Slashdot Mirror


From DRM to Rights Management Services

miladus writes "Microsoft has formed an academic Think Tank on Trustworthy Computing. The Academic Board is to advise Microsoft on 'security, privacy and reliability enhancements in[...] products and technologies so that Microsoft can obtain critical feedback on product and policy issues related to its Trustworthy Computing.' An interview with two members of the board is an interesting read, especially concerning the global implications of privacy. Of note, is the absence of DRM discussion. But DRM shows up as 'Rights Management Services' in the promised Widows Rights Management Services to be released later this year. it will deliver a 'platform-based approach to persistent policy rights for Web content and sensitive corporate documents of all types'"

122 comments

  1. Widows Right Management? by Hydrogenoid · · Score: 5, Funny

    Is Microsoft expanding to life insurance?

    1. Re:Widows Right Management? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, just entomology.

    2. Re:Widows Right Management? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're studying insects? Ahh - those clever Microsofties! It must be some sort of nanotech.

  2. FP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Will DRM stop stories about DRM?

  3. The question is... by alhobbel · · Score: 3, Insightful

    how much will those brainiacs get paid? I've never trusted "scientific" opinions from researchers paid by commercial companies. (What's more, I don't even trust most scientific opinions:)

    1. Re:The question is... by kfg · · Score: 4, Informative

      Indeed, it is the first duty of every scientist to show the other guy where he's full of crap. That is the essence of science. Finding the flaws.

      Lord knows I've been shown to be full of crap often enough.

      Richard Feynman was *famous* for being full of crap nearly all the time. It's that *nearly* that gets you. One of the great things about Richard is that he never, ever, self censored. He was willing be full of crap most of the time. It's an essential part of the process, but most people don't like to look "silly" so they hold back.

      "Here's my idea."

      "Here's where it's wrong."

      "Oh, *THANK* you!"

      That's the way it's supposed to work.

      Commercial "science" almost always turns into a political issue of some sort. They're there to promote a concept. Not to find the truth.

      It stinks.

      KFG

    2. Re:The question is... by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Commercial "science" almost always turns into a political issue of some sort. They're there to promote a concept. Not to find the truth. It stinks.

      Exactly. It seriously stinks:

      If we at Microsoft work with academia to make sure they have the resources, time and information to infuse Trustworthy Computing concepts into education

      we'd like to see academia work with the industry to inculcate more security concepts
      [Trustworthy Computing] into a technical education

      Our board becomes a set of real people that Microsoft is willing to take seriously -- rather than a disembodied din -- advocating for trustworthiness

      ensure that trust in a system becomes a foundational premise

      Helping Microsoft increase the trustworthiness

      Educating the public about risks and consequences [of not having trustworthiness] is a job
      [they share with industry].

      And to top it off, their position is:

      Trust in the e-world is not an option any more.

      You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    3. Re:The question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps you need to check your assumptions before you pop off. I know a couple of these folks personally and they are not the type that can be bought off.

      Also, research is necessary to find solutions to new security problems...This has nothing to do with Microsoft or any other industrial research effort. Relatively few research class problems are solved by the snotnose Linux hacker...

      Perhaps you should move on to your next class sonny...I have a feeling PE or autoshop is more suited to the intellectual level you have demonstrated.

  4. Widows by kevinmtu · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Yes yes Windows has a lot to do with being a widow. once again....nice job slashdot editors, do you even read what you post??? There is a preview button...

    1. Re:Widows by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Funny

      There is a preview button...
      A what? Oh, that thing next to submi

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    2. Re:Widows by kfg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you can't read or spell of what use is previewing?

      KFG

  5. What happens when MS has a new version of Office? by rickthewizkid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, Everyone that goes to the new version of Office will be locked into a forced upgrade stream? What happens when MS comes out with Office 12? Will everyone that uses 11 find that their documents suddenly "expire" because the new version of office is out?

    I don't like it. MS wants to control every 0 and 1 that flows through your computer.

    Looks like its time to dig out the 'ole Commodore 64. :)

    Just my 64k-is-enough-for-me's worth
    -RickTheWizKid

  6. They did this on purpose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They just want to make RMS look & sound bad.

    1. Re:They did this on purpose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and smell bad

    2. Re:They did this on purpose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      have you ever seen/heard RMS? Or any Open Source "celebrity"? Or any open source user? can't get a lot worse, folks.

  7. Good stuff by t0ny · · Score: 5, Insightful
    things like this are really essential, especially for companies and organizations that have concerns about confidential information.

    For example, where I work, we are required by law to have a level of security on certain information; this info should never be reaching people who do not fall under the same laws.

    With a technology in place to protect that data, our jobs as the IT staff becomes much easier.

    MS is, in my view, breaking new ground with this; some people may not like what they are doing, but you have to admit that nobody else is putting this stuff into their OS (when there is clearly a need for it).

    --

    Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.

    1. Re:Good stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      DRM is not information security.

    2. Re:Good stuff by t0ny · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Thats right. And the article wasnt about DRM. Didnt you read the article (or even the /. summary)? Taken right from the summary:

      Of note, is the absence of DRM discussion.

      --

      Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.

    3. Re:Good stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "But DRM shows up as 'Rights Management Services' in the promised Windows Rights Management Services to be released later this year. it will deliver a 'platform-based approach to persistent policy rights for Web content and sensitive corporate documents of all types'"

    4. Re:Good stuff by GammaTau · · Score: 4, Funny

      MS is, in my view, breaking new ground with this; some people may not like what they are doing, but you have to admit that nobody else is putting this stuff into their OS (when there is clearly a need for it).

      The problem with MS software is that after all these years it still has elemental flaws in its software. Before talking about things like confidential e-mail, they should consider supporting plaintext ASCII messages in their e-mail software. MS Outlook and MS Outlook Express choked (maybe they still do?) on messages that start with the word "begin" followed by two spaces. Their fix? You should use the word "commence" instead.

    5. Re:Good stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "Things like this are really essential, especially for companies and organizations that have concerns about confidential information."

      No. Good security is essential for people handling confidential information. Would you want your bank records littered around insecure networks, protected by unbreakable MS-Word encryption? I'd rather trust my information to people I knew had no Microsoft software anywhere.

      You need to keep information separated at work? For things like that, most people would consider PGPDisk and BSD firewalls not enough protection. At one place I work, any computer connected to certain network has to have its disk removed daily and locked in a safe. At another place I visited, there were no network connections leaving the site at all. Anyone who uses Microsoft security solutions has no business being given access to confidential information.

    6. Re:Good stuff by xchino · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      "MS is, in my view, breaking new ground with this; some people may not like what they are doing, but you have to admit that nobody else is putting this stuff into their OS (when there is clearly a need for it)."

