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."
Because none of us are using Microsoft products or file formats... right?
...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
What's going to happen when people don't update? Or only a small portion update and people keep complaining to them that they can't read their documents? Or they have to down-save their documents to share with the world making the DRM garbage null and void?
For this to really don't don't we all really just have to switch? I know I'm not going to allow this release in my company...
I just bought a new laptop, 12 Inch Powerbook..
I sat and debated, can I live without MS Office. I then came to the decision. Open Office + Keynote was all I needed for my needs.
Are you all avoiding MS Office? What do you use instead?
I will not buy DRM.
Rob
Not all DRM is about P2P.
Wah!
...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.
I can't imagine how many people are going to screw around with this feature and lock themselves out of their own word file. Although it may be good for a small percentage of people, how is this going to affect John Q. Trailertrash who likes to fiddle with new functions?
And this is bad how, exactly?
Let me guess: When it's called PGP it's good, when they call it Microsoft Something Something it's bad?
Breakfast served all day!
So basically what theyre doing is including the ability to make documenst read only, read/write etc. How is this any different than say acrobat documents? I cant weite a pdf file when i open it, at least not with the reader, I cant save it, I can pretty much only look at it. Thats all that MS is doing from the sounds of it
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!
This is pretty neat development, anyway you look at it.
/.'ers will see DRM and Microsoft in the same sentence and immediately start crying foul?
My question is how many
My notes, my diary, my internal memos, or anything else produced in Office wants to be free. You may want to see the memo that says that 3M knows they are causing giant, man eating three eyed frogs because of the waste they are dumping, but it isn't you right to see it.
On another note, if this works properly (big if) you will know that the next Halloween document is a fake.
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.
...allowing restrictions to be set on Outlook mail messages...
Oh good, now I can get spam that I don't have permissons to read.
"Probably the toughest time in anyone's life is when you have to murder a loved one because they're the devil." -Philips
I can think of a couple of uses already for this technology that would be extremely useful in my office:
;)
-- Restrict printing of documents that are sensitive
-- Don't allow company wide e-mail without administrative approval
and most importantly, don't allow my boss to see that I'm calling him a dick in an e-mail
Technology like this does have a GOOD purpose as well as negative uses. This could be a really useful office tool.
--The space between my ears was intentionally left blank--
I know that there'll be plenty of snide negative comments about this, but I figured, what the hell.
I think that generally this is a good thing. Every company I've worked at has created copious piles of "internal only" type documents (electronicly that is). Making sure that these documents either stay internal, or don't go beyond those people externally that you give them to is always a hassle and pretty much impossible to do currently. Right now you have to depend on the "good faith" of your employees or those you've forwarded documents to and have agreements with (e.g. non-disclosures). Having a solution that makes controlling this information a bit easier could be useful.
Now before people start getting all in a tizzy, I'm not saying that Microsofts implementation will be any good or that it won't have problems and cause more trouble than it's worth. I'm just saying that the concept is worthwhile and shouldn't just be dismissed because it's being foisted by the "Evil Empire" or you can think of a dozen ways around it.
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
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-985496.html
If some people thought that GNU/RMS is bad enough, now we have MS-RMS!
Thing with View Only is that, while one can't print or edit the document, or even copy it for someone else, what stops said person from writing notes on a sheet of paper and avoiding the DRM aspect of the document? What stops the person from just remembering what he read and repeating it later, or dictating word for word into a micro cassette recorder? The only thing DRM is going to be usefull for is preventing a direct print, copy/paste, direct copy, and locations of viewing (assumed). If you send said information to a semi-trustworthy source, the information itself might still find it's way out.
I was at MS for a job interview in the not so distant past and a lot of office doors have signs that say "OFFICE XP FREE OFFICE - DOG FOOD SUCKS" with a picture of an 11 with the circle/slash through it. Some people even went so far as to have pictures of the software and a dog taking a dump on it. I asked around and a lot of people were like "yeah, it's pretty divided. Even the Office team isn't too impressed by it."
Posting AC since I signed that nasty NDA you know.. And - yes, I did get an offer, and yes, I did laugh at them.
It will be interesting to see how
If explained as "future versions of an office productivity suite will contain easy-to-use capabilities to ensure the privacy and secrecy of the user's documents, allowing them to be exchanged only with select others and safe from prying eye", we would all shout Hallelujah!
