to make a point of how Microsoft's intentions are evil (which they clearly are), when I can't find a good example where trusted 'fill in the blank' doesn't work... Anyone???
---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
I personally think RMS is a kook and an extremist.. Like most "spirtual" leaders are. BUT and this is a big BUT, thanks to people like him and L Lessig our world is being attended to...
I consider myself more of a business person and see the world in shades of grey. Sure that is great for earning an income, the problem though is that my shade of grey might change from a more white grey to a more black grey. And that switch is an erosion of power that I only realize when it is too late... At that point my black grey is a white grey for most people because they have "gotten" used to it.
So hats off Mr RMS...
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
...RMS made quite a fool of himself at MIT's recent Palladium discussion. Highlights include taking the podium uninvited, having Ron Rivest (the "R" in RSA) tell him to please stay on-topic, and delivering his stock rant under the guise that it was topical.
RMS is a dork. A principled dork, but a dork nonetheless.
How am I supposed to make a point of how Microsoft's intentions are evil (which they clearly are), when I can't find a good example where trusted 'fill in the blank' doesn't work.
Well, start with Paypal, which a lot of people trusted as a bank but then got screwed when Paypal froze their funds. Google for Paypal frozen accounts and you'll find tons of horror stories.
Then move on to the online storage of credit card data, and think back to when CDNow got hacked and all their consumers' credit cards were tossed around to the public.
I'm sure you'll get hundreds of examples here, but come on, you really don't have to think too hard.
What's your damage, Heather?
former student, returned to his Alma Mater and gave a talk on some of the
technical aspects of Microsoft's Palladium project. Brian began the talk with
a quick overview of the goals of the project. He stated that Palladium's
goal was to 'Protect Software from Software'. He went on to enumerate some
of the nightmare scenarios that keep the Palladium team up at night, such as
a virus/trojan that launches something worse than a Denial Of Service (DOS)
attack.
These included:
After this brief introduction, Brian went on to describe a hardware based
software security system that would provide 'Fingertip to eyeball security.'
This system would consist of a hardware Security Support Component (SSC)
chip, a special security kernel called the 'Nexus' and user level security
applications called 'Agents'. Palladium would also require alterations to
the MMU for the curtailing of memory and USB for secure input/output.
Brian admitted that Palladium would offer no protection against DOS
attacks and that Palladium would necessarily include a universal serial
identifier (this
would be provided by the RSA key burned into the SSC chip). He also promised
that Palladium would run unmodified legacy applications and drivers.
Problems surfaced during the end of the talk when Brian began taking
questions. Richard Stallman correctly pointed out that Palladium was being
presented as a way of improving the security of personal computers. Indeed,
according to Brian, this was the focus of Microsoft's Palladium project, but
no where in his talk did he present any solution to the crucial nightmare
scenarios that are supposedly keeping the Palladium team up at night.
Indeed, as was pointed out by Stallman and others, if Palladium would run
unmodified legacy applications, then how could Palladium thwart the legacy
virus/trojans without upgrading Palladium enabled Outlook/IE/IIS?
The truth is Brian was being disingenuous when he described the nightmare
scenarios that motivate the Palladium team. In all honesty, there are only
two nightmare scenarios that are relevant to the Palladium project:
internet
has ushered in the end of there ever ballooning bottom line
holders
to effectively eliminate the fair use rights of the public
With Palladium, Microsoft plans to solve the former by introducing the latter.
To get to the heart of the matter, we have to ask _why_?
Brian says Microsoft is concerned that large copyright holders will refrain
from publishing works in formats compatible with the Windows PC. My theory?
Microsoft sees an opportunity to bolster there own
bottom line. Palladium is meant to do for DRM what
for web services.
By providing the infrastructure, Microsoft hopes the content companies will
write applications and release content only for Palladium enabled systems.
Joe Consumer who wants to listen to the next Brittany Spears album on his
computer will be forced to upgrade to the next release of Windows/DRM. Of
course, it doesn't hurt that Palladium could provide quite a few wrench's to
throw at Microsoft's open source competitors.
