Slashdot Mirror
Intel Claims No DRM
pallmall1 writes "The Inquirer has an official statement from Intel claiming the Computerworld Today Australia story from May 27th was incorrect, and the Pentium D and the 945 chipsets do not have unannounced DRM technology embedded in them. The statement says Intel products support or will support several copy protection schemes such as Macrovision, DTCP-IP, COPP, HDCP, CGMS-A, and others. The statement concludes: 'While Intel continues to work with the industry to support other content protection technologies, we have not added any unannounced DRM technologies in either the Pentium D processor or the Intel 945 Express Chipset family.' The Intel Chip with DRM story has been previously reported on Slashdot. Update: 06/05 20:12 GMT by Z : Fixed the Macrovision link.
If it's unannounced, I don't expect them to admit to it even if it is really there. The ID on the Pentium 3 was still there as well, even though they claimed to have disabled it after the uproar.
They were jsut very quiet about it...
No smoking sigs indoors.
"[Intel said the] Pentium D and the 945 chipsets do not have unannounced DRM technology embedded in them"
Is this like one of those "This statement is false" paradoxes?
"It's a trap!"
They've mentioned TCPA-style hardware DRM before; it's just been a while. So, for that matter, have AMD and Via, so running to them won't help much.
Y'know, you blow up one sun and suddenly everyone expects you to walk on water.
DRM = DRM. whether announced or unannounced. You added support for DRM to your hardware. That means I can't buy Intel gear anymore. End of story.
You can wrap it in acronyms. You can attempt to misdirect, obfuscate, or otherwise try to hide the fact that Intel sold out to corporate interests.
No DRM. Not on my computer. Not now. Not ever.
Now that they've said it isn't in there, if it turns out later that they were lying and it is in there, isn't that class-action-lawsuit worthy material?
Because I for one consider a chip which purposefully takes control of my computer away from me and gives it to someone else without my authorization to be broken.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
This is like the question "Do you still beat your wife?"
For god's sake. Intel's been decent overall, when did it become their job to discount every allegation just to make some folks happy?
Apple's FairPlay?
"Intel products support or will support several copy protection schemes such as Macrovision, DTCP-IP, COPP, HDCP, CGMS-A, and others."
OK, so they've actually announced all the DRM as "features". Doesn't mean anybody realized the damage that those features they could do, except the folks on the Dark Side.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
While they didn't do it this time, they've shown their cards in the sense that they're hellbent on implementing those nasty DRM schemes in the near future. Yet another reason not to buy Intel.
Macrovision has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with macromedia.
The Real Macrovision was developed by a company called Macrovision and is used to prevent copying of VHS and DVD video streams with data that interrupts the picture.
mattdev@server$ touch
cannot touch `/dev/genitals': Permission denied
Doesn't having DRM on board just mean that the user can successfully play DRM'ed IP they purchase? Is there anything in this DRM scheme that prevents construction of arbitrary device drivers that divert the un-DRM'ed content on it's way to the speakers/screen?
So, for that matter, have AMD and Via, so running to them won't help much.
:-)
AMD is supposedly making their hardware DRM entirely optional, though.
Also, I think everybody should look at this roadmap. If you look at the chips for the upcoming socket M2, and also the X2 processors that will be shipping in the coming weeks, they are all supposed to have the Presidio "security technology." Isn't that a euphamism for the same thing we're accusing Intel of putting in their chips? I would like it if somebody would get to the bottom of this.
It seems that AMD is also wanting to add TCPA style "features" to their hardware. Will we have a choice of what processor to use when buying a new computer?
And also prevents good honest people from playing their perfectly legal, original media on an operating system of their choice. Do you think the corps will give Linux developers, for instance, access to DRM specs and code that will facilitate communication with media drives? I don't think so.
Even if their denial of including hidden DRM tech is completely true, it justifies the original story, and the community reaction against the idea which clearly produced this denial. Preemptive criticism of such tech from early adopters and qualified critics is valuable. Once the DRM is in the chips, it's much more costly to get it out. And some critics will be quiet, accepting the fait accompli as less likely to be reversed than other priorities with less committed vendor investment.
A major problem with the press these days is their total disinterest in covering a "developing story" of a threat, until it has already caused irreparable damage. While threateners are much better at keeping threats secret until they do that damage. Even worse, many of the threats come from preemptive actions that do much damage, before the press reports on the threat itself, or even the preemption, until it's too late.
Julian Bajkowski, in his CTA article took a vague Intel announcement that new chipsets "support" Microsoft DRM to mean that DRM itself is embedded in the chipsets. Since MS DRM requires all kinds of tech in the chips to support its features that are much more general purpose than just DRM (even simple 8086 memory access and register logic "supports DRM"), that leap is unsubstantiated speculation, though possible. So Bajkowski/CTA presented the analysis unprofessionally - though the analysis itself is worthwhile to discuss.
The modern press is afflicted with a major problem: its staff is so automated, so powerful in research, publishing, and fraternal immediate communication, that journalistic professionalism is no longer necessary to get one's content consumed. The lowered barrier to entry fills the field with unskilled workers; their essential reporting less useful. Because the bad logic undermines credibility, while the slick stationery, flashy handwriting, and express delivery market the message more widely than ever.
I would point out the broad applicability of this criticism to most modern journalism, well beyond chip technology, but that scope seems obvious. Tech is a business long accustomed to PR masquerading as journalism, with informed professionals consuming such journalism with skepticism, cross referencing, and a twitchy BS detector. Beyond the tech beat, most news consumers just accept the journalism at face value. And base much more important decisions on it than which CPU to buy.