      Actually Unix and variants have been putting security into their OS for years.

      --
      Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It's just that yours is stupid.
    7. Re:Good stuff by stinky+wizzleteats · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If you are using a Microsoft document format to transfer confidential information, you have problems DRM cannot solve.

      MS is, in my view, breaking new ground with this;

      I'm sure attempting to use an umbrella as a submarine would be equally revolutionary. That doesn't make it a good idea.

    8. Re:Good stuff by Col.+Klink+(retired) · · Score: 4, Funny

      And the MPAA can sit back and relax because all DVD's are encrypted with CSS.

      --

      -- Don't Tase me, bro!

    9. Re:Good stuff by kfg · · Score: 1

      Bingo! Give the man a prize. The best way to secure information from misappropriation across the net is to isolate it from the net.

      In my businesses ( which are admitedly very small. I aknowledge there are other factors in larger firms) all core accounting information and trade secrets are stored on a PC with no net connection at all. If you need the data, you need to get physical access to the console.

      This is how the NSA does it. Only they lock the computer *itself* in a vault. You need the data, you go to the vault, get locked in while you use the computer, and then get let out, with everyone who uses the machine carefully logged.

      And does it work?

      Hell no. The evidence is as near as the headlines of the papers. People cheat and steal. Even people you trust.

      What a lot of security *really* does is limit the number of people you have to investigate after the material gets out.

      KFG

    10. Re:Good stuff by xchino · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      You need to dislodge your head from your ass. This is NOTHING new. Locking files has been around since magnetic media. M$ is simply putting a feature into it's office suite that other suites have had for literally decades.

      You're an idiot, and you made an idiot post. Yes, this kind of security is a good idea. At least it was a good idea 30 years ago, and it's ridiculous M$ is only now putting in such basic features.

      "For example, where I work, we are required by law to have a level of security on certain information; this info should never be reaching people who do not fall under the same laws."

      Ever heard of encryption? This is no fucking different, just aimed at fooling gullible jackasses such as yourself, and management, into thinking it's some new technology Microsoft invented.

      Just so you know, critical thinking is very important once you get your head out of your ass and into reality.

      --
      Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It's just that yours is stupid.
    11. Re:Good stuff by fermion · · Score: 2, Insightful
      While I certainly see how access control to certain documents is beneficial to many entities, I do not understand how this product would be beneficial to companies with real security concerns.

      For example, if all one wishes to do is help insure that internal memos are not leaked to f*ckedcompany, this technology will provide a useful barrier. However, if you are trying to protect patient transcripts, one would hope that a suitable technology is already implemented. After all, MS Office, and MS Office, has many insecurities because it tries to be a business and consumer level jack of all trades. To me, security is enhanced by having only the necessary features integrated into a packaged built for the type of security mandated by the regulations

      Even for stopping leaks, success is probably dependent upon enforcement of DCMA. Anyone who copies and pastes will be guilt of circumvention.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    12. Re:Good stuff by ewhac · · Score: 1

      I hope you would agree that the procedures and rules that apply at your workplace are highly unusual, and that it would be a bad idea to try and apply them to the general public.

      This is not some one-off facility, targeted toward a very narrow market segment. This is something Micros~1 is going to cram in to every copy of Windows. It will appear in every new computer shipped, whether it is appropriate for it to be there or not.

      Schwab

    13. Re:Good stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > we are required by law to have a level of security on certain information; this info should never be reaching people who do not fall under the same laws.

      There is no mechanism to know whether MS itself would be able to access the information. As I understand it the rights will be recorded on some server and individuals need to access that for the software to determine whether or not the user has the right to open the document.

      This will be a Microsoft server, and may run on MS machines or on some other.

      It cannot be known whether MS itself has a backdoor into the server or into the document itself.
      Thus from a legal standpoint you cannot rely on this rights management. All your bases belong to us.

    14. Re:Good stuff by t0ny · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      hey goof, show me an OS that puts a level of encryption that makes it impossible to transfer the files. Thats what they are doing. Win2k has Encrypted File System, but that only protects the data on the hard drive and the back-up. If you copy it to a local drive, or a zip disk, or a floppy, all the server side encryption in the world wont help

      So get your computer-expert-wanna-bee posting ass away from the keyboard. You may have grandma convinced that you know about computers, but anyone that knows what they are talking about can see right thru you.

      Go to school, get a good job, work hard, and maybe someday you can buy a clue

      --

      Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.

    15. Re:Good stuff by t0ny · · Score: 1

      Well, the stuff I work with isnt in the Top Secret category, its more in the confidential info category; its on par with credit information. Nothing that will jepardize the free world, but things you dont want places like insurance companies, creditors, etc knowing without the person's authorization. Security is really just a comfort blanket anyway. If someone wants it bad enough, given time and resources they can get it. This stuff is really just due diligence on our part.

      --

      Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.

    16. Re:Good stuff by sjames · · Score: 1

      If you're willing to depend on MS being bug free in order to meet a legal requirement to protect data, you're likely in for some serious problems down the line. The one and only way to protect sensitive information is to not put it where unauthorized people can see it.

      I'm not opposed to information security at all. The problem I have is that MS has (by their own press releases) shown that they want to apply it to all the wrong things for all the wrong reasons. That implies (to me) that their engineering is unlikely to be appropriate to security of the right things for the right reasons.

    17. Re:Good stuff by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1

      You know VERY well that this "move" is only about destroying mozilla and openoffice's compatibility with ms's webservers.

      Also, I would certainly hope no-one in you office ever heard of ... let's take a random example ... a camera ...

      let's all thank Microsoft, tomorrow you need a camera to archive your email.

    18. Re:Good stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hey goof, show me an OS that puts a level of encryption that makes it impossible to transfer the files. Thats what they are doing. Win2k has Encrypted File System, but that only protects the data on the hard drive and the back-up.

      That's what encryption does, assclown. Privileges are granted to people. If a person can see the data, he/she can copy it.

      Speaking of going back to school, 'through' is not spelled 'thru'. You must be a product of one of those community college IT programs - big ego, no intelligence. You're so special.

    19. Re:Good stuff by xchino · · Score: 1

      After reading your posts in response to mine and others, it has become blaringly obvious you are a complete and utter dipshit. Still working hard for your MCP I bet.

      RMS is based solely on encryption and permission flags. Documents are converted into encrypted XrML, which an RMS enabled application can decrypt and interpret, and apply the proper permissions to.

      To make it simple for your sake, this translates to:

      Win 2K3 will use proprietary document formats.

      This is not Palladium, this is not "Trusted Computing". This is an application dependant security measure. Really no different that password protecting a zip file.

      So if I have read permission to a file, I can open up that file with Open Office or whatever application is first to reverse engineer the encryption and strip the XrML and copy the file as I see fit.