However, if it's "the ugly black hand of Digital Rights Management has now extended from our televisions and stereos to our very own documents", we shout "boo-hiss"!
I mean, really. Information wants to be free, as long as it's not the business plan for my new multi-zillion-dollar startup that wants to be free. Or is it that Information wants to be free unless it is John Ashcroft that's doing the looking?
Don't get me wrong, I'm as suspicious of Microsoft and of DRM as the next guy, but does everyone think "DRM" (or whatever we call it)is as bad when it's *your* (private) information as when it's a plausibly mass-distributed movie or song?
gnetwerker
I know I'm showing my ignorance here, but how is this different from traditional filesystem permissions
1 - This applies to documents and things like email messages.
2 - AC is preserved even when documents are transferred to another system.
3 - You can restrict actions such as copying or printing.
4 - You can create valid lifetimes for the items.
5 - You can limit # of actions (# of copies, # of times opened, etc)
In other words, there is a world of difference.
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.
The only data this technology seems to protect is the data not worth spending that kind of time on. If it's not worth spending that kind of time on it, why bother protecting it in the first place?
Overrated Moderation: This posts sucks... because.
Once this hits the market, anyone trying to sell software which can bypass the access control mechanisms of Word to read copyrighted information (it's all copyrighted) from within a protected document will be strung-up as a DMCA criminal.
This feature will not be offered as a part of Open Office.
It's kinda like those "Last gas for 50 miles" signs you see outside the overpriced gas station in the middle of the desert. Here's your chance. Miss it, and there's no turning back.
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
Think about it:
* It makes the chances of writing an office suite that is compatible with MS Office 2003 almost impossible. I bet the DMCA will make it illegal to reverse engineer the crypto you'll find this new IRM technology uses.
* It boosts Windows Server sales, since this technology will require Windows Server. UNIX-based file servers need not apply; they aren't IRM-enabled (and not allowed to be, thanks to the DCMA).
* It'll force users to upgrade Office. Yes, Office 97 already does way more than you need already. Too bad. You'll need to keep your version compatible with all the IRM-laden .doc, .xls, .pps, etc. files that'll be flying around.
* The PHB's of the world will eat this technology up without realizing the consequences.
Microsoft is brilliant. Fucking brilliant. I thought they were starting to lose it, but they're not. They've found new and amazing ways to leverage their monopoly; except, this time, it's not their OS monopoly. It's their office suite monopoly. My hat is off to you, Microsoft.
Corrections welcome.
-Teckla
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.
I've been thinking of this for awhile now. I've come to the conclusion that this is (at least partly) a method to prevent the inter-operation of competing OSs. Microsoft realizes that their proprietory document format isn't going to keep vendors from interoperating, not in the long run. Open Office has already made significant strides in reading Office format documents. Breaking compatibility in the format requires breaking compatibility in their Office products as well, which isn't a suitable option. Thus, embedding DRM in the format is the ideal method. Think about these points:
1) DRM can turn any open format, like PDF or XML, instantly into a closed format. If a competing product can't use the DRM technology, it can't read the document, even if it could do it theoretically.
2) Embedding DRM into the document format itself makes little sense, other than for the above reason. Why not just integrate proven and time-tested encryption algorithms into Office suites? If a user wants to secure a document, they can click the "secure" button, and the office suite could encrypt the document using something like PGP. That should provide enough security for most businesses, and for those that it doesn't, well they have their own security methods anyway.
3) In light of the first two reasons, it's quite clear that DRM in the document format can easily be used to turn open content into Windows content. This is especially true if the format defaults to something like "DRM on, no protection" in which the DRM mechanism would be enabled, but no access checks would be performed. To the clueless user, this would seem like the standard mechanism we have today, but these documents would not be viewable on platforms that do not have the DRM mechanism.
4) To tie it all together, the DMCA provides Microsoft with a degree of legal protection. While it is perfectly legal to reverse engineer Microsoft's document formats, it probably would not be legal to break the encryption, even if it was with the purpose of gaining interoperability.
Of course, this could be an entirely benign move on Microsoft's part. But in this day and age, and with Microsoft's track record, are you really willing to take the chance?
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
I wonder why Microsoft is so interested in controlling access to archived emails?
...
I wonder if they have had any bad experiences with this in the past?