--
make install -not war
So they're not denying that DRM exists in Intel stuff. They're just saying that DRM is not there on Pentium D and the 945 chipset. Other Intel stuff have all that crap they listed - Macrovision, DTCP-IP, COPP, HDCP, CGMS-A, and "others".
So there is an uproar from various web sites, people, etc that there is DRM. Intel has to scramble and respond that there is not. Doesn't this give anyone in the business a SMALL CLUE that their customers actually *do not* want DRM?
It's a shame that the market is not as strong as it should be in real capitalism to let people and their pocketbooks speak loudly. People will buy the next Intel chip that has DRM in it because Microsoft says to put it in.
--- witty signature
This entire slashdot news post is misleading.
Intel's press release is based on the fact on that Computerworld's article claims that Intel is adding unnounced DRM features to their new line of Pentiums. If anyone actually read the article, it does not say ANYWHERE anything about unannounced DRM features. In fact, I would say that the Computerworld article and the Intel press release are saying basically the same thing, with their respective biases present. Honestly, the only thing newsworthy here is that Intel announced the specific DRM implementations in their chipsets.
Lastly, an opinion... DRM is not something I really would like to see implemented on the CPU-level. I don't think "THE MAN" should be controlling what I can or can't do with media that exists on my computer.
Karma police, arrest this man, he talks in maths....
Nor anyone else's, if you want to be consistant..
Its all tainted at this point, unless you make your own.
And if you are using anything that is fairly new, I bet you have some components of DRM that you ( or the rest of us consumers ) dont even realize are there.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
'Macrovision, DTCP-IP, COPP, HDCP, CGMS-A'
These are all DRM technologies. The fact that they are not in themselves a complete DRM solution does not mean they are not DRM technologies: they are significant and have an effect on consumers' digital freedom when combined with other technologies.
This is a complete non-statement. Hardware DRM was always intended to be optional. PCs are backwards-compatible, so you always can run an OS that knows nothing about DRM chips.
The problem only comes when you are required to (or want to) use an application that uses Hardware DRM, in which case you will need to turn it on.
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
There is no DRM anywhere in our hardware! We do not tolerate any abuse of fair use, and those who do will be encouraged to throw themselves from the roof of our corporate headquarters.
</iraqi information minister>
It sounds like Intel may have learned a little something after the fiasco with the unique ID embedded on the chips. AMD took advantage of that gaffe rather quickly, and I believe that was one of the things that helped AMD with mindshare in the geek community. AMD execs would love to see Intel stumble with some braindead DRM in the chip, all they'd have to do is highlight their non-DRM nature and watch their sales increase.
The more you know, the less you understand.
Intel has not yet announced the processor that protects Apple from users who wish to run Mac OS X on hardware other than Apple's.
LOL!
Does AMD have similar plans? Maybe I should look to the Cell for me next major upgrade!
The "patent pending" icon really isn't on target for this kind of story.
Here, I might suggest a "big brother" icon -- for example, showing the cover of a book with the words "1984" and "Orwell" visibly readable.
AMD is supposedly making their hardware DRM entirely optional
That story is two and a half years old. I can clarify the actual situation and industry planned future.
When Longhorn comes out in about a year it will only fully function on a Trusted Compliant computer. It will run with a reduced graphics interface and various other portions of the system will not work at all on non-Trusted hardware or if you decline to "opt-in" (if you leave the Trust chip off).
No PC hardware maker can realistically survive selling hardware that is not compatible with the latest version of Windows. No one would buy it, and anyone who does will return it when Windows refuses to run properly. If you ask Microsoft about the problem they will blame it on the hardware manufacture for making "incompatible" hardware.
AMD has announced a project to make Trusted Computing Group compliant chips, exactly the same specifications as Intel is implementing. In fact Intel is shipping an "inactive" version of it already inside the Prescott CPUs and probably others. Exactly the same specification Transmeta is already shipping inside some of their CPUs.
The specifcation requires that the chip be inactive when you buy the computer. Naturally the first thing Windows will do on startup is ask to activate it.
If you buy a coputer without it, or you refuse to turn it on, you will be increasingly screwed. As I said Windows will only run in a brain damaged mode. You will be unable to install any software that makes use of the Trust system. Applications, games, all sorts of stuff will require a Trusted install. Without the Trust system you cannot install, register, activate, and *DECRYPT* the software at all. New file types will be unreadable if you do not "opt-in". You will be increasingly locked out of websites if you do not "opt-in".
And best of all the Trusted Computing has announced a specification called Trusted Network Connect (TNC). Microsoft has issued a press release that they are implementing TNC, but they call it SAP Secure Access Protection. What does this system do? A network access point uses it. When you request a 'net connection, it first checks if you have a Trust chip. If you do, it then checks that you are running an approved and compliant operating system then checks that you are running all mandatory and compliant software. If you are not you get "quarantined", denied internet access. If you do not "opt-in" to the trust system and run mandatory and approved software then you are denied internet access.
It's all documented right on the Trusted Computing Group website. Of course THEY give it a positive spin. The system can ensure you are not infected by a virus or trojan and it can ensure you are running a mandatory and approved firewall. This way the network can protect itself against you being infected and spreading viruses and worms on their network.
Obviously ISP's can't start making this mandatory right now. The Trust system doesn't really begin to roll out until the Longhorn release next summer. It would then take another few years for the majority of PCs to be replaced. PCs get replaced rather quickly through the normal obselecence and upgrade cycle. You can potentially see mandatory Trust compliance for internet access somewhere between 2010 and 2015.
Oh, by the way... the President's Cyber Security Advisor gave a speech at the Washington DC Global Tech summit calling on ISPs to plan on making exactly this sort of system a mandatory part of their Terms of Service for internet access. There's a transcript of the speech on the BSA website. He calls for ISPs to "Secure the National Information Infrastructure" against "Terrorist Attack".