      The idea that I couldn't still copy the binary, or simply the information from a screen grab is ridiculous. I just can't manipulate it within an RMS enabled application. If I have read permission to the binary, I can move it. If I can move it, I can manipulate it in any way I please.

      Looks like you got suckered by the M$ propaganda machine, and like so many other clueless "Windows power users" you blindly throw all your faith in it with out understanding what it really even is.

      You're a pathetic fool. I hope the company you work for realizes how usless you are and replaces you with inexpensive software.

      --
      Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It's just that yours is stupid.
    20. Re:Good stuff by t0ny · · Score: 1
      thru

      prep. & adv. & adj. Informal

      Through.

      Learn to use a f'ing dictionary, cocksmooch.

      And Im sure I know what encryption does better than you do. Go back answering those help desk phones, little man.

      --

      Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.

    21. Re:Good stuff by t0ny · · Score: 1
      1. I have been an MCSE for years, I passed it in two months w.o even studying hard. My experience was all that was necessary.

      2. I am not going to become an expert on this shat unless I need to use it. I happen to work for a living, and have many other things that I need to be an expert on right now.

      3. You use all the right buzz words. You must be a consultant or a tinkerer. Go back to reading your subscription to Linux User and PC World magazines. Maybe you can learn more buzz words to throw around.

      --

      Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.

    22. Re:Good stuff by xchino · · Score: 0, Troll

      Buzzwords? Why don't you give me a single example of a buzzword I used.

      You hide behind cowardly and false accusations in attempt to draw attention away from the fact that you have no clue what's going on.

      " 1. I have been an MCSE for years, I passed it in two months w.o even studying hard. My experience was all that was necessary."

      MCSE is worthless, and you make that clear. I am ashamed to be an MCSE. I'll happily brag about my other certs, but I am literally ashamed to be an MCSE. Ashamed that I was almost as clueless as you once.

      "2. I am not going to become an expert on this shat unless I need to use it. I happen to work for a living, and have many other things that I need to be an expert on right now."

      You already said you needed something like this for your line of work. Hypocrite.

      "3. You use all the right buzz words. You must be a consultant or a tinkerer. Go back to reading your subscription to Linux User and PC World magazines. Maybe you can learn more buzz words to throw around."

      I didn't use any buzzwords. I guess instead of using the proper terminology I should dumb it down for you and say things like "Microsoft is using this math stuff that makes it hard to read a file unless you know your math real good."

      The more you say, the dumber you sound.

      --
      Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It's just that yours is stupid.
    23. Re:Good stuff by t0ny · · Score: 0

      Last time I tried to install Linux, I needed well over a gigabyte on the HD. Are you trying to tell me that Windows is the only one that installs things you dont necessarily need?

      --

      Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.

    24. Re:Good stuff by isorox · · Score: 1

      really? choke in what way? /me *loads up address book of windows weenies*

  8. MS Dogfood by Flamesplash · · Score: 4, Funny

    Hopefully MS will eat their own dogfood on this so their memo's stop leaking out, or maybe that's the whole driving force behind this.

    --
    "Not knowing when the dawn will come, I open every door." - Emily Dickinson
  9. Do I read ... by locknloll · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...the word "Trustworthy" in a direct connection with "Microsoft"? Wohooo... and I thought that only the Slashdot geeks had a sense of irony...

    --
    -- Power corrupts, but PowerPoint corrupts absolutely.
    1. Re:Do I read ... by kfg · · Score: 1

      All your base are belong to us.

      Your logic fails.

      KFG

  10. Sheesh by Cappy+Red · · Score: 3, Funny

    Can someone get the little Mozilla beast icon to eat the little Bill Gates beast icon and put us out of our grief?

    *consoles self in reality distortion field*

    *honk*

    --
    This is my sig. It's prescription, I swear. I need it for reading things... on the other side of things
  11. Heh... by Junta · · Score: 3, Funny

    The acronym of that would be RMS.... RMS is evil.. No wait... that *other* RMS.......

    On a sidenote, I hadn't heard about MS changing their product line to 'Widows'..... Another interesting name change...

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    1. Re:Heh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear Sir,

      Thank your for sharing. May I repsond in kind?

      *ahem*

      During the course of my years upon this so-fine planet of ours, I have found one truth and one truth only: that opinions are very much like assholes. To wit, everyone has one and they're pretty much all alike.

      Having said that let me point out that you have had a chance to share you thoughts with us many, many, MANY times today and, frankly, it's time you gave it a rest.

      Consider this a friendly invitation to sit in the time-out corner and think over your malign ways for 24 hours. If you feel this is an unfair breach of your rights d'homme then, you, sir, can fuck up your own ass.

      Sincerly,
      The management

  12. Re:What happens when MS has a new version of Offic by Billly+Gates · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Or as another way to look at it will companies like Enron use drm to make sure to obstruct justice or have their documents timebomb after each quarter so there is no evidence?

    Will Microsoft use drm to make sure the DOJ can not investigate them for illegal practices. If Bill Gates unfamouns email about choking netscapes air supply timebombs then the doj would have no evidence. Case closed!

  13. Microsoft Widows indeed by ubiquitin · · Score: 4, Funny

    What do you call computer users whose digital rights have all died because of their choice of platform/license agreement? Microsoft Widows.

    --
    http://tinyurl.com/4ny52
  14. Re:What happens when MS has a new version of Offic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I really don't think that that's going to happen, and I think that you know it. I suggest you go back to your cave, troll.

  15. Re:What happens when MS has a new version of Offic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Or as another way to look at it will companies like Enron use drm to make sure to obstruct justice or have their documents timebomb after each quarter so there is no evidence?"

    The Treasury or IRS will begin sniffing around, "place Orwellian fear here" would be preferable if company X is up to no good. The way credit is sometimes handled counterfeit laws could be interpreted to apply.

  16. Re:What happens when MS has a new version of Offic by gmuslera · · Score: 1

    A better question would be

    What happens when all media (from DVDs to web sites) is delivered with MS RMS?

    Or easier... What happens when all mail from Outlook users come with this?

    At least with this technology MS will not suffer so much with email leaks.

    Maybe rights management is a needed solution to actual problem, but a real solution all should be based in open, free, and universally available standards.

  17. Re:What happens when MS has a new version of Offic by Billly+Gates · · Score: 4, Interesting
    But without evidence they can sniff all they want and will find nothing. No evidence no case.

    It is very hard to go after a corporation. You have to prove that companyA knew about the corruption and hid it. Kenith Lay just recieved $200 million from his involvment with Enron and is retiring in peace as a wealthy man. Why? He claimed he didn't know about what was going on in accounting. Since he moved the money he recieved to his retirement fund he avoided litagation from angry stock holders and co-workers. A very sneaky loophole indeed. He can't be prosecuted or sued. Hiding information is key to avoiding prosecution and obsrtucing justice. With drm this makes the doj's and fcc's power void. Microsoft had been doing this for years and got away with an EU investigation in 93 because of it.