Nightmare scenarios indeed!
And what of Microsoft? Remember, I don't use their operating system at home - and to reiterate, I've never paid them for anything, so why should I bow to their dictates, especially since I don't use their product?
I thought that was how the free market was supposed to work, but I guess the market ain't so free now.
This sig no verb.
Okay, so you have a piece of hardware with a proprietary operating system. So far so good. But now with trusted computing, that system won't load any component that is not signed by a trusted party. It's not about you trusting what you run, but about Microsoft choosing who gets the privilege of writing software for the platform. If Microsoft doesn't like you, for whatever reason, they can just refuse the signature that is needed for your software to load. This is basically where it is headed; it's the one sure way to use your monopoly to crush the competition, in particular open source. Even if some open source developers get Microsoft to approve their program, that signature will be applied to a particular binary release. The users cannot roll their own binary from the sources, because that won't carry the signature of a ``trusted'' certificate. So basically the operating system vendor regains control as the gatekeeper who determines what will run on your machine. What's worse, if the hardware vendors follow suit, then a certificate will be required by an operating system to boot on the hardware. If you are lucky enough to get a signed version of your favorite free kernel, good luck rebuilding it. The developers may be forbidden from giving you the certificate, if they get to d the signing themselves. That key is copyrighted bits, right? Letting everyone have it would be against the DMCA.
Although RMS does arouse some passions within the slashdot community, in this, I believe, he is right.
There is, in English Common Law history, a subject area, called the Enclosures Acts, where vast quantities of land were removed from common use, and awarded to landowners in what was a thinly veiled land grab.
It had justification, of course. Private Ownership was deemed more efficient by those that grabbed the land. Far be it for the government to disagree. The whole idea of common weal ( as in commonwealth) was called The Tragedy of The Commons.It would appear that history is attempting to repeat itself. If computing can be controlled by a trusted source - Who will that trusted source be?
This age old problem, can be solved in a number of ways - a dictatorship, or, a democracy, or...
Not quite trusting my fellow man, I think I would rather do my own choosing. But then, I use GPL'd software. A lot. And your choice will be?
This is progress?
-
Boot-Level Programmer-San Jose
I figured TCPA was just some buzzword I could pick up out of a book if I got the job. I do that all the time. But no: The blurb about "changing the way people see, hear and play" just didn't register.I hope they do call me though. I'll give them a piece of my mind, followed by the URL of my DeCSS mirror.
Now I ask you this: if they're verifying the "system integrity" of a linux box with the TCPA, are they complying with the GPL?
Request your free CD of my piano music.
Man, I can see DRM and Palladium getting closer every day.
Stallman's examples this time are rather simplistic. His concerns about "DRM", aside from the "I want to be able to shock myself" degree of control he wants for PCs, aren't all they're chalked up to be. Calling it "trecharous computing" makes him sound like a kook, not a serious voice.
To wit:
"Your boss's e-mails will be written in disappearing ink!"
"You won't be able to send incrimiating documents to the press!"
Any corporate system that causes the main focus of communication to automatically expire with no way to retrieve it is a poor business model, not an aspect of trusted computing. Investigative and Corporate preferences aside (after Enron, do you REALLY think that it'd be hard for Congress to slap a "records requirement" on corporations?), someone should be able to mark their e-mails as "archived." And you can always just print out the document...
And, if some company is too paranoid to keep any e-mails and advanced enough to be truly paperless, there's still a digital camera and the on-screen display. Or the simple expediency of calling the cops...
As for the rest--if MS wants Word to be Word-only, more power to them. It'd keep some large usability problems from arising, and quickly tone down word e-mail.
Postscript 2 really irks me. I'm no programmer, but even I can imagine a system where "untrusted" code & docs are run in a "sandbox," where they can't do any real harm and the user can still use them. Given six months of speed increase, the user probably won't even notice the difference between "game on new system's emulated layer" and "game on old system raw."
*sigh*
FACt: everything is politics.