Oh, and have you noticed the stories lately about taking internet government out from under United States Government control? ICANN and the other organisations? Obviously the world will not allow the United States to impose this sort of system on them. Instead Internet Governance will be turned over to UN groups. T
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
You can wrap it in acronyms. You can attempt to misdirect, obfuscate, or otherwise try to hide the fact that Intel sold out to corporate interests.
No DRM. Not on my computer. Not now. Not ever. Yeah, wait til you have a choice.
If Intel, AMD, and Via all follow suit, then you will be doing your computing on a wooden instrument moving plastic beads around.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
Thats the scariest thing Ive ever heard. Lucikly nobody will stand for it :)
Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley
This DRM uproar will die down after a while together with all the other(previous) privacy-related issues.
/. know and want to be able to use stuff which are DRM-uncumbered, there are many out there who do not know the implications of DRM.
There are just too many people who want computers and who are not concerned about DRM. Tell the guy on the street that just because this X was bought from Company Y, Company Y will only let you play X on Y's hardware. And the guy on the street will go, "OK, that's all right."
Just because people on
Many large corporations are unlikely to bother because I guess it's more expensive to lobby for no-DRM than to just accept a good cheap contract from the main DRM-provider.
DRM is really a tough issue. The people who don't want it can't do anything about, at least not with strength in numbers. Those who possible can do something about it (the large corporations) will rather not do anything.
It's time we used FPGA chips and some fast 32 bit off the shelf cpu's to make an open source motherboard design that contains no DRM technologies.
It wouldn't be cheap, and, probably not legal (in the future, publishing any anti-Drm info will be illegal, and buying such equipment will be illegal too.), to publish how to make such a system.
Perhaps, the CPU's to use, is the Sony Cell processors, as they can be parralled etc.
If hardware DRM implemntation is to be the defacto standard in future hardware, then fuck the industry. I've got a 2.8Ghz P4 HT chip and I'm not about to sell it anytime soon. I've got more CPU cycles then I know what to deal with. (for now I suppose) Once DRM enabled chips hit the market, I can see a future where the resale value of current hardware would be exceptionally high.
Life is not for the lazy.
Or does this color the appleIntel story from a few days ago? I was thinking, with this Trusted Computring stuff, sounds like time to jump ship to Apple ...but if they switch to intel, there will be no place to hide.
Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley
is that Intel feels the need to issue a press release about *not having any new DRM in there, look a few years back and the news would have been about the presence of new DRM... times they are changing, for the better.
TODO: 753) write sig.
You're full of it pal. Realistically , Linux already has a greater install-base than Mac. So, I don't know what the hell you're smoking.
Intel's Denial is vague and less than convincing.
"... includes unannounced embedded DRM technology"? How about "does not include any DRM technology, period.
"Intel does support various content protection technologies including DTCP-IP technology". Hey, Intel, you CPUs run programs. You support content protection the same way you support pr0n and hate blogs. Unless you mean something more...
And buiried in that last paragraph, drowned by prepositioned and hiding under verbal diarehhea, they're admitting they do have embedded DRMs.
They never explain why their Australian official was so direct either, and that if Intel isn't convertly supporting DRM, what the hell was he blathering about. I smell a rat and a trap.
Come on Intel. Come clean. What have you done?
Yeah, like nobody stood for a bunch of neonazis (PNAC) seizing control of the most militarily powerful nation on earth.
The only way "nobody will stand for it" is if WE ALL do something about it, don't rely on "everybody" [else] to sort this mess out!
Check this out. Intel are into the thick into DRM and brag about it on their developer network:
e ng /dc/digitalmedia/success/52545.htm?page=7"
"http://www.intel.com/cd/ids/developer/asmo-na/
No wonder their denial was so weasely.
Look Bill, I understand you're position, but, let's face it, it's a pretty stupid position.
Furthermore, why the hell do you even bother posting on slashdot anymore? You know we hate you here.
Mr. Stallman's science fiction short story isn't the only depiction of what could happen in a full "Trusted" Computing paradigm. I linked to it as an accessible description of the consequences of Treacherous Computing. Here are some more factual descriptions: #1 #2 #3. Please read them and compare TCG's platform as described to what could enable the situation depicted in the story.
All the planning charts and digital rights management orders have been on display at your local planning department in Alpha Centuri for 50 of your Earth years, so you've had plenty of time to lodge any formal complains and it's far too late to making a fuss about it now!
The problem only comes when you are required to (or want to) use an application that uses Hardware DRM, in which case you will need to turn it on.
Or you want to be compatible with such a platform (e.g. to exchange documents, files or email messages), and that platform has decided to lock you out. This is free market destroying stuff.
---
I'm not worried about the use of DRM. I'm worried about the abuse.
But if internet access starts requiring this...
Of course, it's optional. Just like turning over all you health records to the insurance company is optional. Just like paying taxes is optional. But the cost of exercising that option can be quite high.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
I'm Steve... Bill couldn't be here today...
Lucikly nobody will stand for it :)
The problem is that as it is rolled out, it is the people who do *not* adopt it who increasingly get locked out and increasingly suffer.
The new McDonalds Happymeal will come with a FREE CD! COLLECT THEM ALL! And one CD will be DRM Britney Spears music that only plays on a Trusted Enhanced computer. Another free CD will be a Spongbob Squarepants game that will only install on a Trusted Enhanced computer. And annoying little Tyffyni will whine to mom and dad:
Why doesn't it work on our compyooooter?!
They work at my friend's house on their compyooooter!
Why do we have a crappy old compyooooter?!
