Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
They are right about DRM, by limiting the amount of time a user can view the file, they are just increasing demand for a cracked one.
If you had downloaded something, and it had DRM on it limiting the number of times you could view it or how long it could be viewed - it would just be a hassle, and would cause most people to either go looking or just wait for a unlocked version of it.
Business Voyeur
Okay, so I've asked this before... I'll ask again... (refer to my previous post... )
I had hoped for definitive answers to these questions, but if you'll re-read some of the responses to my post, while thoughtful, they were divergent and inconsistent among themselves. Again I am concerned what the "trusted computing" platform truly means... mostly because it appears to me it is mostly negative for the linux community.
A scenario played out last summer for me with... a local Mom and Pop grocery store kept EVERYTHING on their Windows XP PC, and one day it went toes-up. They were understandably distraught -- all of their business spreadsheets and wedding pictures (over 1G) were on the hard drive and they couldn't get to them. They were prepping the machine to be sent in to be re-imaged. I asked them if they knew that meant they were likely to lose their data. She was almost in tears. I went home, got my Knoppix CD, and with their permission, played... and, recovered ALL of their data and burned it redundantly to CD's.
So I ask, 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? I'd hate to think this is one (of many) of the things we lose in this "better" world. Help!
(I honestly can't believe the computing world will stand for this, but maybe it's like boiling frogs in water... by the time we realize what's happening it's too late?)
I think hardware based security is something that is needed by government and other organizations that handle sensitive information. That way we wouldn't be hearing about databases being cracked and having millions of people's information leaked. Thats the good part.
The bad part is what it means should trusted computing enter consumer electronics. With DRM it would be like having someone from the MPAA in my living room, and thats something I dont want to happen. While this technology sure has potential, it does need leash to keep it under control. I paid for the machine, so it should do what I want it to do.
Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it
...the BBC is publicly funded and so doesn't need to make a profit. They don't care if people go and download their stuff (in fact, they're soon going to be offering their archives online) because they don't have advertising revenue to lose and have already made their money from everyone in the UK with a TV who pays £120/year to them. I'm sure that a commercial company that actually had to turn a profit would be singing a different tune.
The sad thing about Trusted Computing is that copyright enforcement is probably the one security problem it does not provide significant leverage for. Copyright is break once run anywhere.
I was at an SDMI conference, I could not find a single company interested in talking about the payment side of the problem.
I have little sympathy for either side in the debate. I have no time for the freeloaders who want to get something for nothing and no time for the freeloaders who want to use their economic power to get something for next to nothing and sell it expensive.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Well yes, you would expect this kind of behaviour from any zealot. A hygeine zealot will consider one shower a day to be a filthy neglect of your hygeine. That's the nature of a zealot so in a strange way, you're right.
The article makes some fair points about the changes in iTunes but doesn't mention the improvements. I can authorise more computers to play my Music Store tracks than I could before (it was only 3, not it's up to 5). I can stream my music over AirPort.
He does make a fair point though that it can be a slippery slope. Perhaps we need to find ways to stop companies inserting "Everything is subject change" clauses in their contracts?
-- Using the preview button since 2005
Hardware security is still only as good as the software that is, ultimately, in charge of it. For the bulk of TC users that will mean Windows, and that will get be exploited as it always has been. Face it: Microsoft is looking for a hardware hack to take care of all the software hacks that are their flagship operating system. They want this for two reasons. A. to assuage all the complaints about operating system security and b. to ingratiate themselves with the media moguls. And yes, I'm sure that Trusted Computing will help make our systems less exploitable, for a time and to a certain degree. But the loss of control of our machines that the black hats will suffer will be nothing compared to what we lose if we accept this poor tradeoff. It wouldn't even be an issue, really, if those promoting Trusted Computing were subject to free market forces. They aren't though. The power of the Federal Government has been conscripted to shove it down our throats. Oh, I know ... Trusted Computing hasn't been mandated (yet.) But DRM has, and Trusted Computing is little more than an extension of that, from a conceptual standpoint. In this connected world, somebody always wants to own your machine ... it's a toss-up, in my mind, whether we're better off with the MPAA, the Office of Homeland Security, or some Bulgarian hacker. They all want a piece of us and don't much care how they get it.
... hell, whether we can even continue to maintain a high-technology civilization and a standard of living that even approximates what we've enjoyed in the past. These are actually very important things that should concern all of us. But sometimes I feel like I'm spittin' into the wind.