    The doj could not even prove that Microsoft strong armed OEM's to bundle office because of lack of evidence. They decided to go only after IE because of the one email from Gates about chocking their air supply since someone forgot to delete the email.

    Your innocent until proven guilty and corporations can drag court cases for years because they have so much money. Timebombing and drm is perfect. With no data you can not prosecute anyone.

  18. I'm missing something. . . by Rojo^ · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How exactly is Digital Rights Management expected to work? Is the idea sort of a "this message will self destruct in five seconds" kind of deal? From DRM story to DRM story posted on Slashdot, I see the discussions range from privacy and data integrity to piracy or rights. The ability to cause sensitive data to disappear seems more like a technological tool that can be added to other tools for specific types of communication, not some imposition of our rights to download w4r3z on KaZaA or whatever. In fact, if I get sent an email that will self-destruct, what's keeping me from forwarding that message to a sendmail server with no such mechanism for message self-destruction, copying / pasting the message into a text document, or even screenshotting the contents? This comment isn't meant to flame or troll -- I simply want to know what I don't.

    --
    <:
    1. Re:I'm missing something. . . by travail_jgd · · Score: 1

      In this case, Digital Restrictions Management means that documents won't be available to other systems. If you get an email (or Word document), it'll either be encrypted and only usable on the computer it was sent to, or the software won't allow it to be transferred to an unverified system.

      Cut and paste can be disable for "secure" documents/emails. The window showing "secure" documents could just be excluded from screenshots. Considering that Microsoft controls the OS, office software, and has influence on hardware manufacturers, they can implement any level of "features".

      Without cracking open a secured computer, probably the only ways to bypass the security would be sniffing network packets (easily defeated) or using a camera to photograph the screen.

    2. Re:I'm missing something. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're not missing anything, you're one of the few who see the issue clearly. All DRM works the same way: provide data in an obscure format, provide a tool that reads the obscure format and enforces security restrictions, and pray to God that no one reverse engineers it. It's all snake oil.

    3. Re:I'm missing something. . . by Thing+1 · · Score: 1
      Cut and paste can be disable for "secure" documents/emails. The window showing "secure" documents could just be excluded from screenshots. Considering that Microsoft controls the OS, office software, and has influence on hardware manufacturers, they can implement any level of "features".

      Not if the OS is being run in a VM, on VMware, Plex86, or Bochs.

      Security by obscurity will always lose. (It'll put up a lot of battles on the way though!)

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  19. Just LOVED this part... by barbaric_yawp · · Score: 0, Troll

    "PressPass: Why doesn?t the board include government and industry representatives as well as academics? Ladd: Microsoft has other venues for input on security and privacy issues from government and industry." ----------- Translation: "Government and industry will be telling Microsoft what to do. This Board has no real function other than to legitimize and spin the decisions which have already been made by others."

  20. I must be paranoid . . . by Idou · · Score: 4, Insightful

    but I think you must trust MS 100% before this can be considered a "good thing."

    "With a technology in place to protect that data, our jobs as the IT staff becomes much easier."

    It's very simple, if, say, my medical information gets out 'cause some MSCE stopped thinking about security 'cause MS told them to, you better believe I am going to do everything in my power to destroy that incompetent individual's career.

    I see people stupidly pick MS all the time for no other reason than it is "MS." Well guess what, most of the time things are NOT working as a result. That's fine, but when we are talking about security required by laws, you better make damn sure YOU actually understand the system you are implementing, and I have yet seen an MS product implemented by someone who actually had an understanding of the innerworkings of the product (though they did read the marketing brochure . . .).

    --
    Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
    1. Re:I must be paranoid . . . by t0ny · · Score: 1
      I do. I work on computer security, and use MS products. They are very easy to work with, as a company; they hire very competant people.

      Also, I think all the MS bashing here is not only unfair (comparing NT4 to the latest version of Linux), but you are ignoring the fact that they have yet to release anything since "Trusted Computing" was started. You are prejudging their products.

      --

      Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.

    2. Re:I must be paranoid . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And when the security fails, you can always blame Microsoft.

  21. Re:What happens when MS has a new version of Offic by Pray_4_Mojo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    While the implications of Microsoft being able to leverage ("embrace and extend") any built in DRM/CRM (Digital Rights Management/Content Rights Management) is disturbing, what worse is that companies are going to jump all over this kind of technology. It literally allows the company to control information from CEO right down to the mailboy's desktop. To a corporation that doesn't respect/trust/value its employees, this technology is a godsend, up there with keystroke loggers.


    What's worse, is it will allow corporations to act with even more impunity. Microsoft isn't the only corporation whose business model could stand to gain something through DRM. They're talking about restricting what a person can do with data -- including preventing that "We're Dead if this thing shows up in court" memo from being printed by a Whistleblower.


    Letting corporations act solely in their best interest, and preventing the individual from counter acting in his, is a dire formula for a free society.
  22. RMS != security by argoff · · Score: 3, Insightful


    You could have rights managment systems out the yinyang, but if the software running it is full of bugs, buffer overflows, back doors, code that auto preruns unauthorized stuff, or sends private info to MS headquarters (Yeah I know MS would never have eny of these problems) Then it will not matter a bit, even if every damn piece of data and code is digitally signed, registered, and pre-authed - it won't matter. In fact it could make things worse as people actually leave their systems less secure - assuming that they are less hackable or that they will know when people copy stuff. BZZZT. God help them, they'll need it.

    1. Re:RMS != security by karlm · · Score: 1

      I'm not aware of any plans to make Palladium check signatures of binaries in memory. That would be a huge drain on computational resources. I'm not aware of anyone seriously suggesting this at any time in the future. Signatures are checked by the PE loader as the application is started. Don't tell MS, but I stronly suspect implementation problems in the first few versions. (There are still about 40 of the 240 Win2K system calls that don't properly check inputs and will result in BSOD with proper inputs from any user. This is due to be fixed in SP4.)

      --
      Copyright Violation:"theft, piracy"::Anti-Trust Violation:"thermonuclear price terrorism"<-Overly dramatic language.
  23. No. MS is more subtle than that by kfg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Here's how it works. The new version of Office comes out, and it's perfectly backward compatable.

    But it isn't *forward* compatible.

    So all you have to do is get one company that a lot of other companies need to do business with in on the plot and get them to make the switch.

    Your Office documents are perfectly readable by them, but everything they send YOU your older version can't read. So if you want to continue to do business with them you have to switch too.

    It's a very effective way to force upgrades without giving any overt appearance that that's what you're doing.

