Slashdot Mirror
Bob Barr Weighs In On Trusted Computing Group
bearwayne writes "Former representative Bob Barr (R-GA), a conservative and non-technophile, who has now has teamed up with the ACLU to fight growth of the Federal government's infringements on Civil Liberties ala the Patriot Act, weighs in on the Trusted Computing Group/Alliance in this article at Creative Loafing. Among other things, he expresses concerns about censorship, loss of control over one's PC, and other corporate/government abuses."
If government-sanctioned vigilantism ever comes about by way of corporations being allowed to mess with others' computers or in any other form, I swear I will move to Switzerland.
Esoteric reference.
Hmm so geeks are supposed to automatically distrust anything conservative? Most of us are libertarian, but often the conservatives have libertarian ideas. Both liberals and conservatives are groupthinkers unlike us intelligent libertarians, but there's no reason to prefer one to the other.
-Libertarian secular transhumanist
The problem with most "trusted computing" proposals so far is that "trusted" is an accurate description of them. It's just an imcomplete description. They aren't about insuring that you, the owner of the computer, can trust the computer or the software on it. They're about insuring that third parties can trust your computer to do what they tell it to do. The proponents omit that part because they know all too well that if they did say all of what they meant that Joe Sixpack would scream bloody murder and refuse to have anything to do with it.
Just to make a point, imagine a virus that couldn't be removed from a computer. Under the "trusted computing" proposals someone could do exactly that by tagging the virus as "user does not have permission to delete" and the computer itself would prevent the AV software from removing the virus.
A law like this would only transform this republic into a dictatorship run by the wealthiest people (oligarchy). Why should we trust these huge corporations with our rights? Do we really need to be ruled or "trusted" by companies that wantonly violate anti-trust laws?
Esoteric reference.
Even though Barr is out of Congress, he's still an influential Republican who can spread word to those still in power. He's more of a libertarian, but unless the specifications and implmentations of the Trusted Computing stuff comes to light, we should all cast a weary eye on it. A lack of vigilance in this day and age should not be an excuse for complaining about lost rights. We can fight this battle now before the TCPA is shoved down our throats, and more importantly, we can fight with our wallets. Why should we buy computers that we cannot control? As a computer programmer, the TCPA scares me.
Well, it's good to see that someone who's kinda involved in government is going against the idea of making the Hollings Bill law, but I don't really see what the big deal about this article is otherwise. Barr is no longer in the House of Representatives, so he probably has little ability to directly do anything to stop the bill. The article - although an easy read for non-technophiles, which is good - really doesn't say anything we don't already know, and Bob Barr doesn't sound like he has much political clout.
I don't mean to rag on the editors or the person who submitted it, but I don't see how this is news. It would be nice if this article (or something similar) was published in a widely-read newspaper, but I think we've heard this story a few times before.
By the way, even if whatever law Hollings wants passed doesn't make it, what's to stop the TCPA's system from becoming a de facto standard? If most of the computers and content out there use it, you're stuck either keeping your old computer and hoarding old CD's and DVD's, or breaking down and using computers and content that are "protected" by the TCPA's technologies.
I produce electronic music and write little games. Have a look.
Sharing a name with a dufus ex-congressman is a pain in the ass, but I have to give him credit for fighting the Neo-McCarthyism.
Bob Barr
amendments one through ten are *all* violated to various degrees. while I would like to provide you with a remedial constitutional law background, I can only recommend that you do some reading on your own. search google for "united states constitution text" or "bill of rights text".
This is what is needed, an article in a paper like Creative Loafing. For those who do not know, Creative Loafing is a *free* newspaper which can be picked up just about in any shop in the Atlanta area, and having lived in Atlanta for about a year, let me tell you, almost everyone who buys a paper picks up the free 'Loaf' at the same time.
The good thing about Creative Loafing is that a *huge* amount of people read it, and even better, these are the 'non geek' mainstream people who would *never* visit wired.com, or any other IT based news source.
