Slashdot Mirror
Gates on Digital Restrictions Technologies
doormat writes "According to this article, Gates says you can choose not to use the new secure PC technology that they're developing. Is that going to be a choice like being a vegetarian, or like choosing not to eat at all?" There's also a short piece about DRM and Linux, which is a follow-up to Linus on DRM.
If I opt out what will stop working?
How will I know for sure I am out?
Is that going to be a choice like being a vegetarian, or like choosing not to eat at all?
It is going to be a choice like eating cheese at midnight on Tuesday.
Life is the leading cause of death in America.
The technology is going to be like cars. You don't need one but not having one is a restriction in itself.
There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
most of us won't be able to afford it.
-- Lemmy
Verbatim from the article:
"They just don't understand," Gates said. "That's like saying because we make a word processor, that reporters write what we want them to write or something. I can give you examples to prove that's not the case." (About antitrust fears with DRM)
Wow. He sure allayed my fears. What he meant to say is, no, they don't have to write what he wants, but they do have to write in the FORMAT he wants, or get left behind. This whole DRM off-switch issue is the same quandary. Turn DRM off and watch your access to many online resources, that are becoming more and more integrated with daily life, vanish. Not to mention the suspicion that very well may come with shunning DRM. "What do you have to hide?", say Mr. Poindexter and Mr. Ashcroft.
Maybe it's just me, but I would think that such a system would also enable terrorists to send "sensitive files" to each other, with the full confidence that law enforcement could not read them.
Consider the above statement reworded a little:
Creators of top-secret documents, terrorist plans or other sensitive material could assign rights to sensitive files, allowing them to be viewed only on trusted computers running the system. Anyone else -- FBI hackers, law enforcement and malicious programs included -- would be locked out.The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
Consumers shouldn't be worried that Microsoft Corp.'s new security technology will wrest control of their PCs and give it to media companies, Bill Gates said Tuesday.
And we're supposed to believe someone who has a pretty good grip on the OS situation, and would do anything to keep that grip? Personally, I would rather have the chance of being hacked but also have the ability to do anything I want on my computer. I don't want a company telling me what I can and cannot do with my own computer. If we allow them to do this, who knows how much farther these guys will go?
"Some fight for law. Some fight for justice. What will you fight for? One day, you will see."
why has security been linked so much DRM these days ? Whenever i read an article on some kind of rights management initiative - there is almost talk about securing the PC. Security & DRM are two different things ! wih gates works on them individually.
Its amazing how the quote from Benjamin dude works so well here.
Those who are willing to trade freedom for security deserve neither freedom nor security
Seems like there always was , will be people trying to take away freedom under the pretext of security - even in computing !
Siggy Say, Siggy Do
In the interview, Gates said it's up to other companies to ensure interoperability.
Thank you Microsoft. No need for comments here.
The actual technology is more of a framework for building possible restrictions on than a set of restrictions in itself.
What matters is whether it is used A) to protect specific things whose owners feel they need protecting or B) to just generally exclude software and data transfer that doesn't have corporate approval.
I must say, it looks to me as if the influence of Microsoft may well be somewhat lower by the time this technology (or similar) is released than it is now. So it'll be no so much 'Microsoft technology' as 'global corporate culture' that determines the level of restriction we eventually experience.
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
the internet was built on the 'end-to-end' principle - let the applications dictate the ultimate use of the network. the same principle has allowed software to be highly innovative. while the current model can lead to insecurities, it also allows for innovation. for example, suppose i'm building software for a PDA - is it wrong to import address/contact info from outlook express? with palladium, i'm sure only 'trusted' applications will be allowed to do that (i.e. the company that paid MS for access). no doubt this will allow MS to control the pace of innovation and guide its development....
smd4985
The people that microsoft constantly tout that the DRM features are designed to integrate security with the hardware and the software. How the hell can I trust a company that consistently falls down on security with their software products to "protect" my hardware?
I don't have a big problem with Windows being insecure, because data can be backed up and restored painlessly, but if their brand of "security" extends to my hardware then I may have to be forced to constantly replace hard drives that spin at 40,000 RPM because of "security" flaws befor a patch can be released.
The whole Palladium/DRM issue is about trust. They don't have it for me and I don't have it for them.
What if I am vegan? I never get any choices.
Shouldn't it say, be a meat eater, or choose not to eat? I mean, a meat eater can eat everything a vegitarian can eat, but a vegitarian cannot eat everything a meat eater can eat.
So long as software is read and interpreted by some piece of hardware, there will ALWAYS exist the possibility of hacking that software. Yeah you can create monster keys from hell and lock them down in hardware but, as the XBox project has shown, all it takes is a bug in a signed piece of software and you can kiss your secured system bye bye. Also, there may be exploits available in the firmware itself and there's the popular brute force attack too. If you connect a box (Microsoft, Linux, Mac, etc) to any network, you implicitly accept a certain level of risk of being compromised. This effort will just lead to more complacency. The only truly 100% secured system system is one that's powered off.
Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
I think a big problem with this is the companies are trying to use hardware restrictions on a primarily social problem. It's not the big companies that are providing their movies and music on a digital format that is being distributed. It's regular people who are taking camcorders into theatres and recording the movie, then downloading it onto their computer and sharing it. How can a hardware restriction effect a user created file if the user doesn't apply rights to it? You would have to disable all file mobility.
Trying to lock down the movie and sound formats won't work either because people will either (a) use older formats or (b) create their own players to be shared with the movies and music.
It take more faith to believe in evolution than it takes to believe in God
Microsoft should learn to produce secure products with its existing technology, before they assume the mantel of taking care of security for an entire consumer demographic.
Haven't they learned that one size doesn't fit all, yet?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear to be bright. Until you hear them speak.
While I dont agree with the levels of restrictions being imposed I think many people have reached the point where they will view computing with mistrust until security can pretty much be guaranteed and this has been a stumbing block for the industry.
I think this mistrust has provided the platform for Micrsoft(et al) and Digital media producers to leap on common fears and drive for acceptance of this new and excessive paradigm. So instead of being able to use our computers in a secure environment the security environment will tell us what we can do with our computers.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
In essence, what we have here is a admission that we've reached the end of the line in closed source computer/software innovation (perhaps with the exception of Apple). The only way for MS and their cronies to hold on to the desktop computer market now is with a lock and key.
This would be the way they got the masses to follow. It's the whole pleasure/pain thing. They see the pain in the ass of not having these "special abilities", so they give up the pleasure of free will.
Sean D.
"Hmm. I am to metaphor cheese as metaphor cheese is to transitive verb crackers!"
The people that respond to these buttons will be the government, content and software companies, corporations and joe dumb user. Most of these people either don't think about or care about the hidden agenda chained to M$'s master plan. This agenda includes:
The difference between Canada and the USA is that in Canada healthcare is a right and gun ownership is a privilege.
The really scary thing is, I think Gates honestly believes he's creating more "choice" instead of more potential for restrictions. Only problem is, it's going to come down to "you can either choose to be secure (and perforce go with an all-M$, completely DRM'd solution), or you can be out in the cold with only marginal, half-baked choices."
Look at Windows in today's market. You can either use Windows and WinApps, or be a marginalized user, even in those areas where lockout isn't intentional. It just happens, due to market forces being prone to go with the mainstream because that's where the money is.
And what happens when ISPs start requiring that you use a "secure" OS to access their servers??
I generally prefer Windows as my OS, but all too often I'd like to drown M$ in some of their own ideas -- and this is one of 'em. Bah, humbug.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
My guess is that 3rd party apps won't be affected. Just a guess, mind you. Other than that, you may have problems with any software purchased from Microsoft(Office, etc). Also, I'm guessing that later generations of "pay per song" services that sell music for pennies per song will want to sell you music files that will only work on one computer and that will not be useable without DRM active on your machine.
The real question to ask is: "If I opt out, what software provided by my system's manufacturer(Gateway, Dell, etc) will cease to function?". That is, if you buy systems from companies like those. I'm not sure if anyone buying a system from an OEM will care about DRM, but oh well.
What he's really saying is that creators' control over their media is more important than my own control over my property -- like, my computer, or eventually, my ears. Maybe we should all get implants so that we don't accidentally hear songs that we're not licensed to listen to...
In the interview, Gates said it's up to other companies to ensure interoperability.
Thank you Microsoft. No need for comments here.
This is exactly what the laywers should have went after on the Antitrust lawsuit - No matter how well you make your product, if it competes with Microsoft, They will FSCK up their system enough so your product will not work, but theirs will, then they will tell you that it is up to you to ensure interoperability.
Examples - Try using Frontpage behind a Squid Proxy - won't work, but it works with their proxy server. It probably could be fixed on the squid side, but the problem is Frontpage doesn't use standard communication protocols.
Or how about every time Windows gets updated, Samba somehow mysteriously has errors that need to be worked out. If Microsoft was NOT a monopoly, they sure as hell would make sure that Windows worked with other servers - just look at how Windows 95 worked reasonably well with Netware Servers.
Or how about they add something to Windows, like Movie Maker, but they want to extend their Monopoly, so they make it so it will only save in their new WMV format and nothing else.
Sorry for the rant, but this is exactly the mentality that Microsoft has. The Department of Justice dropped the ball, and apparently Microsoft is picking it up and running with it.
We have opt out, but what about opt-different
Will I have the option to USE the DRM hardware to enforce my own security policies? Will that be made easy (freely available documentation and utilities), hard (flash my own BIOS), really hard (get out the soldering iron), or nearly impossible (crack this massive key or cut this connection in the CPU's core).
That's the real question. Unless it's easy, they're just making the consumer pay for things they don't necessarily want.
Again, let me repeat another solution to their very weak DRM:
- Rip your AAC files to CD-DA.
- Mix them up in your playlist.
- Burn them to CD-R.
- Re-rip them to whatever unencumbered format is your pleasure...MP3, Ogg, whatever. You can even rip 'em to WMA if you are a masochist.
The CD-R you just burned is not a waste either...you can play that in almost any CD player you want. (except old cranky ones that can't play CD-Rs, won't play CD-Rs, ever.)I wouldn't say that's draconian DRM, by any means. It is mild DRM that will punish the big willful infringers but will not inconvenience the honest consumer who wants to play by the rules. It's a brilliant compromise.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
If you really want to draw an analogy to international politics, just think about these points:
which nation is dominating international politics?
which government is at this very moment severely resticting its "users" (think citizens) rights "in their best interest"?
which government is taking the chance to secure profit while talking about security?
which government arguest that "peer review" (think United Nations arms inspection) is a bad thing?
If your answer to all these questions is "France", please think again.
sig intentionally left blank
Linux is an alternative to Windows - both running on x86. If x86 disappears and the replacement hardware can't run Linux (while technically possible, DMCA may prevent this from legally working), then you are left with MS and Apple.
Perhaps this would cause the apple stuff to be less pricey for us people moving in droves to PPC Linux.
Perhaps Apple would talk with Intel or AMD, who I'm guessing are not in MS's world domination plans, and like you said, migrate to X86, which would probably help keep the platform alive.
The trick is then selling it - because you know MS will do everything they can to beat the price.
And as much as people talk about consumers hating this and that - when it comes down to it, it's usually price point that makes them buy the worse product over the better.
In the DRM article, it's posited that the new slaves of copyright will be computer administrators. Naturally, they'll have to be vetted for a good "copyright history", and have the right pieces of paper. If hardware is being forced into software compliance-checking, how long do you think it will be before the admins themselves are? Before the big tick in the box from Microsoft is the difference between this industry and another?
Consider that at least as big a problem as "non-compliant" software is the people problem. Your average user will have an appliance that will only operate in a fashion mandated by the DRM keepers. And your commercial network will be overseen by regularly-retested DRM admins. The new gatekeepers. The new priesthood.
Call it paranoia, but if it's possible, they'll try it.
insecurity asks the wrong question irritation gives the wrong answer
...this could well be *the* thing that marks the beginning of the end of relevance for Microsoft. They are going to start requiring that software vendors get certified DRM-compliant before their products are released. So now it takes twice as long for new software to be introduced. Sound familiar? Yea, this is why Novell lost out big time on a x86 server industry they had in the palm of their hands. The line will be drawn and users will not like it but, more importantly, software developers will not tolerate it and move to a new platform.
