BBC on DRM and Trusted Computing

distantbody writes "This BBC article by Bill Thompson is balanced and concise on the issues of DRM and 'Trusted Computing,' and offers some insights as to why such systems are the wrong path to follow for consumers and businesses alike. From the the article: 'We need to ensure that trusted computing remains under the control of the users and is not used to take away the freedoms we enjoy today ... the flexibility of copyright law is something that should be embraced and not taken away.'"

Comments

rms on treacherous computing

[latroM]

rms on the subject if someone hasn't read that yet.

Keep in mind

[JohnnyKlunk]

BBC on DRM and Trusted Computing

Bill Thompson is the Beebs geeky, slashdotty type technology editor. His articles are not representitive of BBC corporate policy, as the headline seems to imply.

Re:re-asking the question

[Anonymous Coward]

By that, I assume you mean entirely fictional?

EFF and Berkeley

[millette]

The EFF has been following the DRM issue for quite some time now. See also this 2003 conference on DRM at Berkeley.

Re:re-asking the question

[mrchaotica]

if theirs were a "trusted computing" machine, and I had tried to do the same thing for them with my Knoppix CD, would I have been able to?

Absolutely NOT, and that's entirely the point.

Not 100% correct

[jd]

BBC Enterprises makes a decent income from the sale of videos and DVDs to consumers, and master tapes to overseas broadcasters. As such, BBC Enterprises would be hard-hit if piracy were to destroy their markets, which would (in the end) impact the BBC in general.

It is an interesting twist of fate, though, that a significant fraction of the BBC Enterprise's income come from Black and White footage that the BBC Archives destroyed in the 1970s, but was later recovered by enthusiasts, media history fanatics, broadcasters with a sense of history, etc.

Had DRM existed in the 1960s, virtually everything prior to 1970 would have been lost forever. This would have included virtually all the Doctor Who stories, the BBC coverage of the moon landings, and many other recordings now regarded as historic and of extreme interest.

Fans of The Avengers would also have lost out, as many Catherine Gale episodes were recovered from a landfill site, as were the two known surviving episodes from the first season with Dr. Keel.

No, television today would be poorer, had they had DRM back then. The BBC would appear to have learned the hard way, but nonetheless have learned that copyright cuts both ways. It hurts EVERYONE and not just those supposedly targetted.

Orrin Hatch and American broadcasters have never really experienced the devastating losses that can result from a single bad decision. (Well, at least, not in broadcasting. The US has suffered many losses due to bad decisions in other areas of life.) Their refusal to recognise the lessons demonstrated so clearly by others is frightening. Faulty policies, through ignorance, can be excused. But there is no ignorance here. They know perfectly well what others have experienced, and either through arrogance or contempt, do not make any effort to avoid repeating those experiences here in the US.

right to read

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

Re:re-asking the question

[pentalive]

Trusted Computing is necessary, and is good, as long as the user has the last word on using it or not.

If the major reason for Trusted Computing is to protect Copyrighted Works, Then the final password will be in the hands of the copyright owner and not the end user.

Remember they are trying to take over the computer so they can "trust" it, becuase they belive that they can't "trust" the end user.

For an accurate over view on the TPM ...

[hal9000(jr)]

... see the article at Secure Enterprise.

Wrong to assume TV is Free(As Beer in US)

[Anonymous Coward]

You are making the assumption, wrongly I might add, that in the US all TV is free. In the US only the UHF/VHF broadcasts are free , and even then they may not be.

This means that in the US if you live in a large metro area you may be able to get the following channels for (Gratis- They aren't really free will explain in a second);

1. FOX
2. ABC
3. NBC
4. CBS
5. UPN
6. WB
7. PAX (Only in some metro areas)
8. PBS

Besides the above stations it is common in large metro areas to have 1 or two independant stations which are typically either religous based or QVC like.

All of the so called free channels , except PBS, earn money by either 1.) Selling and showing Advertisements and/or 2.) Infomertials (1/2 hr -1 hr Adverts designed to mimic a regular TV show). In addaition to the adverts most broadcast shows also have prod placing- This is where a retailer/manufacture has paid the producer of the show to include their product in shots thus increase demand for the product. This is why typically broadcast shows have the characters using MACS even though only a very small percentage of US computer users use or own a MAC. Sears also does this with ABC's HomeMakeover show.

