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'"

Comments

Widows Right Management?

[Hydrogenoid]

Is Microsoft expanding to life insurance?

What happens when MS has a new version of Office?

[rickthewizkid]

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

Good stuff

[t0ny]

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).

Re:Good stuff

[GammaTau]

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.

Re:Good stuff

[Col. Klink (retired)]

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

MS Dogfood

[Flamesplash]

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.

Re:What happens when MS has a new version of Offic

[Billly Gates]

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!

Microsoft Widows indeed

[ubiquitin]

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

Re:What happens when MS has a new version of Offic

[Billly Gates]

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.

I must be paranoid . . .

[Idou]

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 . . .).

Re:The question is...

[kfg]

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

No. MS is more subtle than that

[kfg]

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

easy to do

[infonography]

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