99% of articles I've seen on the internet and in paper form are articles that are already 'preaching to the converted' - people who already know of the dangers of 'Trusted Computing'. This article in Creative Loafing will hit a huge mom and pop crowd, and hopefully the word will begin to spread about how evil DRM et all can be - and then hopefully, when Trusted Computing arrives (and it *will* arrive) these people will hopefully know better than to buy such crippled, enslaved hardware.
______
Jaylen
Libertarianism is an ideal, not a group. So it can't be about groupthink--or else you're not really libertarian.
-Libertarian secular transhumanist
Go ahead, try to deny it. You can't.
I have never, ever met a libertarian who was at all interested in the welfare and happiness of anyone but himself. That's really what the whole philosophy boils down to - abandonment of the greater good.
Something like we (still don't) have now, only more.
The cool new movies do not just come from Hollywood. Nor even from Sony.
I have a hard time believing Bob Barr is for civil liberties and people deciding their own laws- The people of Washington DC voted to use medical marijuana with a YES Vote and it was immediately blocked by Barr.
So, he is for civil liberties and freedom ONLY if you agree if its 'morally' acceptable. Does it really matter that it was Marijana? Regardless of Washington DC being a federal district, The whole point is the people have voted and decided on an issue and it was completely overruled by the Federal Government. The hypocrisy is amazing! How can you be worried about censorship, Patriot Act, and government abuses when you were the very person who prevented the people from governing themselves?
We need to wake up and see the whole story.
Bob Barr, when in office, was one of those insane neocons ranting about gays and hell all the time. But since he left office, it's clear that he's been treated by a good psychiatrist, and when he opens his mouth these days, good things tend to come out. He was on Bill Maher's show on HBO a few weeks ago and made a really good impression. Very anti-Ashcroft/Orwell. Good for him, and good for modern medicine.
Stupid people make stupid things profitable.
Bob Barr is also known as a conservative. mom and Dad brainwashed-by-the-washington-media will give a lot more creedence to a known conservative than if it were Hilary railing against this (although I seriously doubt we would see Hilary railing against this, you get the point).
Are we supposed to like Bob Barr or hate him? I can't remember, and my group-think-ophone is out of service.
I need to know before I read the article so I can dismiss everything he says as biased or accept it all as enlightened.
These folks make the case far better than I can:
;)
EFF's position paper
The American Library Association
Joe Barr mentioned a couple good points in his article at Creative Loafing.
Here's the DOJ's take. When you read it, ask yourself who defines a terrorist, and would you be willing to believe them?
Finally, the USA PATRIOT Act
(Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism) Hell, with a cool ass acronym like that for a name, how could you possibly be against it
(read: How could you possibly not be against it. Tortuously clever acronyms are often a sign of bad policy)
(Score: -1, Stupid)
while that's true, that bring sin some grave concerns.
i don't know if you've been keeping up with BugTraq lately, but some of the new vulnerabilities in windows make me think of one thing:
if the Administrator is the only one allowed to modify the trusted computing settings, then what if there's another root-level exploit in a TCI version of Windows (like Longhorn)?
i don't like the idea of losing my control over my computer.
i like my BIOS the way it is, thank you very much. i LIKE writing Operating Systems.
grey wolf
LET FORTRAN DIE!
So choosy with their freedoms
Can carry guns
Can't smoke dope, gamble, lap dance, be gay
State right's good when pro gun anti-abortion
State's rights bad medical marijuana gay rights, and physician assisted suicide
When do you put money in a Trust?
When you don't trust your kids to use it properly.
Uh huh. Until you have to supply trust certificates any time you want to, like, use software you've purchased.
If you think this is just an innocuous tool, you're a tool.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Mod this stupid fucker into oblivion.
I tried his products, and look at me now.
How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
Both liberals and conservatives are groupthinkers unlike us intelligent libertarians
To think, along with a group, that groupthink is unintelligent is still groupthink, I think.
Crap_On_You
The article explained this point quite well.. It's not about your computer trusting other computers, it's about corporations and government trusting your computer to do what they tell it to. The hysteria is not without due cause.