You're more than welcomed to just code in your own little world, do all your work in your own little world, etc. But politics is still involved, whether you choose to ignore it or not, and it still affects you.
RMS realizes this and thus considers politics as integral in any software project.
Palladium is all about politics. Its about the polics of the BSA, the RIAA, and the MPAA conrolling what you do through MS, which will undoubtedly make unholy alliances to please these parties and profit. Palladium is about MS trying to make the GNU/Linux OS an impractical choice for users, as no hardware would run it. MS may say this about technical matters -- i.e., security, virus-prevention, etc etc -- and it is in part; but there is also politics running through the fibers of this idea. Politics is ubiquitous in this Palladium project.
As is predictable, everyone's been more than willing to jump on the "bash RMS" bandwagon. It actually reminds me of the Michael Jordan situation in the NBA. Here's a guy who's done alot for the NBA, alot for his team, and alot for basketball in general, and people are constantly criticizing him for making personal decisions which he had the right to make (i.e., to come out of retirement). Similar thing with RMS.
Many criticize RMS for what he says or where he says it; i.e., mentioning such things in newsgroups or forums which are "not meant for discussing those issues". But the politics of what he talks about is relevant to kernel developers and coders, even if they're too stupid to realize it. RMS is not an extremist. Or, if he is, extremism in defense of liberty is not a bad thing.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
I don't think this is a question at all - we have to stand against this latest MS evil plan. Not everyone agrees with everything RMS says (though I do think that GPL style free software is a blessing, I'm not against software that's more restrictive - but there needs to be a choice) but on this issue I don't think there can be too many who think he's wrong.
Afterall wasn't it Microsoft who lied in court? Or just last week about the "switcher"? They can't be trusted, it's that simple - they've shown that time and time again.
As for Hollywood, well again why should my computer put the needs and wishes above my own? So I buy a DVD, why can't I play that everywhere? Why can't I create my own player? Who says I shouldn't be able to buy a DVD while on holiday and be able to watch it when I get home? If I save a little money by buying it overseas isn't that my good fortune? Why should a commodity like a DVD have such wide differences between price and terms in different places?
No there are legitimate reasons why I might want to do things that MS/Hollywood want to stop - I don't see why my computer should help them take away MY FREEDOM?
Personally I think it's time we started something like FSF for hardware (FHF if you will) so that we can escape the clutches of "the evil Empire".
What happens next? The PC refuses to run any OS without a Microsoft signature, and we're blocked from reverse engineering it? This seems to be happening already with the Xbox, is this just a test case for the whole PC?!
Perhaps Red Hat should make a PCs, and allow anyone to copy the design. For no other reason than to protect THEIR business model.
If this were the U.S. Government pulling something like this, we'd have torched the White House by now, and the only real question we'd be debating would be whether Senator Hollings needs five more turns on the spit. But to some extent we are at a loss because it is business rather than government leading this assault on speech and liberty.
The world has started to turn into a scary place. It used to be the government that was most likely to take away people's rights. Nowadays corporations can be just as dangerous; and the massive bulwarks of liberity put up by our founding fathers--the U.S. Constitution and the checks and balances that make up the branches of government--were not intended to protect us from powerful corporations. If we are going to secure liberty for our children, it may take a struggle just as momentus as those struggles that have been fought before. Resting on our laurels is not an option for free men who mean to stay free.
1) The traditional one. This puts the access control of computer resources in the hands of computer owner.
2) The DRM, CP Protection etc: These system wants to take away access control from the owner.
I don't know why the second part is even called "security".
The problem with DRM etc is that once they become more wide spread, someone will provide a method to defeat them. And once defeated, there is no easy way to enable them since the owner doesn't want to enable them! E.g. region code and macrovision disabling in most dvd players. So the only way to implement DRM etc would either be by making it a law and have a very stringent enforcement or don't allow people to buy computers (just allow them to rent only, which will contain license clause that the sytem must be audited, insured at renters expense). Either of the proposition is very expensive.