We need a new compyooooter!!!!
And mom and dad will go out and buy a New and Enhanced and Compatible computer just to get the damn *FREE* CD to play and shut the kid up.
And that's how it will be forced on you and me. Because it will be normal computers that spit out error messages, normal computers that stop working on teh new stuff... and the majority of the public will buy these new system just to get the damn machine to work right.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
You blame Apple for the dominance of Windows & Intel? To use a bad car analogy, that would be like blaming Chevy for the all the people killed in exploding Ford Crown Vics because Chevy discontinued the Caprice. While you're at it, why don't you blame the makers of BeOS, IBM (for OS/2), Cyrix, and AMD?
Yeah, that's when I delete every windows partition and switch fully to Linux.
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. --Will
Could such a scheme be foiled by running "untrusted" software within a "trusted" virtual machine that interfaces with the outside world?
This system have 2 flaws. First, you can't verify that another system uses TNC by the network. It can always tell you what you want to listen and not complain. Second, FOSS projects can break the DRM stuff and run on a general porpouse computer (not a TCPA machine) telling the programs that it is TCPA compilant.
Not that TCPA group don't intend to do what you say*, but I think that FOSS have a sucessfull defensive strategy to use.
Normaly I would say "I don't think they are so stupid to persue something as flawed." but anti piracy fight has created several stupid moviments aready, so, why not one more. Anyway, I reserve myself the right of being more paranoid than you and think that their strategy is stronger and unknown.
Rethinking email
Is the Galactic Empire coming back? Life was good, then, and largely tax-free too.
which products *have* you put unannounced drm technology in?
And live without the Internet. :^(
This is "informative"? Care to cite a source for all this wisdom you're disseminating? I've heard nothing about special chips in any of the numerous Longhorn press releases (which keep getting re-issued as the ship date marches further and further forward). Microsoft's own page on Trustworthy Computing says they have no illusions that achieving "trustworthiness" will be a quick or easy thing, though it does say the initiative includes things as innovative as (whoah) integrating anti-spam and antivirus features into Outlook. Methinks you've got the tinfoil wrapped a little too tightly around your head.
Breakfast served all day!
[Longhorn] will run with a reduced graphics interface and various other portions of the system will not work at all on non-Trusted hardware
Do you have a citation for this?
I can see how some media features might be disabled on non-Trusted systems (this is even true of W2K/XP), but it seems to be a bit of stretch to think MS would gimp the touted graphical features because of unrelated missing hardware.
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
Hold me...
"Trusted computing" is not about "anti-piracy", it's not about "virus protection" and it's not about "protecting copyrighted materials". These are all being spun as excuses for implementing DRM. But the real reason for this is so for the industry giants to be able to create a powerful cartel that controls the platform, deciding who is or is not "trusted" to develop software --- in other words, they're trying to never have to worry about competition again.
This is not paranoia, it makes perfect sense for them to do what they're doing, and it is absolutely the most logical thing for them to do. They will definitely try to do this; whether or not they succeed is questionable, although they definitely have a decent chance at succeeding. But think about it - they have everything to win and nothing to lose by just trying this.
How about interpret what he was saying as blaming Apple for their own failure (failure as in market dominance)?
It can always tell you what you want to listen and not complain.
Actually with a salted key system, the only way to "always tell the server what it wants" is if the hardware DRM is reverse engineered and a virtual software implementation is written and used.
First, you can't verify that another system uses TNC by the network. It can always tell you what you want to listen and not complain. Second, FOSS projects can break the DRM stuff and run on a general porpouse computer (not a TCPA machine) telling the programs that it is TCPA compilant.
This is a little simplified:
The TPM uses public key crypto to sign the PCR information. Each device has its own private key that never leaves the chip. So unless you can pry the lid off your tamper-resistant chip and microprobe the EEPROM contents to get the key, you can't lie about its PCR contents.
If somebody does manage to do this, publishing this key information doesn't help much, because in some network access protocols, you'd have to authenticate with an identity associated with the source device. Oh yeah, and that key will get put on a revocation list.
Believe it or not, not all security measures are designed by idiots. The consumer electronics manufacturers don't have a good batting average, and WEP was a disaster. But when real computer scientists, electrical engineers, and cryptographers are decently funded over many years to design something, don't expect black magic marker to be a countermeasure.
And live without the Internet.
Just what makes you think I would use an internet access point that uses this garbage?
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. --Will
I say this. A calm rage fills me.
We need all this DRM stuff put in everything. We need the industries to stop listening to the consumers. We need the world to wake up one morning and suddenly ask,
"What's wrong with my computer?"
I got into this game when I was three years old - 29 as of April - and I've watched it and "played" in it with child-like wonderment up until 1992, then I was even more enthused when I saw my first TV-tuner card at the Brisbane RNA Computer Show.
Since then I haven't really seen any "new" tech, just maturing tech. DRM will be the new tech, and I'm hoping it pushes home computer use back to 1980 levels.
Why?
Because the only way that the industry is going to listen to us, the people buying their products, is when they suddenly find themselves without a revenue stream.
When Little Johnny and Sally Doe can't play their music on their computer... When Grandma Josephine can't watch movies sent to her by her grandchildren... When Joe Sixpack can't rip a music CD and play a copy elsewhere... When opening the Internet is suddenly nothing but Access Denied errors... When the average coder finds he has to pay to distribute his own software... When using a computer is as "arcane" and "difficult" to use as old PDP mainframes... When DRM kills anything on the computer that involves the greater sense of community that the Internet has helped foster... We will leave.
People will only use computers when they have to. The console industry will rise, and the Personal Computer will disappear, replaced by millions of gadgets that either do the job they're required to do, or be discarded by consumers who will perceive them as broken.