What disturbs me is how easily people buy into the sound bites they're being fed every day. "Why, how can open source possibly be secure if everyone can see how it works?" "I think Trusted Computing sounds great! How else can we stop all the piracy?" And so forth. The larger issues for Americans are about Constitutionality, how far our government's authority should extend, how far foreign oligopolies can influence U.S. government and private-sector technological development
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
I agree with pretty much everything you said. The trouble is, DRM is a (poor) technical fix for a social problem. Those that really want to copy these thigns generally still will, whereas some (potential) paying customers such as myself have problems with it (I've yet to see any reasonable online music site offering files I can play under Linux, and no, that dodgy Russian site isn't one, before anyone points me to it).
Personally I still prefer to buy CDs. I like having the physical item in my hands, but even some of these are now coming with Copy Protection. Some people have had problems with these, yet again proving the technical solution is not the correct one. Unfortunately, I've no idea what is.
Some of us simply do not believe copyright law is just, and think that it is draconian and absurd.
Obeying laws, even absurd ones, is generally good, in order to avoid contempt for the law. Unfortunately, in the case of copyright, obeying the law means empowering the lobbyists that keep the law alive and strengthen it.
The best way is to avoid copyrighted works, and when they are not avoided, at least do not pay those who push for the continuation of the copyright regime.
Piracy is name-calling, and the reason copyright infringement is so common is because people do not find the copyright deal reasonable anymore, ever since the digital revolution.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all laws into contempt. -- Elizabeth Cady Stanton
Unfortunately, due to this law and others, law is already in contempt by the vast majority of the public...
The sad thing about Trusted Computing is that copyright enforcement is probably the one security problem it does not provide significant leverage for. Copyright is break once run anywhere.
This is not true, because efforts to impose "trusted computing" on all hardware by force of law. Even if an encryption scheme is broken, the media material could have embedded noise in it with a digital signature information and hardware could be mandated not to process any digital media or information unless it's properly signed.
I just thought I'd throw in my own $0.02 worth with a tale of my own experience.
When my brother and I were kids, there was a program on television which we both enjoyed (this would have been around 1985 or so). There was a two-part episode at the end of the first season and we taped the first part with the idea of recording the second part the next week. Well, the program was pre-empted by various things every week for the next several months (e.g. President Reagan, football, etc.). Finally, the second part was broadcast and of course, we taped it. We still have the tape (the show was cancelled in its second season). Since it does not appear that this program will ever be available on DVD or other home video format, I transferred the recorded video to DVD using my computer with TV tuner card. I made one copy for myself and one for my brother.
This incident represents what I believe will become a major problem with current copyright laws and the use of Digital Restrictions Management and Treacherous Computing. In the future, it may no longer be possible to preserve the past (the future's past) due to the short-sightedness of the content owners. Using the broadcast flag would prevent recording. Even if the recording were allowed, it would prevent me from transferring to an archival media (DVD or it's next generation, whatever that may be). New DVD burners are being made that prevent one from transferring a VHS movie with Macrovision to DVD (HP's old Carly Fiorina trumpeted this at the last CES). Instead, shows could be broadcast and disappear into the ether, never to be seen again. Of course, it could be argued that most shows broadcast today are released to DVD soon after the end of the season, but what if they are not? As an example, Malcolm in the Middle -- season 1 was released on DVD a few years ago, but where is season 2? Although this is a silly example, it illustrates why individuals have archived broadcasts in the past and should be allowed to do so in the future.
Why will I not be able (at least as the law currently stands) to buy a device that will record HDTV to the next-gen DVD format (whether that be Blu-Ray, HD-DVD, or HVD)? This would represent nothing more than the status quo as it now exists with analog TV and VCR's.
Furthermore, a principal of abandonment needs to be established in copyright law (i.e. If the content has not been sold or actively promoted for sale for a length of time, it should enter the public domain).
Trust is a two-way street. In general, I trust those who trust me. How can the public trust the content creation (recycling?) companies after they have abused our trust for so long?
Is this technology related to the intel platforms only or is it also going to be present on PPC, Alpha, MIPS, etc? ie. is it req'd by law on every computer or is it just required on new x86s/64s?.. I'd much rather stay with ppc anyway, risc chips are way better...
Yes, this article is actually quite an interesting about-face for him. Just two and a half years ago, when Microsoft announced that it was jumping on the trusted computing bandwagon, he wrote this article, singing the praises of hardware-based restrictions, and governmental regulation of the internet.
It seems that he's only just recently come to the conclusion that maybe this whole trusted computing thing is there to serve the purposes of the hardware and software makers, rather than their users.