Hey man, i'm toq, maybe you've seen my posts around here? :)
.gov regulations that would stop them from selling a DRM equipped peice of hardware for far less than a non DRM equipped peice of hardware. I would imagine any hardware company not willing to produce MSDRM compliant stuff will be left out in the cold because they won't recieve funding from M$ to develop it.
Anyways I just wanted to give my opinion on why this is bad. MS has over $40billion in cash reserves. This is enough money to subsidize anything they want to, which is a really scary thought. So right now MS is subsidizing DRM development through a network of smaller projects like the Xbox, funding cheerleaders to go to hollywood (RARA RA M$ OWNIN YOUR PC IS GREAT!!) and getting chip makers to make the actual chips to go into the final product.
When it comes time for a "final product" no doubt that will be subsidized too. Unfortunately there are no
Furthermore, when a first time computer buyer goes to buy a pc, will they buy the fully pre built "Compatible with hollywood!" PC or will they pay the extra money to have a non DRM pc built.
Customer "You mean its not compatible with hollywood?"
For us tech hounds, we know we'll end up having to support this shit somewhere down the line. Personally, I don't want to touch it with a 10 foot pole. I can see my CEO now...
CEO, "I tried to access this insider trading site (porn) on my sleek sony vaio (it looks cool)and it said I wasn't Hollywood compatible? Bob from accounting said hollywood compatible computers are cheaper than non holywood compatible ones."
See that's the basic, sometimes flawed logic of the pc illiterate public.
And that's where I see all this going. I see MS and NBC and AOL getting together for one HUGE fucking ORGY to screw us. I see future media being created that REQUIRES you to have this hardware to listen to it. Yet the PC illiterate do not even stop to think "Tape recorder next to the radio" DRM is flawed from the beginning in that sense, so really this is just MS's 3rd reich (1st riech killed os2, 2nd killed beos, 3rd is goin after linux)
Anyways, good luck to you Mr. Stallman, i'll be here in the trenches trying to prevent MS from going onto my friends and families computers. Not many people can sit back and see the whole picture but you can, and should be commended for that.
"The project began about four years ago as an epiphany among a small group of Microsoft employees who were working to solve the problem of content protection for online movies."
"The end result is a system with security similar to a closed-architecture system but with the flexibility of the open Windows platform."
And to stir up the pot a bit.
As Lessig has written in 'Code' and RMS writes here, government and commerce feel that imposing control structures on users is a good thing. The government likes it because control enhances their regulatory power. Commerce needs control so their 'property' will be defensible from piracy, etc.
RMS should really be taken seriously - web services is the next step for commerce that the government will attempt to promote. Web Services will enhance our PKI, allowing for identification, and it will also add controlling code to many devices and systems. Not only developers but the average citizen should be lobbying hard for open networks and open systems. If we don't, the Internet will become the perfect control structure to regulate our lives.
smd4985
Thus the only course of action I can take is to not accept the contract if it is offerred.
However, I will be happy to discuss with them that I cannot consider taking the job because I feel that what they would want me to do is morally reprehensible.
I try to abide by what I feel is right. But I have worked for companies whose principles I objected to, because that's what I had to do to survive. I did the best job I could while I had the jobs, but did my best to move on to other work as soon as possible.
But there are some things I just won't do.
Request your free CD of my piano music.
It's easy to do so when YOU aren't that bright. He might not be a Jeffersonian speaker (well maybe George Jeffersonian) but he has done more to further OSS than you that's for damn sure. You're lucky he's even around after the shit you constantly heap on the guy.
So he's not eloquent: you can't diminish what he's done.
Stop being such a snot and shut the fsck up. Cut RMS some slack. At least he contributes something of substance where it counts. You? Well it's real easy to be enlightened when you're sitting on YOUR ass on a mountaintop somewhere and all you can contribute are some comments that you hope get modded up.
I got a shitload o karma to burn baby so mod me down and flame as high as possible you unappreciative shits.
</TANTRUM>
Please, please do not use the words "secure application" when what you really mean is "approved application".