We need the DRM to be put into everything it can. We need it be as invasive and putrid as possible. We need hundreds of thousands of salesmen telling customers "No, it's not broken, you just can't do that any more because...". We need millions of personal computer users to get so frustrated that they junk their computers.
We need the IT industry to collapse and nearly disappear thanks to "protecting the consumer". It's the only way they'll wake up and smell what they're shovelling.
I don't want the industry to disappear, but we need it to happen. Those of us who can see what's going on are only a minority. We need the vast majority to once again ignore computers and treat them as a business only, difficult to use device.
There's no piracy excuse for when suddenly no-one is making money selling hardware.
So I say goodbye IT. It was fun while it lasted, starting with playing my first game on that funky little blue paddle box gadget that plugged in to my parents old black and white tv, and perhaps finishing on this Athlon XP with it's LCD display and surround sound...
Goodbye Commodore Vic 20 and 64 fun times, relived on MAME. Goodbye x86 and PowerPC, I never did get around to learning ASM for either of you. Goodbye ease-of-use, user-friendly, plug-and-pray, P2P, HTTP, FTP. Goodbye Mr Computer Salesman, with your mystical devices of sound and vision.
Goodbye.
His name is Robert Paulsen...
Intel didn't say there was no DRM. They said there was no unannounced DRM. There's a huge difference.
Which would take something on the order of.... oh two months I'd guess. A year at the outside. I call FUD.
SIGSEGV caught, terminating
wait... not that kind of sig.
thank you again for all the informative and enlightening ...err information.
luckily, since our benevolent overlord requires this at the !ISP LEVEL!, now we'll get our fellow mac users to help us out with defeating this... one can hope. since no one is safe, we'll have to cooperate.
Science : Proprietary , Knowledge : Open Source
I don't understand why someone cannot simply fool DRM-ized software into thinking it's running on a DRM platform through emulation. Meaning why can't someone just implement the Pentium D's DRM chips in software?
yeah, who needs an ISP...
you can just find some dark fiber and buy a new fiber pci card and connect directly...
Science : Proprietary , Knowledge : Open Source
virtually every single thing I've said can be confirmed with a little Googling and a handful of links.
So.... why didn't you provide us with said links? hmmmm? Let me be the first: FUD!
SIGSEGV caught, terminating
wait... not that kind of sig.
You could call FUD and I'll debunk your argument just as fast, because reverse engineering is not the problem in itself: The problem is that it's illegal to do so under the DMCA and you will go to jail if you do it.
Price is not the reason people stick to Wintel, especially not if the price difference you cite is so close to the price of the anti-virus software they'd need for their Windows PC anyway. The reason people stick with Wintel is because "everyone else uses it", and "all the software is available for it". It's called the network effect. If Apple dropped the Mini's price by $100 it would barely make a tiny blip of difference.
What's with the defeatist attitude? I can't understand people who are willing to give up before the battle has even been joined.
I will not surrender my rights to this DRM bullshit. If am to be defeated in my endeavors to enjoy my freedom, then I am determined to be defeated in the midst of a good fight.
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. --Will
I, for one, piss in our new overlords coffee.
SIGSEGV caught, terminating
wait... not that kind of sig.
Not if IBM has anything to say with it. Or they might just make Linux TCPA compliant and suffer a hit in opinion from a bunch of sad, sad people.
Actually you're one of the last to call FUD. And the author has now offered to give out links on request.
Only in Soviet America, and only if you're caught.
The vast majority of Americans couldn't figure out who Deep Throat was. And this despite the fact that he was the #2 guy in the FBI at the time. Do you think they're gonna be able to deduce who "the guy that broke those annoying restrictions that wouldn't let me get the latest top 40 songs off of kazaa" is?
And that's just if it's a guy that lives in the USA. I don't see too many countries following the lead of the USA on this DMCA thing. Just a few "western" countries, which are all lapdog countries anyway. I don't see Taiwan or any number of other countries making a DMCA clone in their neck of the woods. One company there could make the chips, and the company next door could be writing software to bypass them with valid (but fake) responses. Heck, they could be the same company.
So... who's going to jail for breaking a law that doesnt exist and isn't viewed as legitimate by anyone, anywhere? That's a tough one.
...and the martians in "Mars Attacks!" said they weren't going to invade Earth ad nauseum. Should we have believed them? Uhhhh... no. ;P
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
I do not believe anything until it has been officially denied
Excuse me, I don't see what people find so terrifying about this scenario. In particular: 1. What will prevent you from using only free software (which of course will not do the checks you described)? 2. Why should people who use only free software be locked out of the web, since Linux will support DRM?
Seems to me that Microsoft will be digging its own grave with this. As it stands, Linux doesnt offer me anything more that Windows does really. However, if i couldnt run software or listen to my music that wasnt acquired with their license, i will have a great reason to switch. In addition, someone was talking about Secure Access Protection and not being able to connect to the internet, but how would that apply to those with *NIX boxes or those on Windows that spoof a NIX box. I guess we will have to see how it plays out. I understand piracy is a huge issue as it is readily accepted here in college, but come on Microsoft, youre not making any consumer friends with these things! Derek
>[Longhorn] will run with a reduced graphics interface and various other portions of the system will not work at all on non-Trusted hardware
Do you have a citation for this?
I don't recall my original source(s), but I was able to Google this:
Windows "Longhorn" FAQ
In Longhorn, users hoping to take advantage of the system's exciting new capabilities will only be able to use signed drivers.
Microsoft also explains system security enforment requirements to obtain a driver signature. The new interface will refuse to work at all without signed drivers.
Is that adaquate? Do you need me to dig up more on it?
