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
However I can't help but start reading DRM differently.
;)
Digital Rights Management
Digital Restrictions Masochism
Same diff really.
Oh, and as an opinion, he expects us not to eat.
Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).
How long before MS decides that they will only provide windows for this thing and anything else doesn't offer the needed security? So, you can either use these or you can use something that doesn't run Windows.
Fine for a lot of people here, but what will happen is businesses will still want windows and office, so they'll buy into this, and hardware makers will look at the other stuff as a non-profitable niche market.
Normally I'm not as hard on MS as most of the /. crowd, but gotta give a "boo... hiss..." on this one.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
The technology has raised eyebrows not only for the absolute control it would grant such creators of digital content as music and movie companies but also because it is being driven by Microsoft, which has a reputation for strong-arming the computer industry.
And the next nominee for "Understatement of the Year" is... Matthew Fordahl, of the Associated Press!
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.
Then you've got a really big ugly paperweight, but again, this is your choice.
Choice is a good thing.
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
If I understand everything correctly I'm no longer going to be the owner of my content but have to ask my Computer very nicly if i can have a look at it.. hmm.. And furthermore if i want to use an other program then the microsoft suite. I have to use a program that changes it's code to the specs of microsoft. In other words the tools I can use other the microsoft have to walk the microsoft walk.. I'm not pleases with this 'security' force upon me..
>Gates says you can choose not to use the new secure PC technology
Thank you Bill Gates my master borg!
Can I choose not to use Windows(tm) too ?
As the well-informed geeks that we are, we are quite aware of the fact that it's perfectly possible to run a secure operating system and maintain it in a good way without DRM in the manner advertised.
However, I can predict that M$ will make a valiant effort to try to persuade the public into thinking that not being part of their Next Generation Secure Computing Base will put them at some kind of immediate risk. The only real risk I can think of here will be the credit given to you if you choose not to run a trusted operating system.
"Hello, I'd like support for M$ Cock-In-Yo-Ass V6 please"
"Are you using NGSCB?"
"No"
"We need you to be running a trusted operating system so that we can remotely assist you, sir."
*Dial tone*
This movement won't be a good thing.
With MS' monopoly on the world, opting out might very well turn one into a modern day TechnoAmish(tm).
Trolling is a art,
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.
Oh, wait, you didn't read any of this. It never happened. Go back to sleep.
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
It's funny how Microsoft is quick to claim that the ultimate burden of security does not lie with them, and accepts no responsibility for the flaws in their code. They then turn around and push DRM like there is no tommorow. It's obvious that this is a power grab.
There will come a day when you'll be doing all your hacking on a ten-year-old, "pre-ban" PC without DRM. Old hardware is going to be a valuable asset.
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.
He's just telling you that the people who own/create the media have the choice to protect it or not.
Loading...
Apple's DRM applies only to music that you have purchased from them, and it's not too restrictive except for obvious things like giving it away for free. In this case you actually have a choice to not buy the music. Gates wants no one to have a choice. He wants to have limits already built in when you use anything: DVD, CD, Game, whatever. Can you see the difference? I suspect that the only compensation Apple has provided to /. "editors" is making available bad ass laptops with a sweet GUI and UNIX underneath.
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!"
Many of the functions that will be built into hardware were emulated by software because the chips are not yet built.
Wasn't the main argument by Microsoft that security would have to be implemented at the hardware level to be truely secure? The only reason this is such a big deal is because his plan is to more tightly integrate his software with hardware for security purposes. If so much of this could be implemented as only software, doesn't that already prove the point that this isn't a necessary technology (at least not the way they are portraying it)? I personally don't believe this tight coupling of secure software with secure hardware will be the panacea Bill's talking about, but this demo helps prove this hardware push is more about integration and control than security.
Developers: We can use your help.
Hmmm...They finally have gotten uniforms in line with the corporate culture...
But the story says that communications between programs "could not be intercepted." I am assuming this means that it is encrypted, and that in this system the hardware stores some kind of unique private key. If this is the case, there is nothing new here that open source software hasn't provided. We have GnuGP for trusted email, and OpenSSH for shells, file transfers, and there's even a plugin for Gaim!
I don't understand why you would want some sort of hardware encryption. Because lets say AMD/Intel produce the keys. How hard would it be for them to keep a list of these keys and give copies to the FBI/CIA? Then, even when you *think* you are using a trusted platform you are being monitored. At least right now I know that I am not using secure communications.
Thank God Steve Jobs is a vegan...
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.
Well, if Microsoft isn't serving your needs, perhaps you should look into one of the excellent alternatives out there? A Powerbook or Linux perhaps? Sure you don't want to pay for Windows pre-installed, then wipe it and pay for SuSE or whatever, but if that extra ~$70 actually gets you a computer YOU have control over instead of MS, maybe it's worth it?
Digitally Restrictive Monopoly
He wants us to pick between Krusty's deadly Rib-wich made of animal-like products and starvation.
Developers: We can use your help.
I think I just decided to buy a Mac.
And the masses cried out, "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0!"