What I suspect you really mean is "an application that is doing only what the user intends that application to do". However, that is not necessarily the same as "approved application". (Since software vendors can stick all sorts of cruft and spyware into their "approved" applications) Some Palladium supporters would like everyone to assume that they are the same, and the use of "secure application" supports this confusion.
"Secure application" presumably means, among other things, "an application that is not vulnerable to attempts to make it misbehave". This is also not what "approved application" means.
I wonder - if an approved application contained a buffer overflow or other vulnerability, would it be possible to write a trojan that would operate entirely through that vulnerability as though it were a trusted application? (e.g. a trusted server could be exploited remotely and then the trojan code loaded into memory, running as a thread of the trusted server process) Tricky perhaps, but I've not heard anything that makes me think that Palladium will avoid that scenario.
Here's a reason why Microsoft should not want to implement treacherous computing in the future: while North America, Western Europe and a few Asian countries are pretty well wired, the majority of computer users is not yet connected to the Internet. Those who don't have a PC yet (the enormous market potential), will always get Internet access after they get a computer, not before. Thus, if you start selling software that absolutely requires Internet to run properly, you automatically hand over a huge potential market to your competition.
On a personal note, there's a small group of people (just like me) who choose not to have Internet access at home, and could not care less what software they are using at work.
All MS bashing aside I find it very odd that people, with all their supposed privacy concerns, would even consider a company such as Microsoft or any other software vendor for that matter, trusted enough to hold a lot of personal information.
.net or palladium account?
I understand the appeal of having an account that floats to any terminal that you log into - but having someone else in charge of that makes me nervous.
I mean - think of credit companies on steriods here.
For example - having a bank have some ability to control your money is one thing - but here you would have an account that could have much more information that you "own" but dont have full control over.
In your profile in the next 5 years will be such info as:
bank info
documents, both personal and professional that are kept or written by you
habits file, browsing, shopping, reading, viewing etc.
personal machine preferences
owned/installed programs you use regularly.
plus more
Now I cant understand why I would want to give anyone control over any aspect of this. Banking is a necesity in todays world - but that's as far as it should go. I dont wnat my bank to handle any information other than exactly how much money is in my account and when I access it. I wouldnt trust them with my personal documents etc... so why would I trust MS.
One argument against this could be the handling of hotmail accounts.
If you think MS is responsible enough with all you info then you have never been one of hundreds of thousands of whom who had their hotmail accounts "misplaced" with not so much as a sorry. (cant find a very good article on it - but I remember it when it happened)
What about how hotmail handles information as simple as your email address - and how much spam you get. What levels of access will "affiliates" and "advertising partners" have to all the info in your
There is already a proven track record to show why you would not want this info placed outside your control.
They say he eats windows for breakfast.
--
If you moderate this, then your children will be next.
The bank knows that the big, bad SEC will be breathing down its neck in a microsecond if it crosses certain boundaries. Both the banking laws and banking tradition keep its competitive force/greed in check.
The high-tech world hasn't got the equivalent of the SEC. And, of course, it doesn't WANT an SEC looking over its shoulder, although Microsoft's behavior certainly indicates it needs one. :/
Even parts of the high-tech world that overlap on the SEC's territory, like online banking (PayPal, anyone?) or online stockbroking, are often not regulated as the equivalent real-world businesses would be. PayPal, for example, doesn't operate under the same laws and regulations as a bank, although its business is unquestionably banking. That's why I won't use PayPal.
Stopping Microsoft and the RIAA on the "Trusted/Treacherous Computing Initiative" is going to take both a grassroots refusal to use products that have that technology and a significant political effort. Time to call the EFF....
Catherine
The same question that I have in my sig:
How is Microsoft supposed to roll this out? How EXACTLY are they supposed to take over the world such that ONLY signed code can run, and maintain backward compatibility?
No backward compatibility, no sales.
Once again it has to be pointed out: Microsoft is in business to sell operating systems and software, not to take over the world.