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
when I posted, there was one other calling bullshit, but as far as I could tell, I was the first "FUD" call. oh well. I guess I lost that. Giving out links on request, however... that really seems odd. Why not post the links in his original rant? Are links protected IP now? :-p
SIGSEGV caught, terminating
wait... not that kind of sig.
If this is the case, do we have a contingency? Assuming our connections to the Internet are cut, what do we use to make our own ad-hoc network? Will traditional hard phone lines be fully discontinued in favor of VoIP?
And then here comes the kind of speech that gets people in trouble (hello all government agencies reading this!): Should our freedoms be violated severely enough, will we have the resources to pull the plug? Is this even ethical, seeing how dependent the support structures of society have become on the Internet (and will be even more so in the future)?
I find it pathetic that I must think about such drastic actions, but clearly it must be decided at what point we draw the line.
Could such a scheme be foiled by running "untrusted" software within a "trusted" virtual machine
Only if you manage to rip an authentic key out of an authentic chip. Each chip has a unique key, and that key is authenticated by an essentially unforgable manufacturer signature. It is certainly possible to do, but you'd require a fairly sophisticated laboratory to rip open microchip and read out a key. Add to that the fact that these chips are required to be boobytrapped and self destruct if they detect such an attempt. So it will be quite challenging. You have to bypass/defuse the boobytraps during the rip attempt.
Also each chip has a unique key... if you try to rip one key and use it in more than one computer they will spot multiple people with the same key and place it on a revokation list. That key and all computers using it essentially drop dead. They can no longer connect to other trusted machines to aquire any new keys. So you have to buy a different genuine motherboard and physically rip a different chip for each computer you want to 'liberate'.
You also have to be insanely careful that the never spot you doing anything that you 'shouldn't' be able to do. Again they will put the key on a revokation list and your computer drops dead untill you BUY ANOTHER MOTHERBOARD and extract a new key from a new chip.
And no, you can't just buy the chip. To get the required crypto signatures they are going to require you to buy an entire motherboard with a chip welded to it.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Check out this Wired article: http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,67749,00.html ?tw=wn_tophead_1
But why would Apple do this? Because Apple wants Intel's new Pentium D chips.
Released just few days ago, the dual-core chips include a hardware copy protection scheme that prevents "unauthorized copying and distribution of copyrighted materials from the motherboard," according to PC World.
Apple -- or rather, Hollywood -- wants the Pentium D to secure an online movie store (iFlicks if you will), that will allow consumers to buy or rent new movies on demand, over the internet.
According to News.com, the Intel transition will occur first in the summer with the Mac mini, which I'll bet will become a mini-Tivo-cum-home-server.
Hooked to the internet, it will allow movies to be ordered and stored, and if this News.com piece is correct, loaded onto the video iPod that's in the works.
Intel's DRM scheme has been kept under wraps -- to prevent giving clues to crackers -- but the company has said it will allow content to be moved around a home network, and onto suitably-equipped portable devices.
And that's why the whole Mac platform has to shift to Intel. Consumers will want to move content from one device to another -- or one computer to another -- and Intel's DRM scheme will keep it all nicely locked down.
And when DRM locks down the Wintel so tight that all "the software available for it" is no longer (nudge-nudge-wink-wink) available the same way it used to be, somebody will move in with a system which is not so locked down. If this doesn't happen, it means the market is artificially manipulated.
Way back when companies were still trying to own the whole computer industry by themselves, they wanted everything to be proprietary, no interoperability. They wanted to trap their customers into their system. This backfired on many of them, resulting in pissed-off once-bitten twice-shy customers.
Now it's the same story, only writ larger: accept DRM or no soup for you. Be one of our large accepted group of corporations, or be banished to the fringe with Linux and so on...
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
Apple G6 + Intel chips + no DRM = Ultimate Microsoft-free PC ?
People are putting up with all kinds of nonsensical intrusions into their life (government looking for national ID cards, warrentless searches, detaining people without charges) in the name of "Terrorism".
Look at what they've done at Airports. And airports are not any more secure than they were on 9/10/2001.
If they put the "terrorism" label on this, it will be accepted by the press as "the eternal price of vigelence"
I'm getting a Mac next time.
This system have 2 flaws.
You were wrong about the first "flaw", and that makes the second one irrelevant.
First, you can't verify that another system uses TNC by the network.
Actually that is EXACTLY what Trusted Computing is designed to do. It is called Remote Attestation. You can't tell another computer you are compliant without a unique key and the proper signatures authenticating that key. These keys are locked inside Trust chips.
I explain in detail the difficulties in obtaining these keys and the limitations on using them in this post. It is possible, but *very* difficult and signifigantly limited.
Second, FOSS projects can break the DRM stuff and run on a general porpouse computer (not a TCPA machine) telling the programs that it is TCPA compilant.
Go ahead, tell your software it's running on a compliant machine. It doesn't do you any good if you can't take to othet computers to obtain keys and data.
You can't play DRM music file unless you obtain a key for that file. You only get that key after Remote Attestation to some server. That key is sent encrypted and only decrypted inside the chip itself. That key is then encrypted before it is saved on the harddrive. Only that chip can decrypt that key. Copying the DRM file to any other computer is useless unless you can get the decrypted key.
Much the same thing happens when you try to install new software. It will be ENCRYPTED. You have to Remote Attest to register and activate the software, to get the decryption key. And yes, the installation itself will be encrypted. You can't copy that installation to another machine without obtainign teh decrypted key. You won't be able to install or run this software at all.
You will also need to do Remote Attestation to access many websites. That way the website can prevent you from running a popup blocker or other adblocker. Without a valid Remote Attestation the website refuses to send you anything at all. If you are not Trusted to display the ads they won't send anything. Well, maybe they will send a helpfull error message explaining how to "fix" your problem,a message explaining how to turn the Trust system on.
