Slashdot Mirror
Digital Restrictions Management in Office 11
conaone writes "According to a Microsoft Watch, there is a feature in the leaked Office 2003 called "Information Rights Management." A lot more control over documents with this... the story says: "Microsoft is threading DRM throughout the Office 2003 suite, allowing restrictions to be set on Outlook mail messages, as well as on Word, Excel and PowerPoint documents. Using "permission templates," document authors can determine restriction policies to be applied to entire categories of documents, according to Microsoft's site." Here's a link to the whole story."
...perhaps I missed it, but if the new file format of Office 11 documents is all XML-based, then how is it they can "restrict" the documents? Isn't it all just text?
Schnapple
...which naturally gives them an exc^h^h^hright to permanently break interoperability with OpenOffice, Koffice, etc. It's like Trusted Computing and signed Xbox images - they're not trying to shut out competition, but if that incidentally happens, they're not going to cry about it.
## W.Finlay McWalter ## http://www.mcwalter.org ##
Now a creator can control his own work, as it should be. As a creator, I have been waiting for such a technology. I can assign which works I want to be for my benefit, and which to give away. I am in control. This will allow me to service those which actually pay me for those works I would desire to sell. Piracy, as we know it, is about to end.
DRM will allow me to finally see how many people are actually willing to buy my work, and allow me to price accordingly. With piracy eliminated, supply and demand pricing can be truly determined.
Sorry, Microsoft Outlook has determined that you don't have sufficient privaleges to delete the mail message: "See Hot Young Teens FREE!!!!! JYXX92D"
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
Microsoft is requiring users who want the IRM functionality to be running Windows Server 2003, Microsoft Passport and a special Client Access License (CAL).
<sarcasm> And this will be Kosher, because we all know that Microsoft Passports are fully secure. </sarcasm>
Seriously, ideaological difference aside: Fix what's broken before you try to build new features on top of it!
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
I'm sorry to inform you that, while I like my OS X, QuickTime has had DRM built-in for a while.
I was sort fo hoping against hope that MS would be moving further toward XML and therefore allowing greater standardization (I know it's a pipe dream, but one's gotta have hope)
In order for Redmond to add rights management, it kind of implies that they will have to lock down their documents. After all, what good would it do to make a Word document only readable by some certain person or group only to have anyone with a text editor or even a web browser be able to open it?
So, they will have to encrypt everything - and each time you go to open an Excel spreadsheet or WOrd doc, the program will have to "phone home" to Microsoft with your PASSPORT account?
*sigh*
The Digital Sorceress
Openoffice.org... Open office is really nice. I just started using it a few months ago when one night I finally got fed-up with Word's autoformatting (fuck you, it can't be turned off and that's the truth) so I finally said "screw it, the open source office alternatives can't be this bad". I downloaded Open Office (like 5 mins on my cable modem) and installed it (like 2 minutes) and I had something that worked at least as well as and in my opinion, better than MS Office. I've been telling my friends about it ever since and a lot of them are sold on it too.
Msoft seems at first glance here to be addressing a need in my industry, health care, to tightly audit and control access to documents. The problem is the preservation of health information privacy while providing free and ready access for authorized users. Network user authentication only goes so far because the same user might need different privileges for the same document at different times, depending on the purpose of the disclosure at the time.
We have a principle in health information security called "minimum necessary" which dictates that information only be disclosed for a particular purpose and only the information needed to accomplish said purpose be disclosed at the transaction level. Meaning, if you come back and have something else to do with the same document, you might need a different level of access. It is a sticky wicket.
The best way to do is to be.
I don't understand this.
You mean to tell me that MS has disable the copy-and-paste, too?
Seriously. Why couldn't I just copy-and-paste my secret memo into a text file and then forward it to FuckedCompany or AssWipeMemos or whatever Pud's pimping.
It's interesting, though. All this DRM/IRM/whatever you want to call it is turning the computer into a block of metal and plastic. I'm old enough to remember the days of the Altair and the Osbourne MicroAce and the Commodore PET with the plastic keyboards -- and I'm troubled by this gradual shift from "hobbyist computers" to -- essentially -- blocks of metal that can only be used to do whatever corporations tell us we can do.
Anyway, fuck it.
If they disable copy-and-paste in Word 11, then it's useless.