Palladium will ALWAYS be able to run unsigned code. There's no other way it can happen.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Most of us had gone there hoping that someone would put Brian on the spot. Even those who are friends would have liked to see how he would cope with a difficult question. Unfortunately RMS did not ask a difficult question, he just went off onto a rant. As a result everyone who followed was making sure that they distanced themselves from RMS.
The way to put someone on the spot in a case like that is not to make the most ridiculous assertion about the other side. Instead you should make the question appear to be as reasonable as possible and design it so that it exposes the unreasonableness of the other person.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Palladium isn't going to rob you of the right to use your PC. Do you really think Intel and AMD would make a processor that only ran one OS? They'd be tying their futures to those of Microsoft.
Palladium will just sit there until you choose to run software that uses it. Not install, but run. That means you have to:
1. Have Palladium hardware.
2. Have a Palladium OS.
3. Have a Palladium application.
The above three will allow you to access Palladium-protected content. Guess what? If you don't want to use something protected, you don't need Palladium!
Now, what happens if your favorite band or software company or whoever decides they're going to use Palladium? Well, you tell them you're not buying anything. All Microsoft is providing is a secure delivery vehicle. If you don't want to do business with those who use DRM, or trusted applications, or any of the other uses for Palladium, then you don't have to. Sure, it means you have to go without the latest version of the software you love, or that new album from that band, or whatever else you might want, but that's the sacrifice you make. If enough likeminded people feel the same way, then Palladium will fail.
Palladium is all about layers of security. If the hardware's secure, a secure OS can load. If the OS is secure, a secure app can load. If the app is secure, a secure file can load.
If the system is secure, content providers will be able to provide media with confidence. In a controlled environment with limited legacy software, unauthorized code such as virii can be halted before damaging or spreading. Truly effective copy protection can be implemented if backwards compatibility is left behind (ah, the age-old quandary.)
In short, it's not going to stop you from running your own OS.
So, vote with your wallet. But don't give in to paranoia.
...Except that the employer is a Japanese entertainment conglomerate with offices in San Jose (the popular guess is Sony), and the target platform is hinted at being a digital media device. So TCPA, at least in this instance, will be used precisely for compulsory licensing and screwing the user.
TCPA devices have their place -- in banks, brokerages, power plants, and other establishements where you don't want random code introduced without a red flag popping up. And its use and proliferation should be confined to precisely those areas. TCPA has no business being in consumer-level devices.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
Comment removed based on user account deletion
We can no longer afford the luxury of being apolitical. We must stand up for our principles, not only in word, but in deed as well. That means refusing to create the tools by which we, our families, and our friends will be subjugated.
I trust that all persons with even the slightest shred of honor or dignity will stay well away from this invitation to sell out the rest of their community.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
"MS doesn't have niether competition nor federal mandates preventing computers from being restricted."
That sentence should be dragged out into the street and shot.
Too bad that Grammar guy isn't here to point out the tragedy of double negatives, improper spelling, confusing wording, and a run-on sentence all in one! It's like looking at a 16-car accident.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
I find it absolutely comical how self centered _some_ Americans are, to the point that they think the TCPA and related AMERICAN technologies (Palladium, etc.) will be the end of free computing in a global sense.
Do they really think asian/european PC hardware manufacturers are going to radically redesign their products to serve the needs of American capitalism?
Not a chance.
The TCPA may be the end of free computing in America (though I doubt it), but the rest of the world will continue on its merry way.
Get over yourselves!
I apologize in advance to all open minded Americans, you know who you are.
"Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism since it is the merger of state and corporate power" -- Benito Mussolini
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
I think Palladium is a great idea, and let me tell you why.
One thing it offers is the ability to run a program which has it's own secure connection to the input devices and the screen. I think I'll write a little encryption utility which makes use of these features. By using a screen-based soft-keyboard for passphrase input I can make it impervious to every known keyboard sniffer, hardware or software. I bet I can find a few Mafia bosses who would pay a pretty penny for that! Thanks Microsoft(tm)!!!