    They don't lock you out of your documents. They lock you out of everybody else's.

    KFG

    1. Re:No. MS is more subtle than that by Billy+the+Mountain · · Score: 1

      Your Office documents are perfectly readable by them, but everything they send YOU your older version can't read. So if you want to continue to do business with them you have to switch too.

      For this reason, I always insist on RTF. If they send it in RTF, then all versions of most WP software can read it.

      BTM

      --
      That was the turning point of my life--I went from negative zero to positive zero.
    2. Re:No. MS is more subtle than that by VividU · · Score: 1

      but everything they send YOU your older version can't read

      Nice try but it's not true. Microsoft has always provided free viewers for all their Office file formats.

      Now you might not be able to edit those files, but thats a different argument and a far cry from your FUD.

    3. Re:No. MS is more subtle than that by andrewski · · Score: 1

      Goddamn this is why we have RTF. And PDF! For heaven's sake, MS builds interoperability into Word and 97% of the people in the corporate world are completely incapable of going to File, Save As..., Type: .rtf! It really is ultimately the fault of people who are never trined to take the one extra step that would make everything interpoerate! Gah! It hurts me in my brain to think about this.

    4. Re:No. MS is more subtle than that by Hyperhaplo · · Score: 1


      Well yes, but there is always Open Office.

      I've never trually understood the 'upgrade path' for "M$ Office". So far as I know, Office 97 SR2 works on 98, nt, 2000 and XP. Why upgrade?

      --
      You have a sick, twisted mind. Please subscribe me to your newsletter.
    5. Re:No. MS is more subtle than that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they did what you suggest, that means everyone everywhere would have to (remember to) perform multiple additional clicks before they could EVER save.

      The better fix is to click the options button on the save dialog, and force your DEFAULT save format to RTF, or at the very least Word 95 format.

  24. Re:What happens when MS has a new version of Offic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    When counterfeit comes into play the feds are alot more aggressive. MS isn't likely going to circumvent NSA friendly encrytion and the damaging effects of another goverment undertaking fraud during a bull run could cripple the markets for a very long time means somebody is/or will be watching.

    I maybe paranoid but I believe pretty much everything sent over the internet has a copy someplace, with software constantly sniffing for profiles, patterns, etc...and comparing it to public data, simply because I would.

    Happenstance or a socially engineered blunder is always doable, but a threat to national security and/or a potential charge of treason becomes applicable. Deterrent becomes the best form of prevention as well as seperating a greedy capitalist goat from a real terrorist/threat.

  25. Absolute power..... by Loosewire · · Score: 0

    Its the same as the story about office 11 DRM people will love trustworthy computeing and the ability to limit who see's their word documents. If you give someone a little power they will generally take advantage and start getting all big headed about it. With this, people will sit there for hours customising the security for a document their going to send a freind about something which requires no security at all. "Oooh ill let them store it in encrypted format but no printing or anything unsecure". all this for a textfile about what they did at the weekend. :-(

    --
    Slashdot - The one stop shop for procrastination
  26. Trustworthiness and security by voodoo1man · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The entire industry needs to place a higher priority on building trustworthy systems, even though this means building systems that have fewer features and that take longer to deploy because of increased development times.

    So now we're supposed to waste our time fiddling our thumbs about broken trust and rights "management" crap? This is the same stunt MS pulled by claiming Windows met "Orange Book" (from the NSA Rainbow Series of books) "security" standards. Of course, Access Control Lists don't do much if your OS is full of buffer overflows and similar exploits, and this is ignoring the issue that ACLs don't do much at all and don't do it very well anyway. This seems like an overly expensive way of distracting customers from the real security issues (ha! like that one-month code review jerk-off session really accomplished anything).

    I can see only two benefits coming from this. Likely the grants those professors are receiving from MS will trickle down to some poor, hungry grad students who actually deserve it. Also, if the quote above has any relevance to MS's own development plans (but I'm not holding my breath), maybe people forced to use MS software will have to suffer through less feature bloat and mandatory-upgrade new versions.

    --

    In the great CONS chain of life, you can either be the CAR or be in the CDR.

  27. Microsoft is dieing. No trolling intended here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously. How can you stop a compeditor that doesn't have bills to pay, or debt? I mean, I was worried back in the day. I was sure they'd come up with some way of simply taking advantage of strong political ties to make Linux essentially illegal. That doesn't even matter anymore. Money is getting invested. Huge companies are in. I used to flat out laugh at the "world domination" types on here because it just sounded so silly. My argument was always, who cares about the rest of the world. How can they stop something free? It's turning out to be their achilles heel. Microsoft can't buy Linux out. Microsoft is moving too slowly to make something that can compete on cost. They've spent a fortune on trying to market their way out of this inevitable approaching death, and people just don't buy it anymore. I'm not saying that Microsoft will fade into the distance. That's just not realistic. But they will have to give up the childish name calling and get onboard at some point. The sooner they realize they need to give up the server market and embrace Linux as much as they can, the less money they'll bleed down the road. If they don't, they'll lose the server market within a short time, then they'll slowly lose the desktop market. It's all right there in black and white. It's what I see. I can't be the only one. Imagine all the PHB's reading articles going "wow, that geeky guy telling me about Linux years ago was right. We need Linux now". I don't even feel silly saying that. I would have a year ago. Scott McNeilly in a Penguin suit speaks volumes. It's only a matter of time now.

    1. Re:Microsoft is dieing. No trolling intended here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree and most of the time (MS)they are just sucking up other companies ideas (Linux, Novel)repackaging and selling them to the masses as though they invented the wheel along with the internet yad yad Hail King Bill don't get me wrong a great job of salesmenship as always but just more MS BS Besides this is nothing new it was in server 2000 just in a slightly different format

  28. Enterprise Customers already are forced to upgrade by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Part of the agreement is you upgrade to the new version, before the 'grace period', as your license to use the previous version is revoked.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  29. RMS by teamhasnoi · · Score: 1
    I thought I'd present angry Linux users with some new acronyms - gotta stay ahead of the MS marketing department...

    Reinstall Most Software
    Rape My Self
    Repeal Most Sense
    Rights Missing Soon
    Really Most Stupid
    Retarded Man Steve
    Rights My asS
    Repeat My Sales
    Relicense More Stuff
    Rent My Software

    All of these are freely useable, but only on one computer at a time.

    1. Re:RMS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Repellent Marxist Stooge.

      Oh, wait. That's not an eggageration, when it comes to Stallman.