And the Trusted Computing Group's front page has documentation on Trusted Network Connect (TNC). TNC is a system to deny you any internet connection at all unless you authenticate Remote Attestation and you are running mandatory compliant software.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
It would have been a lot of work to have links to a million places, practically every other line would be a link. And I wasn't expecting all these replies. I'm answering posts as fast as I can. I got through the first six replies, then refreshed and have six new ones. Arrrrgh. Chuckle.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
...err information.
I'm not sure if that was sarcasm.
Was there any particular point you did not believe? Review other posts in this thread, and if you still have any specific doubts I'll see if I can give yo a link documenting it.
mac users
I have no idea what's going on with Apple. They are generally anti-DRM, and thus far I have never come across any documented connection between Apple and Trusted Computing. The latest story on Apple moving to Intel chips *might* be a bad sign.
Unless Trusted Computing is killed off by a massive public backlash, I cannot see any option for Apple but to adopt it as well. If they don't they will get strangled off and die. Without Trusted Compliance an Apple will not be able to Trusted Romote Attest to other Computers and will get locked out of pretty much everything. Who is going to use a mac if half the websites refuse access? Websites will start requiring Trusted Remote Attestations to ensure ads get displayed, and for many other reasons.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Am I the only one who thinks that this is the nail in their own coffin for MS and anyone else trying to shove this down us (the consumers) throat. To date I've refused to use linux just because well... it's EASIER to do what I want on windows. I'm willing to pay for ease of use when the price is money. I am NOT willing to pay it when it comes at the sacrifice of my own rights.
Basically what I'm saying is if this all goes through, and they start locking down our rights, I will be the first to jump ship to linux, and I promise you I will be forcing everyone I know to do the same. If it comes down to having a computer "for work" (programs that will only run under trusted computer) and a personal box so be it. I promise that that "for work" computer will be as barebones as possible and that the companies involved will get as little of my money as possible.
That doesn't quite make the case, but you know, Microsoft themselves probably doesn't know at this point exactly how Longhorn will work, so it's probably worth just waiting and seeing.
I can imagine that the Windows kernel will have strict enforcement of this signed driver policy (right now its all user space -- people have written their own driver installers that bypass the signature check). However they will also have to significantly loosen the signing process -- People want to play $LATEST_GAME today, not in 3 months when the driver is certified. So WinSupersite's stability argument is bunko.
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
Remember DVD Jon? As soon as someone tries to force DRM on us, it will be cracked/hacked/circumvented within a month. If not, screw it, I dont buy their crappy pop crap anyway. If DRM prevents us from accessing the internet, screw the internet. We will share data via lan parties, which will eventually become a constant global lan party.
What will prevent you from using only free software (which of course will not do the checks you described)
I answered essentially the same question in this post. In short you can run any software you like, but you won't be able to talk to other computers unless you have genuine hardware, and that hardware will tell other computers that you have the wrong software. You cannot obtain keys to read secured files, and even websites will start refusing to talk to you. For example websites want to ensure that ads get displayed. If you don't have the Trust hardware and approved software then they won't send the webpage. They will want Trusted assurance that you aren't running a popup blocker or other ad blocker.
Why should people who use only free software be locked out of the web, since Linux will support DRM?
First let me note that "support DRM" here means having Trusted hardware and running approved software.
Yes, there will be a Trusted version of Linux. Websites *may* add it to thier list of approved software. Or maybe they won't bother. The publishers of media files *may* add it to their list of approved software. Or maybe they won't bother. If ISPs eventually install the Trusted Network Connect system they *may* add it to their list of approved software. Or maybe they won't bother.
Bet lets assume everyone actually does the right thing and includes Trusted Linux on the approved lists. Well, YOU CAN'T ALTER AND RECOMPILE IT! If you try to customize your system, or if you are a Linux developer, the Trust chip will tell the world that you are using an unknown operating system. You no longer have Trusted Linux and you can no longer use Trusted files and can no longer connect to other Trusted computers. Linux development would practiclly grind to a halt. Even if develoment did continue, you'd still need IBM or someone to spend a fortune certifying an SPECIFIC EXACT COMPILE as a new additional Trusted version.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
"Execute Order 66"
Friends don't let Friends use Internet Explorer.
That doesn't quite make the case
Agreed. I read a cluster of items on Aero, particulary with secure DVD playback, but it was a few months ago and I haven't relocated it yet. I'll leave this post on my reply history and see if maybe I can dig up something more tomorrow. I'm pretty burnt at the moment, I got flooded with a DOZEN replies all at once. Chuckle.
WinSupersite's stability argument is bunko.
I agree. WinSupersite is either a paid shill or has drunk some heavy duty coolaid.
The real reason for it was clearly given in the second link I gave, the Microsoft certification requirements to get a signature:
GPU or drivers support memory protection techniques
Required for Aero Glass experience
Windows has to be able to prevent a process from using the GPU to access system, AGP, or video RAM that it does not have access to. Support for this can be implemented in the driver or in hardware. Refer to details in Appendix A for a description of possible memory protection solutions.
Recommended: Implement a hardware-based memory protection solution, which also requires implementing hardware access controls.
The video card could poke a hole in the Trust system. Not only could you use it to rip a DVD as it plays or scrape secure screen data belonging to another application, you might even be able to reach out and read/modify system RAM without authorization.