The interesting thing about the TCG's technologies is that it COULD be specified in such a way as to allow PC owners to choose exactly whom to trust, and whom not to trust. The only thing the Manufacturer's TPM signature would attest to is that the TPM complies to the standard, providing features that can attest to the integrity of any software running on the machine, so long as it is signed by any key both parties explicitly trust.
In order to be useful, there's no need to hard-wire the roots of trust into the TPM.
Now, that said, we can certainly expect the TCG members to insinuate themselves into the Roots of Trust by default. THIS is the potential problem with both the TCG and the Hollings Bill (CBDTPA/Son-of-SSSCA).
Stupidity, purely for the unevolved. A libertarian is to a conservative or liberal as a human is too a chimpanzee.
-Libertarian secular transhumanist
Barr was frequently openly critical of federal abuses of power. He was one of the few in Congress, especially on the Right, who came out strongly against Ashcroft.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
Offtopic ? Hardly.
"...but I really think he needs the assistance of some medical technology to help him with his smoking habit before he gets himself arrested for trying to destroy an airplane."
Ahh! - of course - I forgot to suffix a suitable emoticon in order that the illiterati who are inexplicably charged with the powers of moderation in these lofty fora, might thereby be assisted with the ability to recognize a touch of gentle humour when it slaps them in the face with a wet mackerel.
Grow up and get yourself an education, moderator.
Bob Barr, when in office, was one of those insane neocons ranting about gays and hell all the time.
You seem to have the meaning of "neocon" backwards. "Neocons" are almost always social libertarians; the only ranting you see neocons do about gays and hell is that politicians should stop butting in people's private lives re. gays and hell. For example, a well known "neocon" writer/blogger is Andrew Sullivan, who is homosexual himself.
Having grown up in Georgia, I can tell you that I know Bob Barr, and Bob Barr is no neocon. It's disappointing that the term "neocon" seems to be getting the "Trotskyist" treatment by elements of the left.
How many of you that don't want computer hardware legislated to include TCPA were all for the govt. regulating Microsoft? Give the govt. that type of power to restrict freedom and don't be surprised when they use it in ways you don't like.
Vote for Pedro
Stallman has spoken out about how TCPA is bad because DRM limits your computer. However, doesn't the GPL do the same thing? A BSD style license give the freedom to do anything you want with the code under license. However, under GPL, you cannot distribute binaries of a program without source if you used GPLed code. Therefore, GPL doesn't promote freedom of speech, but forced speech, which is not free, i.e. you don't have the freedom to keep your mouth shut about the code modifications. Thus, the GPL is an attempt to give something away, while still maintaining control over it. This is what DRM tries to do with information. So how can you crusade for GPL and against DRM/TCPA at the same time?
Vote for Pedro
Don't assume Bob Barr is wholy a man of principle with no ulterior political motives! Remember the impeachment of Clinton? He proudly stood there with his Republican colleagues on the House Judiciary Committee and engaged in one of the most partisan assaults on rationality and abuses of the constitutional processes in the history of the U.S. In fact, Barr tried numerous times to have Clinton impeached before Lewinsky's name was ever heard. I guarantee you that his motives were not solely because of the nature of Clinton's alleged transgressions - he would not have been nearly so dedicated if a powerful Republican President had been the culprit. He was most definitely concerned to take out Clinton as part of a broader agenda to counter the growing social liberalism of the time.
So Bob Barr may be saying the right things, but (and it is unfortunate that this has to be the case in politics) you cannot separate the message from the messenger; and I do not trust Bob Barr's ideas about how America ought to be in general.
...like Barr is?
Barr is/was part of the seriously wacko, seriously right-wing part of the Republican party that still feels George Bush is too moderate.
If anything could get me rooting for John Ashcroft (a near-impossiblity) it would be attacks by Barr.
There are plenty of single-chip MCUs, from Atmel AVRs on 8-bit scale to ARM on 32-bit, and everything else as well. Some of those chips are plenty powerful; for example, Netwinder was based on StrongARM, and Intel now moved onto even better architecture. I have PC/104 card in front of me, it runs Linux on XScale CPU as I type this.
So the question is, will it be mandated that every little chip must have this nefarious "secure core" or whatever they call it today?