So in 5 years, all AMD and Intel chips will have DRM enabled, and Windows will have it on by default. There is absolutely nothing to prevent this from happening. Now in this scenario, if you find a way to disable the DRM, either in the chip or in the software, you can be prosecuted under the DMCA. Or maybe detained without a trial under the Patriot Act as a threat to national security. (if they succeed in getting it made permanent)
Maybe I am creating a "worst case" scenario, but it is certainly plausible. Who would have thought 5 years ago that the US would be able to hold a few hundred people captive without a trial. Or that a college student would be sued for creating a search engine. Or a programmer would be arrested and held in jail for speaking at a security conference. Or a printer cartridge manufacturer would be sued because they are making generic cartridges. Or any of the other BS that has come out of the DMCA. Some people said "Oh, if the DMCA get abused, it will be repealed because the people won't stand for it." Here is a hint: it has been abused repeatedly, and it is nowhere near being repealed. Things are getting worse.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
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.
if ($article_text =~ /\b(drm)\b/i) /\b(microsoft|gates)\b/i) /\b(mac|jobs|os x)\b/i) /\b(linu[xs])\b/i)
{
if ($article_text =~
{
$reply_text = random_reply({include_key_phrases => "die", "M$", "sucks", "end of the world"]});
}
elsif ($article_text =~
{
$reply_text = random_reply({ include_key_phrases => "expensive", "hip", "iTunes", "God"]});
}
elsif ($article_text =~
{
$reply_text = random_reply({include_key_phrases => ["choice", "freedom", "ReiserFS", "beer"]});
}
}
Would they do this? Sure, in a rats ass moment they would... first, it would bring them revenue from companies who want to get software published (CHARGE THE DEVELOPERS!!!)... second, they would have to certify it so they would require the source code... hmmmm... look at what they're doing in this chunk of code (SUE!!!!) or ... hmmm, look at what they're doing in this chunk of code (STEAL, PATENT AND SUE!!!!). And consider someone perhaps M$ doesn't like... guess what, it doesn't pass certification... period.
As an independent game development company without the resources of the giants, this type of move scares me shitless.
I'd say aloha in leaving, but I have no aloha for the likes of bill gates and his ilk.
I would love to sell computers with 2000 on them and not XP or whatever the next boatware is gonig to be - but I can't since M$ no longer sells licenses to old OS's. Sure, individuals can buy old licenses 2nd hand and install themselves, but that's an extremely small percentage of people. 95% of people buy their machine with a pre-installed OS, and that is going to be the latest M$ bloatware because you can't run a PC business scavanging old licenses here and there. You have to have a reliable supply of licenses.
As a seller I'm forced to put whatever the latest Winbloze is on the machines I sell. Actually, forcing people to buy something they don't want or need is illegal. It's called racketeering and it's what the auto companies got smacked down on for in the 60's/70's. They were required to publish the specs for any car they no longer sell/service. M$ should be forced to publish the source for old OS's it no longer supports. M$ also shouldn't be allowed to prevent the use of such old OS's. To do so and force people to buy a newer version is racketeering.
Woopty Doo Basil, what does it all mean?!
That's what competition is for! That's why there are alternatives!
:)
Like... Mac OS X
Like... Linux
Yes, it sucks if the majority platform becomes stupid, but there are still workable alternatives.
Of course, if Microsoft decides to drop Office support for Mac, then we've got another problem
Or maybe Apple will see this as the opportunity to finally release OS X86... I'm joking!
GPL Deconstructed
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.
One word: iTunes.
Right now people are downloading songs at a clip of a million a week. And these are Mac users with MacOS X only. When this makes its way onto Windozers...look out!
Steve has proven that if people are given a value-added service at a reasonable price, without the spyware and security hazards that P2P seems to be ridden with, they will choose the pay service over the free service. $0.99/song and $9.99/album is a damn good deal. Once the volume kicks in and the Windows users show up, watch the price per song actually go DOWN. Volume, baby! Volume!
I dislike that the Five Families of the Record Business will get their cut. My husband is a musician and I hate the RIAA even more because of that. The music industry has ripped off musicians from the very beginning, from the Edison Patents Trust on down. However, iTunes is a very compelling reason for me to bite the bullet and upgrade my Mac G3 Blue-and-white to Jagwire and to download iTunes 4.
Give them ease of use, limits on DRM*, a big pool of music that is growing exponentially day by day, and reasonable prices, and you will make money on downloadable music.
*Rip your paid-for AACs to CD-DA, Mix 'em up on your playlist, and Burn them to CD-R. Then Re-rip to MP3 or Ogg or whatever is your pleasure.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
> When the "Next Generation Secure Computing Base" is in place,
> expect to pay EVERY time you watch or listen to anything produced
> by the television networks, the RIAA, and the MPAA.
You underestimate them.
In the OS after Longhorn, you will have to pay a monthly fee
to retain access to to data _you_created_.
If you have a disk, you will not control its contents;
you might not be allowed to know what's on it.
Your data and applications will only work if your computer
is net-connedted, so that the DRM mechanisms can watch what
you're doing.