And why oh why can't Microsoft add EndNote functionality into their word processing software? For fuck's sake. They've added everything *but* a decent bibliographic manager. I keep hoping the next version of Word would actually add useful features for people who -- imagine that -- write for a living.
Because this will undoubtedly be cracked within a month, tops. There's a good chance it's already been cracked based on the betas -- and Slashdot posting it *ensures* that every techie that didn't already know about it does.
Heck, *I* woulda cracked it if I had a copy sitting around and had any interest in Office, just for the egg-on-your-face factor affecting Microsoft when they try selling their "strong" security to companies.
You cannot do secure DRM in the current computing environment. *Maybe* with Palladium in place. Definitely not now.
The only benefit I can see this giving Microsoft is a legal excuse to make their file formats *incompatible* with everyone else, and anyone else implementing support for their file formats being liable under the DMCA.
Office is Microsoft's bread and butter, and incompatibility is the worker that brings it home each day.
May we never see th
I would welcome some version of DRM for the individual. I work for a consulting company and I have had cases where other consulting companies have taken documents that I put my blood sweat and tears into, changed a title page and then went an took work away from me, let alone co-workers who have done the same.
We have often resorted to creating everything in Acrobat, which is somewhat limited, but I really would like more control. It would be great to give my team complete write access, but not worry about who I ship the document to.
It is upto me then to come to agreement with my clients about how much access they have to the documentation I produce.
D.O.U.O.S.V.A.V.V.M.
NO ONE likes to lock a "softcopy" file down so that you can't suck data from it. If i want a document that i can't cut/paste data from, i print the fscking thing. The ONLY thing most people want 99% of the itme is to prevent someone from making changes to a document (such as a resume). In that case, we make PDFs... because few know how to modify them.
... Those geeks will send out emails/Word docs which are IRM'd, and then will just frustrate the hell out of the normal users who will email back asking for a "non-fscked up" version.
The esoteric nature of this scheme - much like some of the advanced features of Outlook/Exchange will be mostly if not totally lost on all but a few ubergeeks in your typical business
Its kinda like being the first guy to install a Service Pack from Microsoft the first day it comes out... you only do that once and have a horrible experience before you relize you better wait, only this will be much more powerful....
the first time Joe Businessman brings a file with him on the reoad that he can't modify or can't copy data from - he'll swear to Jesus and never EVER use this "feature" again.
In short - there are two kinds of people - people who will "get" this, and those that won't. Those that get it are either PHB's or geeks - most geeks won't want to use it or will use it to piss off the other kind of people - the normal people that won't understand how this helps them do their work.
for most people - security is a PITA - this will only make their lives more difficult, and will have them finding work arounds if it is "mandated".
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
Everyone would love being a repository for spam. Oh wait, we already are.
Wasn't the Skylorav case persued under the DMCA because he broke Adobe's file format?
Not really. The PDF file format is an open format. Anyone can make PDF tools. Skylorav didn't crack the file format, he cracked the optional encryption that the file MAY contain.
There is a key difference: Microsoft has repeatedly tried to prevent other companies from being able to read/write their file formats. By including DRM in the file format, Microsoft could be setting up the chance to sue OpenOffice (for example) in the event they include Office interoperability.
The interesting thing (to me) is that until I read this post, I though that this was really not a big deal. I actually think Office is a good place for DRM. Having the ability to place some limitations on who can read my business documents is a good thing. If it weren't for the DMCA, I would say that this is a case of people overreacting just because MS is involved. Unfortunately, the DMCA changes all that. Microsoft will almost certainly use this as a tool to prevent interoperability, and there's probably not a thing anyone can do to stop them.
Here's an article on this. The article title gets the point across pretty clearly: "New technology could cut down on whistleblowing". Think Enron, WorldCom, cigarette companies, etc... .
It seems that this technology would be pretty valuable for terrorists, no? This is a child pornographer's dream. You want to run a second set of books so you can pay less taxes, use the new MS Office. How exactly will law enforcement do legitimate searches? A lot of the arguments made against strong crypto by the government would seem better aimed at DRM.
Keep in mind that mobsters have been jailed even though they used strong crypto because the government tapped their keyboards (after obtaining legitimate warrents to do so) and sniffed their keys. Do we REALLY want to allow a system where the machine prevents us from gathering such evidence? How would you like to receive a death threat from a mobster via email and be unable to prove it to the police?