  30. Are 'time-bombed documents' illegal? by nurb432 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As an evasion of the law, its not much different then paper shredding of documents that shows one guilt.. "paperless office"

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  31. I am sick of all this... by Raphtor · · Score: 1

    You know I am really sick of all this. I guess I'm in the minority but I spend a ton of money on CDs - mostly SACD...I would say probably $500 so far this year. I want to have the highest resolution sound I can get for the music I like...so downloading mp3s is a waste of my time. What the ****, just buy the music!

    1. Re:I am sick of all this... by viperblades · · Score: 2

      i'll buy the music when i can buy a custom cd. i don't buy a cd when i just want 1 song off of it. maybe you do, but it's a ripoff to be forced to pay for 10+ songs you don't want

    2. Re:I am sick of all this... by yerricde · · Score: 1

      I want to have the highest resolution sound I can get for the music I like

      Then how do you know what music you like?

      --
      Will I retire or break 10K?
  32. Re:What happens when MS has a new version of Offic by SN74S181 · · Score: 1

    is delivered with MS RMS

    You scared the HELL out of me with that phrase.

    I thought you meant the Microsoft version of Stallman.

  33. Again, I must be paranoid . . . by Idou · · Score: 2, Insightful

    but I don't believe in the "black box" form of security. If something is not transparent to me, then I cannot access whether or not it is secure or not (and neither can a third party), and if I was in the business of security, I would not be meeting my legal obligation of "professional due care" simply by buying a black box.

    If you consider the above "MS bashing" then I think you have been exposing yourself to too much "MS marketing," 'cause I am just telling you how it is. If that is my personal data you are handling, and you are using the MS "black box" to "protect" it, I will sue you and your organization if that information gets out.

    Clear and simple. You are not performing your duty, you are just maintaining a black box on the basis that MS marketing would never lie, and marketing buzz words like "trusted computing" does not change that fact.

    --
    Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
    1. Re:Again, I must be paranoid . . . by t0ny · · Score: 1
      its usually silly to start a sentence (or a post) with the phrase "I dont believe"; once you realize that approximately 99.99999999999999999% of the world doesnt care what you believe, you get the idea of why that is silly. Im not being mean, thats how people are.

      Anyway, whether you agree with black box security or not really doesnt matter. All security is just an illusion anyway, its all just becomes a matter of how long you can get people to buy that illusion. Think of it as speed bumps.

      If Open Source was so ultra-unhackably secure, I could see your point. But its not, nor will it ever be. What MS does is have tons of programmers, all focused in a certain direction. Personally, I dont see it as being that much different than Open Source, except with MS some script kiddie who knows enough to be dangerous cant probe you code for flaws his latest virus can latch on to.

      Also, if you look at the number of people making valuable 'core' contributions to Linux, BSD, etc, its really a very small group of people; its not like every slashdot reader has helped make the kernel.

      Also, since I work with MS products, and you dont, its pretty silly for you to think you can tell me 'how it is'. I am no more an authority on Linux than you are on Windows.

      Also, you cant sue a security consultant unless they are negligent or caused you damages. Since, as I said, all security has holes, its impossible to claim otherwise. Thats why you will never be in a position to make those decisions, because you dont know this stuff.

      --

      Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.

  34. Re:What happens when MS has a new version of Offic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good/bad PR, unrealist employee holdings, buying and selling within itself is what artificially inflated the stock price. Gave the illision of the company being very successful.

    I don't think Ken Lay had much to do with it (he was too insulated), I believe most of his underlings did knowingly perpetrate fraud as well as a few other companies that dealt with Enron. Regardless he did profit off of a fraudulent practice.

  35. *widows*?! by pkphilip · · Score: 1

    *Widows* Rights Management Services to be released later this year

    Microsoft seems pretty serious about this social rights management thing..

  36. There is no need .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's the point. EVERYTHING to do 99% of this task -- already exists and is an open standard or opensource implementation:

    POSIX ACL (good enough)
    Public key encryption
    Kerberos
    PGP

    etc etc etc.

    With these tools secure information and "sensitive corporate documents" can be prevented from "falling into the wrong hands".

    1. Re:There is no need .... by t0ny · · Score: 1
      POSIX: Hax0r'd

      Public Key Encryption: depending on the key length, can be brute forced. Key length just makes it longer.

      Kerebos: some implimentations were bugged. Do a search.

      PGP: 0wN3d.

      All your examples have had flaws revealed in them recently. Care to try again explaining the security of your "wide-open" source?

      --

      Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.

  37. Ulterior motive by Hellkitten · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Seeing how DRM has become a negative abbreviation they are trying to move away from it, but realizing that this could happen to whatever acronym they choose the have chosen one that hurts their opponents too

    If RMS became the tree letters people associate with taking control away from users and into the hands of the bic corportaions houw would that affect the credibility of free software champion RMS?

    --
    - We are the slashdot. Resistance is futile. Prepare to be moderated -
    1. Re:Ulterior motive by Thing+1 · · Score: 1
      If RMS became the tree letters people associate with taking control away from users and into the hands of the bic corportaions houw would that affect the credibility of free software champion RMS?

      If Microsoft can sue Lindows for being one letter off, I'm sure RMS can sue Microsoft for being exactly the same.

      Of course, MS has $40 billion to keep appealing so RMS won't ever win.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  38. Seems like the same old crap to me. by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 3, Funny

    Though I find it amusing that MS is pushing it as a sort of security option instead of as a privacy invading option. "Protect sensitive corporate documents?"

    From what? Have I been missing the "sensitive corporate document" section in Kazaa? Can I, without the aid of several illegal tools which I would never never never even THINK about using simply go and download sensitive corporate documents without their permission?

    Besides the way corporations have been going I'm not sure that anything that increases their document security is automatically a good idea. I know they're going to screw me, but I'd rather see it coming.

    --
    ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
  39. Anti-Trust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On the plus side this is what will likely hang them no matter how many words they use to define Anti-Trust.

  40. Yet another reason by Bendebecker · · Score: 1

    To switch to Linux

    --
    There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
    most of us won't be able to afford it.
    -- Lemmy
  41. Re:What happens when MS has a new version of Offic by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1
    He is the CEO. How can he possibly not know whats going on or what Enron's bottum line is. A ceo may not know every detail within a company but the companies economic model is certianly known by any CEO.

    I also find it interesting that the only person who had evidence of Lay's guilt commited suicide. hmmm can you say murder/cover-up? I believe Kennith hired someone to kill him.

  42. easy to do by infonography · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Here's a good one check out this about CORDS [loc.gov]

    " The U.S. Copyright Office Electronic Registration Recordation and Deposit System is the Copyright Office's system for registering claims over the Internet. Through the Internet, copyrighted works become available throughout the world instantaneously. As copying these digital works becomes easier, copyright protection is imperative."