Palladium will also let a client download software from the net which a remote server can verify is running untampered. I think I'll write an encrypted communications tool which uses this. Imagine being able to walk into any Internet cafe in the world and securely download an encrypted comm program with no worries about man in the middle attacks or keyboard sniffers! I hear the bin Laden's make good money in the construction business. I bet they'd pay good money for software like this so their "contractors" could check and submit bids online securely and anonymously from anywhere in the world. Thanks again Microsoft(tm)!!!
I bet I can find product opportunities in every market from P2P pirates to child porn collectors. Thanks Microsoft(tm)!
Step three: Profit!!!
Of course, the FBI and CIA are unlikely to let encryption tech that works that well out into the mass market. It's a safe bet that Palladium will either ship with a hidden back door or will include everyones favorite forgotten boogeyman key escrow. Thanks again Microsoft(tm)!
I don't see any reason for TCPA even here. Any such system should be designed to not run anything unexpected, whether it is "signed" or not. And that is easy to enforce by not letting people who might be interested in running unwanted programs from touching the machine.
The trick with TCPA/Palladium is it tries to keep a person who is interested in running such programs and has complete control over the machine, from doing so. This does not sound good to me, and very bad for banks, power plants, and other places that might really need to modify the software on their machine!
If RMS really wants to tell the world that they should oppose "Trusted Computing" then he really should find a better outlet than an OSS online newspaper.
Theres nothing wrong with Newsforge per se, but if he wants people to actually sit up and take notice then he really should try and get his articles published in places with larger distributions (BBC, WSJ, FT, Business and Computing publications for example).
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
But that is not always possible to enforce.
Consider your average bank branch. The machines are owned and administrated by the bank, but in daily use by employees, who are of variable trustworthiness. 99.9% of bank employees can be trusted, but for that 0.1%, you need mechanisms in place to thwart attempts to introduce foreign software that hasn't been vetted by the site administrator (N.B: the site administrator vets the software, not Micros~1 or the {MP,RI}AA).
For instances where the software needs to be updated, the site administrator has the digital certificate for all the machines under his/her control. After verifying that the software does what is expected, s/he signs the binaries with the certificate and ships them off to be installed site-wide. So legitimate installations happen without incident, and unauthorized installations are made NP-hard.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
I wish you were right, but your simply incorrect. Europe and Asia will go as does America.
From a practical standpoint, this planet has only ONE consumer operating system producer. All of the PC manufactures in Europe and Asia need Microsoft just as badly as Dell and Compaq do.
In fact, unlike the rest of the planet, the US has a few companies that might be able to sell PCs without Microsoft's help: Apple (of course), Sun, and IBM. (Sony could give it a shot, but they've shown no inclination. They have enough to benefit from the content business that strong DRM will be right up their alley.)
All of today's Wintel-clone builders will move as a group to either accept or reject Microsoft's hardware demands en-mass. Any of them who lags- whose customers start returning computers because it was incompatible with MS Word 2004- will be dragged down into bankrupcy.
Besides, the "OneWorldGovernment" thing is happening- its not coming from traditional governments though, but from multinational corporations. They influence the political process of each state to maximize their profits, molding the "developed world" into a conforming shape. (Laws which don't directly business profits will be left alone for a while, so nations will retain distinctiveness on "irrelevant" things like gun control, abortion, and taxation patterns.)
Pseudo-governmental entities like G7, IMF, and WIPO drive this conformity forward. WIPO tries to convince all nations to increase their intellectual property laws- they promoted some kind of "copyright duration parity" as support for the Sonny Bono act, for instance.
The citizens of the world CANNOT sit back and laugh at the hapless American consumers who are locking themselves into subjugation- soon the tendrils of DMCA-equivalency laws will penetrate their homelands, bootstapped as conditions of Favored Nation trading status, or by more insidious means.
I'm being pessimistic here- maybe Germany et all will be smart enough to read the fine print on some of these treaties before their parliaments rubber-stamp them- but its safer to assume the worst, and spread the warning about it.