Just a hunch
Incidently, this may be the first time someone's tried using the DMCA to enforce *file format* incompatibility. MS has done it before with copyrights (claiming that the C header files in wine used to implement Win32 were "derivative" of their own header files), with trade secrets (claiming that the "open" spec for their Kerberos modifications were protected as a "trade secret" and that no one else could implement it). It's been done before with patents (people claiming that an executable packer uses a patented algorithm). The special cases the DMCA puts into law are the only fork of IP that hasn't yet been used to try to ensure incompatibility.
Oh, and I dunno what MS's lawyers were threatening Nullsoft with if they didn't disable their "save to WAV" feature whenever users play a WMA file in WinAmp, but that theoretically could have been patent claims, so this may be a grand slam for MS in terms of misapplying IP law to screw the consumer if they try to go with a competitor's product -- they alone will have covered the entire gamut.
May we never see th
Software that doesn't support DRM will not be able to view these documents, and making software such as open office compatible will be a DMCA violation.
It's all falling into place quite well. It's amazing what kind of ROI you can get on Senators.
Yeah, provided the user doesn't, you know, remember it. Or print it out. Or have somebody looking over their shoulder.
This DRM crap restricts printing. Memorization of huge documents is extremely unlikely and at the very least error-prone. Lastl, someone looking over your shoulder is not an effective means of acquiring a document. Sure, the offender could catch a glimpse of what you're looking at, but too little for too short a time.
Yes, this will probably be a very effective mechanism for restricting access to documents. And of course, the issue for most open source advocates and users is that this will destroy interoperability. You will not be able to use K/Open/Star/Abi Office to open Microsoft Office documents.
Why bother.
As a worker, your boss sends you an email asking you to destroy important documents and do other immoral, illegal, and fattening things; threating to fire you if you don't. You read the e-mail and then it automatically deletes it's self. You can't print it either because the DRM says so. So now what happens to you?
I can't wait.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
This rather neatly allows Microsoft to avoid having to "share" details about Office document architecture with Open Office, KOffice, et al as per the anti-trust settlement with the US DOJ.
There were exceptions to that mandate with respect to security.
MjM
Hitting Escape while editing is a bad habit - VI needs a foot pedal
XKCD:Xeric Knowledge Comically Dispen
Look, I've trusted MS before -- WMA Was supposedly their next 'killer app' for online distribution, so what did i do with a friend way back when it was about to debut? Start a company that would harness WMA technology to deliver unique content, in a unique manner, to Indy bands across the USA using the internet and WMA as out content distribution system. WMA promised to allow you to listen to music for a set period of time and then its license would expire and give the user the option to purchase the piece.
Months later: distribution system already in alpha testing, VC funding on the way, patent pending technologies, WMA Cracked, technology moot. That was the day I went from Linux dabbler to Linux convert.
See the problem was that we trusted MS and built a business around their proprietary technology, a technology that was supposedly 'uncrackable' based on the way it generated a unique id from a user's specific computer, hardware, and setup. There is no uncrackable unexploitable technology.
While the world once again puts its faith in Microsoft's proprietary 'uncrackable' DRM, I'll be over here on my Gentoo box coding tools that will enable users to DO more rather than RESTRICT more.
Oh and when a clever hacker cracks their DRM I'll be outside laughing and dancing in the street.
-- -=innocent ramblings from the mind of an insomniatic programmer=-
you see...the word Microsoft is synonymous with evil
pgp=pretty GOOD privacy....
enough said...:)
nbfn
...The only difference is, you can set the permissions for everyone. The document can spread and you can keep those permissions in tact.
Once again MS has shown they are ahead of the curve when it comes to introducing new features. This is a great feature. For instance, now I can distribute documents under NDA to customers and partners without worrying about them casually distributing the info to whomever they feel like. Of course there are ways to get by the security if someone really wants to. But it stops unintentional distribution of sensitive material into the wrong hands. In a few year OSS will realize this is a good h]feature and put it in Open Office. People will still be saying that Microsoft is not innovative then too, I'm sure.
Vote for Pedro
Follow me on a paranoid journey to the future. I have a feeling that the main goal of Microsoft's involvement in rights management is merely a business tactic to make it harder to use non-Microsoft software. So far the government still allows you to write software that reads a Word document. But to read a rights-managed Word document it seems like you will either have to break the rights management (DMCA violation) or emulate whatever Microsoft does to respect the rights management (software patent infringement). I'm not sure which one is the rock and which one is the hard place, but I'm feeling squeezed already.