    Actually this could be cool, however following it to a illogical conclusion there are loopholes for massive abuse. A media file would have a locatable Digital signature that a filtering router could read. Check against a database for known bootlegs and you got your filter. (hmmm, run it on a linux box and finally get some RIAA/Evil use out of those longhaired geeks)

    If no Digital sig is found then implant one and forward the file and new sig so the RIAA can add it to the registry for later review. Cause it could be a new burn of the latest N'Sync song or that one about Fred Durst telling Britney Spears to drop dead. you could plot the movement of files from user/site to user/site and show who gave what to who and when. You end up with a nifty tracking scheme.

    This is a classic 'Man in the Middle' attack, one of those things the RIAA/MPAA wanted to do not so long ago.

    Opps, You would have a way to hit them back. Say your ISP, the UofWhereEver goes and alters a music file with a fingerprint then they are subverting your property. If the file is legally obtained say self-produced then the original artist (you) will have a very clear case for copyright infringement. They will have created and distributed a reproduction of your recording for 'Commercial Gain' (acting as an agent for a speculative RIAA lawsuit), which is 99.94%, exactly the same as your copyrighted material.

    So they have just violated Federal Copyright law by clandestinely adding a digital fingerprint. You can extract this new tag by doing a diff of the file against the orginal. Even a certain lackwitted judge in say Pennsylvania would be able to understand it then.

    yes this is a rerun

    --
    Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
    1. Re:easy to do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Puts to pot fair use, eh?
      So basicly generating a UPC (Universal Product Code) for work I produce, and lets say distribute said material throughout the 'system' as registered is out of the question?

      I've been waiting for that Audiogy Recording Studio card (am quality, but mixes nicely) and possibly listening to it on the local radio during happy hour. I hear it's going to come with a napster like program, but with tight controls on what can be distrubited over it's network.

  43. yet another gripe about microsoft by CjKing2k · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Operating systems perform basic tasks, such as recognizing input from the keyboard, sending output to the display screen, keeping track of files and directories on the disk, and controlling peripheral devices such as disk drives and printers.[webopedia.com]
    Nowhere in does this mention anything about deciding what programs/documents the user can and cannot open. An OS is desined to give functionality to a computer, not a tool to implement bureaucratic policies and legal restrictions (e.g. the Palladium and other DRM nightmares).

    Now, getting back to WRMS (for Stallman's sake I'll call it WRMS from now on). The difference between this and paper shredding is that you now get to keep the documents you're trying to hide. Think of how many Enrons and Arther Andersens still out there now have digital protection! Once again, Microsoft caters to big corporations that invest lots of money into the computer industry and want to see things their way. This does not help the rest of us, and if the Enron scam happens again because of this (and it will), then it will hurt our economy again.
    Enter Palladium, just another part of Microsoft's new restrictive practices. I think we should petition Intel against killing its own platform. We've gone very far from the 80's now, and I think if this does not stop it will only get worse. I'm no legal expert, but I see Palladium as a violation of the 4th amendment in the US constitution. Your PC is as much private to you as your house is. Criminals can break into computer just as well as a burglar can crawl through that open window in your back yard when you're not home. However, the police still can't get in without your permission or a warrant. DRM is, by design, used to find illegal material and warezed software then delete it or report it. How is this any different from search and seizure?

    Now for those of you who are worried are going to lose your freedoms, just remember who's really at fault here. It is the people who swap thousands of MP3's every day, download warez and illegal keys.. basically those too cheap to actually pay for your software and music. Granted, I don't think it's right for Microsoft to charge 200 bucks for an OS, but that's one of the reasons I'm using Linux. I still don't believe it's right what they're doing, but the blame should really be placed on most of the /. h4x0r w4nn4b3's who are adding fuel to the fire. If you're a corporation and you're really paranoid about your sensitive documents getting into the wrong hands, then maybe you should be more concerned about keeping your networks secure (one way would be by not using Microsoft products) and choosing your employees wisely.

  44. Use OpenOffice.org instead of MS Office by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.OpenOffice.org

  45. If DRM is bad, is RMS bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Digital Rights Management is commonly referred to as DRM. Will Rights Management Service be abbreviated to RMS? If so, will "RMS" get a bad rep?

  46. Why DRM? Stupid users need fixing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Our CPA accountant started a bunch of flack last week about "spam censoring". Come to find out the real reason was that one person accessed her spreadsheet of employee wages. Which is irrelevant because we are a government office and the information is posted everywhere plus "direct deposit" slips laying on desks.

    Stupid "penny polisher" does not know how to password protect Excel and Word. Much less setting up directories with permissions.

    But that is ok. I no longer have fix their problems and they a fixing to get ripped of the the server hubs and have to go back to 56k dial-up on there penny-pinching boxes, while the rest of the office enjoys 2000k cable.

    My $0.175us [includes Dubya Inflation Factor]

  47. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  48. Re:What happens when MS has a new version of Offic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I maybe paranoid but I believe pretty much everything sent over the internet has a copy someplace, with software constantly sniffing for profiles, patterns, etc...and comparing it to public data, simply because I would.

    Just because you posted this anonymously doesn't mean we don't know who you are. We know who you are, oh yes, we know. You can count on that.

    When your phone rings tonight, but nobody is there, that'll be us sending you a message. Be afraid Paul, be very afraid...

  49. A convicted monopolist ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    creates software that denies access to all new documents to all other software, and makes it a crime to do so anyway. (That's right, it will be a crime to read your own documents without permission (a license) from ms).

    The first thing they protect is "web content". The first thing they protect it from, is mozilla (no matter what the policy, mozilla won't be able to read it). They've done this before, they've been convicted for this exact action.

    This is not only accepted by most people (even most people on slashdot seem to agree), but actually considered "necessary" by some people.

    MS clearly does not have a grain of respect for the law. Convictions are settled out-of-court (even with the government) and crimes repeated.

    This is the final straw for me. MS will no longer be able to count on my ethics. If ever I see somebody pirating windows, I will not only not report them to anyone (I *will* obviously report a LOT of genuine copies, to cause those people as much trouble as possible, as they are paying money to a criminal organisation), I will actively encourage them ("would you like a copy of office with that ?"), and help them to hide their crime if necessary. If ever anyone asks me for a "cheap" copy of windows, or office, I will do my best to deliver it to them. I will also hide this as necessary from police, and defend anyone they accuse, even if it means perjury (provided it isn't too obvious ;-) ).

    I will also start putting documents as much as possible in non-ms-readable format on the web (preferably pgp encrypted), and modify my website to deny access to ms's browsers. I will attempt to cause the organisations I belong to to switch to non-microsoft formats, and "forget" any ms document they send me or ask me to forward or look at.

    At least one mailserver will, starting tomorrow, refuse *.doc documents. It will mark them as viruses and misinform the person who sent them.

