Slashdot Mirror
Trusted Computing Group Formed
An anonymous reader writes "How does it come that the formation of the Trusted Computing Group goes unnoticed at /.? On Wednesday, heise had the story. At last, we will get `easily-accessible specifications for trusted computing standards that will ultimately let people work, conduct transactions, and use computing devices with a new level of confidence' ..."
... but I trust nobody but myself... not my Mom not my Daddi... and certainly an orgainzation with all the loopholes that this will create... It's a great idea in theory... Standards are the most important thing that can possibly come of this...
||| I still can't believe Parkay's not butter.
Probably not. But there -are- ways it could get better.
:>). They want you buying everything you want to watch, listen to or use. If they find out that by abusing their customers will result in no sales, you can bet the whole DRM train will be derailed before too long.
1) Don't buy the stuff. Old computer works? Keep it. Delay upgrading as long as possible. Visit the computer store occasionally for upgrades, but leave without buying anything if all they can offer you is hardware with DRM.
2) Don't listen to, or watch the stuff. Yeah, it's hard not to go to a movie now and again, I know. It's fun to do (albeit expensive). But most of the money you hand over for your ticket goes directly into the pocket of the people that are doing this to you. Rent a movie. Listen to an old CD you've bought, tape things from the radio, but don't go out and buy those new CD's. -Especially- not the DRM protected ones.
3) If you do go out to buy a CD, follow somewhat of a similar procedure to that of computer hardware. Bring your CD up to the counter. Tell them you have an old CD player, and all these protected CD's won't play in it. Tell them you've had to bring back about 10 CD's to various different stores because the protection on them was messing with your CD player, and if this one doesn't work you might as well just give up on buying them altogether. Whether it's true for you or not, it likely -is- true for the hundreds of people who really -can't- play these CD's, and at the same time, you'll be indirectly helping to protect your fair use rights.
There's a number of ways you can let these people know that it's not going to work, that you're not going to put up with it, but you have to -do- something about it. This whole DRM movement that's sure to cost the computing industry billions before the end is about money..they want more of it. They don't want you to download MP3's or movies, they don't want you stealing software (not that either of those is necessarily right in the first place, but that's another argument entirely
It feels like we've been fed buggy apps for two decades, and now we're told the solution for unreliable software is restriction of our abilites and freedoms. It almost sounds like they've intentionally created the problem, having had the solution in mind the whole time. What happened to the concept of solving buggy apps by getting rid of the bugs in the code?
I honestly don't think that trusted computing will be possible or extant until there are trusted humans.
C|N>K
Your remark could be right if MS was the only company supporting the platform. Funny you name Lotus as an example. It is now owned by IBM, one of the supporters...
They need to get rid of the word 'trust' as it's misleading. If I was to set up to make a product that allowed the user full control of their system would that be 'untrusted' and if so by whom? By the morons pushing TCPA?
The word they are looking for is 'RESTRICTED'! Just how much trust are we supposed to have in companies who collude to bring us a technology that has been deliberately given a misleading name?
We all understand that "Trusted Computing" simply means whether or not Microsoft trusts us to run a program.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Well, if you need your nitroglycerine or your glucose pill, you've got just a few minutes before it's too late. If a passerby is bright enough to recognise a problem, they're likely also bright enough to read the label on the pill bottle you're vainly clawing at.
Let's take "only the registered user can access it" to an extreme: doors will no longer let anyone inside who isn't registered to that house. Great for preventing burglary, and never again will you have to worry about losing your keys -- your house will know you and let you in anyway, while keeping everyone else out. So your house is on fire but the doors won't let in the neighbour or fireman who's trying to rescue your kid. Or a burglar just puts a gun (hacked so anyone can use it, of course) to your head and tells you to open the door.
As to acceleration limiters: the reason they're not done to enforce the speed limit (or even slightly above the limit) is that doing so is hideously dangerous. It means ANY time you're caught in a situation where you need to get out of some oncoming vehicle's way in a hurry, YOU CAN'T. And that situation happens a lot more often than you might think, especially on busy freeways.
And finally, do you really want to live in a world where you're never, ever allowed to take risks? Because control over access and control over what risks (which includes doing anything new or different from the herd) you're allowed to take are flip sides of the same coin.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
They keep saying this isn't DRM, but it's most of the building blocks you need for DRM. And most of the applications they mention are possible without hardware support via an encrypted filesystem. All you need for Palladium is an OS which refuses to boot without the right user, computer, and boot parameters.
The other thing to note is that they keep stressing RAND (Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory) licenses. Non-discriminatory means every organization pays patent licenses on the same formula. If the formula doesn't contain provisions to allow for open source software, then open source software can't use the standard.
Only means what THEY can trust. It will surely have better security, but it is more in their interest than yours. Think of it this way: These corporations (Micro$oft in particular) are NOT on your side. Their only objective is to figure out ways to keep you trapped in their grasp, and, by so doing, capitalize on your dependence.
I have a good idea where they are going with this whole "Trusted" Computing move. Things like open hardware standards and Free Software give you the freedom (MOST IMPORTANT WORD) to have excellent commodity products, as well as competition which acts in the best interest of the consumer by keeping manufacturers honest. The problem is that it diminishes the ability of a company like Micro$oft to control you. Their ONLY option would be to actually *compete* and *innovate*. Considering the incredible pace of Free Software development, they don't stand much of a chance to continue to reap the profits they have in the past. They know this VERY WELL.
So, what do they do instead? Come up with the idea of Trusted Computing. Convince the public (the government especially) that Free/Open Software is somehow less secure (nice fat lie); Convince the government that Free Software is for terrorists (easy in this paranoid, self-righteous era); Convince the government to outlaw Free implementations and require proprietary ones provided by yours truly, Macro$haft.
"He who has ears, let him hear". The encroachment of Big Brother is very real. Security for Big Brother; Paranoia for you; The Almighty Buck for them.
They can never win unless we are ignorant enough to allow their FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) propaganda to become law. Be careful what you are made to believe. And be VERY careful WHAT and WHO you vote and pay for.
hateddamntruth.