In the US if you do not live in a metro area you may only recieve 1 or 2 channels through VHF/UHF broadcast and in some remote areas no channels at all can be recieved clearly.

Now you have probably noticed that the channel list seems very small compared to what is exported to other countries. Where for example can one watch "South Park" (Comedy Central), "Sex in The City" (HBO/TBS), or "The Sopranos" (HBO). These shows air on either Cable or Satalite TV. In the US if you want to watch more than what you can recieve through UHF/VHF you have to either Pay to get TV through either Cable or Sat (DISH/Direct TV). The fee for cable in most areas is around $50 ($600 USD per year) - $75 per month for extended Cable. Most Cable companies will offer a $15-$20 per month for the local broadcast channels + all the shopping channels + the public access channels (Educational TV for the most part) + a news channel or two. One should note that extended basic does not include HBO annd other "Premium" Channels and those must be purchased on top of the $50 a month fee. The Sat carriers will tend to charge 35 (SBC Basic 60 Channel DISH fee) to 39.99 (Direct TV lowest package) for a number of channels (120). Again these do not include all of the channels and most additional channels cost more money. To make matters worse most Sat and Cable channels still show Adverts and Have infomertials.

Unlike the UK the US carriers can and do raise rates without giving any reason. If they want more money they can just raise rates. They also tend to change programing (Available Channels) at the whim of the management of the carrier company.

Re:re-asking the question

[hal9000(jr)]

It depends on what data is protected by the TPM and how.

First of all, if the TPM is even enabled, but the data that you want to recover is NOT protected by the TPM in anyway (either through the application or the OS), then you can recover the files.

If the application/OS that created or manipulated the files are using the TPM, then it MAY get a bit more tricky.

Here is the quick and dirty:

• The TPM manages keys and encrypts and/or signs small blobs of stuff--pretty much other keys. It is not a bulk encryptor.
  
• The root of storage key is used to protect (encrypt) all other keys generated by the TPM. It is generated by the TPM in hardware and you can't export this key.
  
• Other keys created by the TPM or by an application external to the TPM (but stored by teh TPM), can be flagged as exportable, which means they can be backed up (they will be in the (clear). The software that is requesting a new key, has to request it be exportable which means that feature is a software dependency.
  
• You can recover the files (files are just blobs of bits, right?), the problem is that you can't decrypt them.
  
• If the data is protected by an application that uses the TPM, and the key the appliation uses has been exported, then you can reinstall the operating system and software and import your keys back into the TPM. Then you can access your files..
  

Here is an similar example. Let's say that I use PGP to protect some files and that my keyrings are backed up onto a CD. If my hard drive crashes for some reason, then I can't access my data normally. But I can recover the encrypted files and put them on a new computer. Then I can recover my backed-up pgp keys to decrypt the files.

The major requirement is that the application, including the OS, must support the back-up of TPM protected keys.

Anybody who tell you differnt that what I have said above is wrong. Now, go read the faq here.

Re:re-asking the question

[Alsee]

That means the owner can always retrieve all the keys.

False.

I've read the technical specifications. The owner is forbidden to know or retrieve the Root Storage Key (RSK). The owner is forbibben to ever be able to see or retieve any 'non-migrable key'. And while it is not forbidden for the owner to retrieve migrable keys, it is impossible for an owner to ever see or retrieve even those migrable keys unless the original unmodified software was already written to make that request and the original author choose to include instructions to pass it to you, and it can only happen under the circumstances he chose to do so.

Yes, there are a lot of misinformed people making incorrect attacks on Trusted Computing. Not all complaints about Trusted Computing are invalid. In this case it is you understanding and defence of Trusted Computing that is mistaken.

If you're a programmer/engineer/whatever and you want to see the technical specs I'd be more than happy to provide a link. If you doubt one of my specific statements I'd probably even be willing to take the time to dig out the specific page where that point is documented. The RSK may not be exposed at all, a simple direct requirement of the spec. Nonmigrable keys may not be exposed at all, a simple direct requirement of the spec. The complex point is that the only way to expose a migrable key is if the software author choose to include instructions to do so in the original software. That unmodified software is the only software that can ever retrive those keys, thus the only software that can ever choose to expose those keys.

-

Re:I know why...

[jgritz]

This bottom of this page does a nice job of breaking down the costs of recording and associated costs. Article is by Steve Albini, quite a well known producer.