  50. My sweet lord, infonography... by yerricde · · Score: 1

    If the file is legally obtained say self-produced then the original artist (you) will have a very clear case for copyright infringement.

    A recording is distinct from its underlying musical work. If you self-produced the recording, then who wrote the song? If you claim to have written the song yourself, how do you know you didn't unconsciously copy it from somebody else's copyrighted work?

    So they have just violated Federal Copyright law by clandestinely adding a digital fingerprint.

    And you have just violated Federal Copyright law by recording somebody else's song.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  51. I have to pick a nit here by inode_buddha · · Score: 1

    ...about this naming scheme, aka "Rights Management Services".

    Regardless of all the digs at Richard M. Stallman, I must ask: since when does another person (or a virtual person in the form of a corporate body) have the right to dictate the framework that my own rights will operate within?

    Last time I checked, the only way to abrogate one's rights was to do so voluntarily, and with complete knowledge. Of courrse, this may apply within certain sub-contexts of the overall culture. (ie, work NDA's, etc.)

    FWIW, this is not new stuff, it's very reminiscient of the POSIX ACL's and the military's experiments with Multics (also did it in hardware and syscalls) during the '70's. Problem is, at least they started with systems that had some clue to begin with.

    --
    C|N>K
    1. Re:I have to pick a nit here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ALL Operating systems I have have allowed you complete control - you had root/sysadmin, and you laid down the law. You have the master key.
      to pay $400 for an OS, and not have absolute control is bullshit, can't do claws in ones throat. Roxio found out - users only want to hear can do

  52. You're spot on! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The people in Office who do the DRM decision making actually report up through Brian Valentine, Windows VP. Brian has been getting quite pissed off about the number of leaked confidential documents from him and his team. Palladium and Office 12 will definately be designed together to stop this from happening.

    Isn't it great when you are the client for something you are making... you tend to care a whole lot more in that scenario.

  53. I fail to grasp your logic by Idou · · Score: 1

    If someone doesn't care about what I think, they won't read my post. Whether or not I start a post with "I believe" (which I like to qualify some posts with, so that readers don't mistaken me as the "spokesperson for Open Source") has nothing to do with whether or not I expect others to care about what I post. It appears you have made many assumptions about aspects of this world and expect the rest of us to just go along with you (a mirror reflection of your relations with MS, but I digress . . .).

    Should I go through the merits of Open Source, as I have done countless of times here and at other forums? If IBM, HP, Dell, Matsushita, Sony, and, even, Sun are able to understand these merits, how could I expect to open the eyes of an individual who STILL doesn't get it?

    No, you appear far too lost in your own assumptions to be able to benefit from such an explanation. But I will make a prediction. I give you 3 scenarios of your future:

    1. You embrace open source and find yourself catching up with the rest of the world. You learn the difference between security and illusion.

    2. You continue to turn your back to open source, until such a time that MS' makes a final effort to create a competing TCO with Open Source by making your position obsolete (some would argue it has already happened).

    3. You continue to turn your back to open source, until such a time when ALL organizations require ALL alternatives to be considered. You are terminated for being incompetent.

    Pick one soon before one picks you.

    --
    Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
  54. Word won't save in RTF any more by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 1

    Yes, technically, MS-Word can save in RTF. However, in practice, you get quite a few warning messages. The first ones will scare non-technical users into saving in MS-Word's latest format. The last few are actually confusing and you have to experiment a few times to find out "Do you want to save your changes?" means "Do you want to overwrite RTF with the lastest MS-Word format?"

    --
    Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
    1. Re:Word won't save in RTF any more by andrewski · · Score: 1

      No Fuckin' Way! MS is definately in the business of taking advantage of naive users.

      Oh well. All those Visio users are shitting their pants with jealousy over OmniGraffle. Maybe they'll switch to Mac and OpenOffice.

  55. Using MS-Office monopoly as a lever for Palladium by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 1
    If Microsoft is not just trying to force sales of MS-Windows Server 2003, then it looks like it's choosing MS-Office instead of MS-Windows to lay the groundwork for Palladium. If they tried to put it into MS-Windows first, people would finish migrating to another OS.

    Right now many are less aware or concerned about the issue of proprietary data formats than they are over OSes. Another key is that MS-Office (for the time being) has even a higher market penetration than MS-Windows.

    It extends Microsoft's MS-Windows monopoly by requiring at least one Serer 2003 at each site. It also has the potential to lock out non-Windows or End-of-Life'd MS-Windows distros:

    A user's computer must be able to access the Windows Server 2003 running RMS on first opening a document to authenticate the rights and decrypt the document. Otherwise, the document cannot be opened.
    If that wasn't clear enough, it has the potential to lock out competitors and End-of-Life'd MS-Windows distros:
    the operating systems must use XrML (Extensible Rights Markup Language) in the same way Microsoft does...Otherwise, the document could not be opened on the non-Windows operating system.
    Palladium can be used to determine which hardware is allowed access:
    In the future, Microsoft plans to replace the underlying "platform" with the forthcoming security technology formerly known as Palladium," Nash said. RMS is solely a software technology, whereas Palladium will add hardware security chips as an additional protection and rights management mechanism.

    In short it's about control -- this would give the last bit of control of data away, out of the hands of users / businesses. This is not just a U.S. problem. It is also an issue for non-US companies, governments and agencies. Once 100% control over the data is given away, then both hardware and software budgets are effectively determined by outsiders. Access to data would be controlled by outsiders as well -- who is to say that there isn't a backdoor or that product activation wouldn't be used to "blockade" the data of an agency or competing company.

    --
    Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
  56. RMS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good to know that the experts in Really Mis-managed Systems is going to do something about their security.

    Maybe this time the next security flaw will take, oh maybe 5 more seconds then normal to find.

  57. Last Post! by alpg · · Score: 0

    *** DO YOU HAVE A RESTLESS URGE TO PROGRAM? ***
    Do you want the instant respect that comes from being able to use technical
    terms that nobody understands? Do you want to strike fear and loathing into
    the hearts of DP managers everywhere? If so, then let the Famous Programmers'
    School lead you on... into the world of professional computer programming.

    *** IS PROGRAMMING FOR YOU? ***
    Programming is not for everyone. But, if you have the desire to learn, we can
    help you get started. All you need is the Famous Programmers' Course and
    enough money to keep those lessons coming month after month.

    *** TAKE OUR FREE APTITUDE TEST ***
    To help determine if you are qualified to be a programmer, take a moment to
    try this simple test:
    (1) Write down the numbers from zero to nine and the first six letters
    of the alphabet (Hint: 0123456789ABCDEF).
    (2) Whose picture is on the back of a twenty-dollar bill?
    (3) What is the state capital of Idaho?
    If you managed to read all three questions without wondering why we asked
    them, you may have a future as a computer programmer.

    - this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...