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?
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).
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.
>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.
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
Way to miss the point. He didn't say he thought that any more than he said he thought that DRM had wheels on the bottom.
You are also free to carry on using Windows 95 today... oh, but it's been EOLed, so no more security patches - hope you don't need to access an untrusted network, like, say, the Internet.
TIP: It's not just in the USA that Microsoft has a monopoly in computers.
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!"
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?!