This DRM crap restricts printing. Memorization of huge documents is extremely unlikely and at the very least error-prone. Lastl, someone looking over your shoulder is not an effective means of acquiring a document. Sure, the offender could catch a glimpse of what you're looking at, but too little for too short a time.
... literally... to his companies documents to a less-than-trustworthy vendor like Microsoft. Indeed, only an imbecelic IT manager would consider handing said power to a completely-trustworthy vendor ... any vendor, no matter how well meaning, isn't going to stay benign with that kind of power in their pocket, and Microsoft in particular has a long and well documented history of abusing exactly this sort of power.
It is an idiotic method of "security" and will likely be banned by the courts the first time it gets in the way of a subpeana.
Worse, companies will lose access to their own data, either through bugs, license management issues, lost keys/pass phrases, or a failure to upgrade on Microsoft's schedule.
Only an imbecelic IT manager would consider effectively turning over the keys
You need security and encryption? Use PGP and a good passphrase. Too difficult for you? Then get literate already. Burning down the libraries is not a cure for illiteracy, and handing complete power over your commercial data to a software monopolist is not a cure for computer illiteracy. Only education coupled with a willingness to learn is, and I suspect many, many such foolish companies will pay a very heavy price when they go down this particular road.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Wasn't the Skylorav case persued under the DMCA because he broke Adobe's file format?
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?
DRM in Office docs is optional too. The DRM is only used if the author of the information turns it on. The plain old Word format is still there, as is the new Office11 XML Word format.
Will DRM documents work in OpenOffice? Nope. BUT: Will the other formats that Office11 uses (by default)? Yep. Is Microsoft going to force anyone to use DRM? Nope. Does this mean that groups that have MSOffice and OpenOffice can still inter-operate? Yep.
Given that, is this some evil scheme to take over the world? Nope. Seriously, folks around here need to take a breather. Believe it or not, MS can just stick features in their products only because it makes them more attractive to their customers. Not everything MS does is geared towards destroying Linux/taking over the world.
If the DMCA truly allows reverse-engineering for purposes of interoperability, then whats the problem with DeCSS, and Linux DVD players that use it?
You're really missing the entire point if you think PGP is anything like DRM.
PGP is designed to keep something secret when both the sender and the recipient want to keep it secret.
DRM is designed to keep something secret when only the sender but not the recipient wants to keep it secret.
The first is a relatively easy problem with a good solution. The second is a completely impossible problem whose attempted solution will nevertheless cause a lot of grief to society as circumvention tools like digital cameras and copy machines get banned.
This is good news for me, and possibly some others as well. I'm looking forward to DRM documents.
When I publish an academic paper - it ends up being spidered by numerous search engines out there, and I can't wait until I can embed rights such as "caching allowed by google, not allowed by turnitin.bot", and "caching allowing for non-commercial purposes", or similiar. robots.txt doesn't work effectively enough, nor does it take into account what happens when someone takes a copy of the document into their intranet or onto their work machine. I'm looking forward to backup software that will honour DRM and refuse to backup documents where DRM disallows it.
It'll also be useful when I can allow use for research and teaching purposes, but indicate that licensing is needed for anything else. I'd like to allow some cut'n'paste (fair use), but I'd prefer to have the application prevent the user from extracting too many or too large a portion (I know that the technology is imperfect, and the geeks can get around it, but at least it prevents the majority of users).
It'll also be good when DRM is embedded into the metamodel itself, so that internal objects (images, movies, audio, etc) also have their own DRM perhaps with separate t&c - so I might be able to use an image under terms of fair use, and it would still properly identify its original author/owner, and the DRM would be retained even if it was cut'n'pasted out of my document. This is going to be great for my free pictures collection because I'll allow people to use the pictures in their material, and they will know that they can safely do so. And should the like it ? They'll hopefully pay me to make more !
Sorry to hear that you guys are so down in DRM. Without good DRM, the use of information (copyright, etc) will be left to FUD - with DRM, at least it's all going to be explicit.
Imagine it locks up your Excel sheet to read-only (w/Palladium backing).
"What do you mean you can't fix it? I can see my entire workbook here, I'm just not allowed to change it. I can't even copy & paste. What do you mean I'll have to start over? I need those data I see right in front of me, it's not deleted, so fix it!"
Nothing like a virus that'll not only take your data, but also rub your nose in it. Somebody remember to give this idea to the script kiddies.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings