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?
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 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.
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
There is no such thing as guaranteed security.
"The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it." -- Ayn Rand
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.