It is plain impossible, price-wise, to embed this technology into every CPU manufactured. Most of those CPUs cost about $10, and they are self-sufficient; only add power. Even worse, there are soft implementations of many popular CPUs, MIPS/ARM being the prime example. These can be embedded into any blank FPGA just by pasting the code... and the FPGA definitely won't have the security required for the TCPA.
So where does it leave us? Will only PC platforms be affected by the law? Or maybe all Linksys routers (with Linux inside) will have to be reworked? And all Tivos? And all PDAs? This is getting ridiculous fast.
I work with embedded systems most of the time, and I tell you, this law simply can't go anywhere. We are immersed into a sea of computers, most of which are faster and more powerful than your average desktop. There are DSPs that, despite being poor in some operations, will encode your DivX movie faster than the best Pentium. Your cell phone has a few CPUs in it, as well as your TV and your car. Where this law is going to stop?
I also guess that if s/w vendors can raise the prices, they will. Cost of traditional s/w will shoot through the roof, now that you *must* pay for every copy. This will create a unique combination - a TCPA-free hardware and free software, and there will be a market hungry for both of the above simply because they can't afford to be robbed by ISVs, they just don't have the money. People who hold onto their olden Win95 boxes will have to either give up computing, or to switch to TCPA-free hardware and free software. The industry digs its own grave, as it seems.
And if nothing else the RIAA (well, the entertainment industry as a whole) is raising public awareness of the dangers of turning any significant degree of enforcement power over to the private sector. Hopefully this lesson will be remembered when the first "Trusted" computers hit the market.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
I already have a trusted computer. In fact, I have several. But perhaps that's just because I've been a software engineer for twenty-five years and know how to protect myself. But I just don't believe that those without that experience will be any better off with "Trusted Computing".
I don't want to sound like a conspiracy-theorist, but if you think that Ashcroft & Co. aren't very interested in this development, you're naive.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Temporary? There's already movement afoot in Congress to remove the sunset provisions. Once these people get used to power they won't easily relinquish it.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
This is the same man that when a member of the House tried to stop Wiccans from practicing their religion on military posts although the chaplains had no problem with it. Basically, if you were not in his list of acceptable religions, you shouldn't be allowed to practice, 1st Amendment be damned.
Seems that being out of Congress has turned this guy 180.
I'll make it easier and say you can search Project Gutenberg and find.
-uso.
What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
Wow, this guy can actually write complete sentences, and they have style. From the political spam I used to get about him years ago, I thought he communicated primarily through grunting. I'm impressed.
I read the articles. The first one has these arguments.
1. The PATRIOT act part that gives Ashcroft the right to view library, business, medical, or other records has never been used, so when John Edwards said that "The notion that they are going to libraries to find out what books people are checking out, going to book stores to find out what books are being purchased...runs contrary to everything we believe in this country." he was being deceptive since he knew it had never been used.
That's of course bullshit. Edwards didn't claim it had been used, just that the law was wrong. Look up "notion" if you're confused.
2. Joseph Lieberman is accused of similar deception for this quote: "Is the government snooping through people's library records? Inappropriately searching people's belongings? George W. Bush isn't answering these questions. As usual, he's keeping secrets and fueling suspicions. This administration's 'Don't ask, don't tell' approach to governance should make every American leery of handing over new authority to John Ashcroft before we know how he is using the power he already has.".
In the very sentence before the article itself says "Lawmakers would not have been allowed to reveal the classified information publicly". Just like Lieberman said, Bush was keeping these secrets from the American people at the time of Liebermans speech.
3. And at the end of the article the author pretends to not understand a simple, if somewhat abstract, argument from an ACLU representative.
The second article is a long rant on how bad FDR and other Democrats have been throughout history, and only at its end contains some vague and unverifiable complaints about the numbers in a NYT article from July 21. Maybe that was a bad article. But I note that the basis for the argument is that the Justice Department doesn't think many of the accusations of the Justice Department are valid. If the Justice Department were massively violating people's rights, wouldn't it be naive to expect them to send out a press release about it? I can't imagime conservative columnists treating information from a Democrat AG with such blind trust.
&#&#*(#@ moderators.