Users can opt to "turn off" the system when it becomes available, most likely in the next generation of Windows expected in 2004 or 2005. But doing so might well severely hamper consumers' access to digital information that's important to them -- and which may indeed be necessary in their work environment.
Bill's concept of giving Windows users a choice regarding security features is kind of like Senator Bob Dole's concept of giving U.S. citizens a choice of health-care.
For those too young to remember, Dole ran for president against Bill Clinton and lost. Dole repeatedly justified his vehement opposition to a national health-care system by claiming that consumers would lose the element of choice that they now enjoy with our wonderful corporate-controlled system. He actually said on TV, "Do you want a bunch of guys in suits deciding what your health care choices are?" I remember wondering at the time whether he was talking about some hypothetical big-government guys-in-suits, or the real-life guys-in-suits who run insurance companies and HMOs, who currently make those decisions for us. For most Americans with normal incomes, "health care choice" consists of whatever is offered by the company where they are currently hanging onto a job.
The idea that Windows users will have a meaningful choice about using Palladium security is just such a fantasy. Yeah, if you want to isolate yourself from all commercially produced content, go ahead and turn off Palladium. It's your choice. While you're at it, go ahead and disconnect from the power grid and the phone system. Like it's that easy.
I've been wondering for a while what in the hell Microsoft possibly thinks is going to inspire people to junk their PCs and buy new hardware so they can run Palladium Windows. Particularly the 40 million Win98 users who still haven't done that. Will MS invoke an obscure EULA clause that allows them to outlaw using the OS after a certain date? Will they simply stop supplying security patches and let virus authors do the rest?
I now believe Microsoft's deployment plan is to get content providers on board, with the promise of total copyright control and self-destructing documents that will force a subscription model on everybody. Of course, Microsoft won't be the bad guy any more than Grokster is the bad guy -- they're only providing a platform.
Bill and Steve know that most people want to be part of the world they live in. The teeming masses don't crave the adventure of living in a yurt with a solar panel and a shortwave radio. If major content providers announce a deadline after which all new documents will be inaccessible to older systems, people will buy new systems.
If Linux can be locked out by DMCA and other means, then the consumer computing world will be even more sharply divided than it was in the early Apple/IBM days. Bill is counting on most people wanting to stay in the mainstream, and I think he's right. It's called the mainstream for a reason.
At this point I don't see any way that anybody is going to prevent Microsoft from doing what it wants to do. The only question is whether it will actually work. Doubters can glibly forecast that the first time Palladium gets hacked will spell doom, but a constant stream of security problems hasn't stopped Windows so far. It's possible that Bill has already played his last card and sitting back smiling, waiting for everybody to realize that he has already won the game.
The like a vegetarian comment is chilling.
:-(
Just try getting a vegetarian meal in your average restaurant.
Inferior quality, restricted choice, having to go without the entree and half the time you end up with non-vegetarian stuff anyway!
Sound like the future of non-DRM software to me
With all the talk about how DRM enabled hardware will "lock out" the use of non DRM enabled software, I am prompted to say.
I choose not to play the game. I am happy to miss out on the latest DRM enabled whizz bang thing (as I have posted before). But let us assume that the mainstream hardware manufacturers go down the path of pandering to the DRM zealots.
Can we create open hardware. I mean, I know that there are certain open hardware products, but can we really create a "Free (as in speech) Hardware" movement, or is the capital barrier too high. Can we get the Fab plant to make chips/drives motherboards, can we even get the designs for hardware to use? If we cannot then are we screwed or is there market enought in the non-DRM world enough for the manufacturers to justify sales, will they even be permitted to manufacture the hardware regardless of the potential market. Will the Chinese come to our rescue by virtue by being big enough and ugly enough to tell the DRM driven west where to get off and proceed to make the un crippled hardware we require?
And even more important than all this, will the governments that are increasing the services they provide via technology based means (for example the internet) retain free standards that do not require their citizens to use a particular OS/DRM regime in order to interact with the organs of the state. It is this aspect of the whole thing that to me is most scary. Scary because it is the classic path to disenfranchisement. Which is a bad thing(TM).
It is the use of IP to restrain access to unencumbered hardware and similary access the services that my government demands I use that concerns me. Whether I get to use the latest online game or not really doesn't matter.
"The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is stop digging."