Wait a minute. Didn't I say that on the other side of the record? I'd better check
what if I haven't fallen down yet, and if I did, I could get up on my own? Sure, we the people, could choose not to use this technology. But I would imagine that not too long after it creeps into everything technological in our lives, refusing to use it would be in effect like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
How many services would simply not be available to those who choose to take the road less traveled? There are already examples of this kind of insiduously malignant thinking taking place as we live and breathe:
- a Patriot Act which contained specific 'sunset clauses', now being attempted to be made permanent by Sen. Orin Hatch
- an incumbent administration which insists on erasing the lines that should clearly be drawn between church and state relationships
- anything related to the DMCA, UCITA, CDA, P2P, etc.
- Enron, Tyco, RIAA, MPAA, executive compensation, golden parachutes, and numerous other examples of obscenely piggish & unrepentant favoritism towards all things big business
- a constant succession of legal decisions favoring the white collar criminals who masquerade as upstanding corporate citizens of our communities
Why don't they simply make it a legal requirement to ask for and receive anyone's express permission to distribute their personal information? And then make it a felony to fsck with us if we don't sign on the dotted line. Oh yeah, I forgot: because it would be too much of an inconvenience for those who want to abuse our personal information.
Big Brother never had it so good.
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
Mikreausauft Corporation
END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT (EULA)
1. By us having written this license agreement, you have agreed to be bound by its terms. Such bondage shall commence at the instant this document is written and shall persist for all of eternity or until the universe self destructs, whichever happens last, and applies even if you are unaware of such application.
2. You agree that you wish to be bound by the terms of this agreement and that if any statement or clause in this agreement is found unenforceable by a court of law, such a clause will still remain in effect. The previous statement includes itself. You agree to challenge the judge in said court of law to a duel.
3. PRICE. You agree that all of your physical and/or intellectual property now belongs to Mikreausauft Corporation, including but not limited to all of your money, your house(s), your car(s), your personal belongings and those of your family, friends, coworkers and enemies, and any other property that used to belong to you or any of the aforementioned people, and any other property. You agree that under the terms of this license agreement, we are doing you a huge favor by allowing you to pretend that what used to be your property still is, but that may change at any moment without prior notice. You agree that at any time, with or without notice of any kind, we, including our agents and representatives, may enter into the property that used to be yours in order to search and/or access any property therein, as it belongs to us and it is our right to access it. You agree that such search and seizure shall commence with or without a search warrant, with or without your permission, and with or without any other such legal procedure. You agree that you forfeit the right to due process and may be arrested by us or any of our agents and representatives for any reason and without the right to a fair trial, if one is given at all. You agree that you are our slave forever and ever and that you have no rights under this agreement. You agree that you have signed your soul over to us, that we own you, and that you are our material property to do with as we please. You agree that because Mikreausauft Corporation is a huge multibillion dollar multinational corporation, Mikreausauft Corporation is entitled under the laws of the universe and by divine privelege to eternal perpetually increasing profits.
3. GRANT OF LICENSE. This EULA grants you the following rights: Not applicable.
4. LIMITATIONS. You may NOT use the software product that you have paid for. You may NOT return the product for a full or partial refund. You may NOT install the product on any number of computers, including but not limited to zero, one, two, any negative number, any positive number, any rational or irrational number, any real number, any complex number, any imaginary number, any infinite number, any number on any number system or mathematical theory now known, later developed or previously forgotten, any number in any base system, including but not limited to binary, octal, decimal, hexadecimal or any other base system, any number expressed in any numeral system including but not limited to the Roman numerals, Arabic numerals, or any other numeral system, any number recorded by any method or by any means, including but not limited to numbers stored in the digital memory banks of any storage and retrieval system, numbers written on paper, refrigerator magnets, cavemen scribblings or engravings on granite boulders or any other type of rock material, or any other number. The software product may NOT be used by any number of processors on the allowed number of computers. The software product may NOT be used on any day of the week, including but not limited to Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, any day with a name in any language, or any other day. You may NOT reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble, twist, spin, poke, prod, mutilate, cut o
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.
"In the first demonstration of how the system would work, the company showed Tuesday how programs protected by the technology could not be altered or their communications intercepted by a malicious hacker, who happened to be played by a Microsoft worker dressed in a red T-shirt adorned with a skull."
:P
"In Tuesday's demonstration, the separate elements work seamlessly with each other. The only difference to the end user was that in the unsecured version, the hacker could alter the program and view the data; in the secure version, he could not."
If only I could have been there. Watching someone type and being told it worked seemlessly, then watching them type some more and being told they are locked out... I mean WOW. Where do I sign? Does it work with people wearing blue shirts too, or does it detect the skull I wonder? Could it be modified to detect ties and PHBs? Perhaps they have a new API call to disable all the horibly insecure existing API calls which let you snoop on any and all messages and data on the running system.
"Secure documents created in Microsoft Office, for instance, could be unusable on other operating systems or with other office productivity suites.
In the interview, Gates said it's up to other companies to ensure interoperability. "
Maybe when people get tired of doing - File Save as *.txt in order to share their files with others normal people will look a step or two past the default settings.
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."