Aero is intended to be a secure display system, to prevent anyone or anything from reading the content of a Trusted window.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
I think I can summarise the above post by the following:
"Execute Order 66"
I can't figure out if you mean that is what they are doing, or what we should do. Chuckle.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Unfortunately I have grave doubts for our side. We have too many people who think " Well.. damn.. that's a bad situation. But I'll just wait for someone else to fix it for me."
Friends don't let Friends use Internet Explorer.
By "nobody", I can only assume you mean "everybody". Seeing as how 80% or more of the computer users in the US are Windows users, they will upgrade, and willingly accept protection from spam and viruses. Furthermore, "if you pirate software you are a terrorist". Who wants to be associated with terrorists? No one. It's simple: You either like Trusted Computing, or you Hate America. Which are you?
Man, you have been typing like a demon...lots of responses but the question i haven't seen asked is how do we stop it from becoming too much of a problem??
My first thought is that the inertia of the public will slow things down. i know people who are still running win 98 (not even win 98se!) and I know of some small businesses environments are just getting off of win 95. So that at least will delay the problem a bit longer but doesn't solve it.
So, since you have obviously spent some time thinking about it, any specif thoughts to prevent it? Any hope anywhere? Thoughts?
I mod everyone down who says "I'll get modded down for this." I hate to disappoint.
If DRM prevents us from accessing the internet, screw the internet.
Going back to store-and-forward networks like UUCP over PPP seems trivial enough. We'll simply set up PPP links through the POTS (dial on demand where fulltime connectivity is not available or prohibitively expensive), and have UUCP handle the transfer of mail and *other* content. There's really no need for DRMed ISPs, DRMed CPUs etc..
As long as we can shuffle bytes through the POTS, or local wireless loops, we're set to go.
We *are* the Internet.
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
Some quick googling revealed that the speech given at the Washington DC Global Tech summit that the author cited above was in fact given a mere 3 months after the September 11 terrorist attacks. If you keep in mind how long people focussed on 9/11, you will see that it might have been more odd if the President's Cyber Security Advisor had not mentioned terrorist attacks at all... You can find the article here
"Its a grey area". "How grey?" "Somewhat of a charcoal shade"
Seems it is time for a website like notrustedcomputing.org (by analogy with nosoftwarepatents.org).
I think this DRM thing will not go far.
1) Longhorn will be totally unusable if it implements as many technologies as they say it is. (Think transition from DOS to 3.11.)
2) Personally, I will boycott it as long as I can, and I believe may other people will as well.
3) The main reason. Nobody will tolerate DRM in countries like Russia and China. Since 90% of all windowses (and movies, and music CDs) there are pirated, people will not use Longhorn until it's hacked.
Suppose the trusted machine is the bitch of a normal computer? The worst case scenerio is analog video and audio grabs with the trusted machine forced into serving as a proxy for the normal one; I rather like the idea of a transparent bridge setup in which the normal machine has final say over all comms. Still, if they want us to treat the nasty things as black boxes then let's treat them as black boxes with a shotgun stuck in their mouths.
If (when?) DRM/Trusted Computing becomes the defacto standard and the current Internet shuts out/locks out DRMless hardware/software, it just means a return back to days of Bulletin Board Systems and FidoNet (BBS-based 'Internet') for people who truly care about their interet experience and don't want it tainted by DRM/Trusted Computing. Such an 'Internet' will benefit from the absence of the bandwith-sapping, 'unwashed masses' who only see today's Internet as little more than 'online televison' and/or a 'shopping mall'. Email spam should be non-existant on this 'new' internet as the people who use it would be savvy enough to block/delete spam on sight and blackhole the IPs that spew the stuff pronto.
For all Netizens who truly care about the free echange of ideas and resources, please archive all the legally shareable bits of the current Internet you can so you can share them on the 'new internet' when you have to and let the IP cartels have the current spammed-out Internet as their own 'private' content distribution medium.
no it wasn't.
it didn't sound right saying informative information.
Science : Proprietary , Knowledge : Open Source
The only thing this changes is digital reproduction. People WILL hold a microphone up to the speakers and make an analog recording. Which they will turn right around and import into the computer. The computer will accept it, because people (physicians, lawyers, marketeers) need the ability to record voice messages, and sound discrimination functions take up a lot of processing power.
Same thing with video. It will get imported, unless the microphones and cameras are required to be Palladium compatible. If they are, then of course, people are shit out of luck. I suspect there will be backlash, because lots of people have bought $1200 digital camcorders and will be expecting them to continue to function normally until at least 2010.
Right now, with audio disks putting in all kinds of errors to fool the EFM on optical drives, there's not much difference between a digital "rip" and an analog recording. Hell is hell, whether it's painted pink or Olive green.
When the revolution hits, it's going to drop 10% off the stock market. Be ready. Get out now.
Aye.
But all that is necessary to stop it is to turn it against itself.
A nice 0-day exploit. A worm that uses this DRM to lock people out of *every* part of the computer.
And to get it seeded inside and from Redmond itself.
I'd love to see them spin it when it uses their own software activation schemes to require payment in order to get back one's own files.
Granted, I have no intention of ever doing anything like this, but I'm not the only one who has thought of such things. Someone will, whether for profit or freedom... the irony is that it hardly matters which... and well, let's just hope their systems then become enough of a flop after that for the rest of us to do without these "enhancements" they're adding...
By reading the frantic comments here, it looks like we were on the verge of a split in the IT world: the DMCA-lobbied part consisting of the US, EU, Australia, etc..., and a DMCA-resistent part consisting of China, Russia and most of the remaining then-free world!
Now imagine a not so far future, where chinese/taiwanese chip manufacturers implemented two versions of their chips: one crippled with DRM for the DMCA-area, the another uncrippled one for the rest of the world and their domestic market. The uncrippled version would have a bit, where one can enable or disable that crap at will, (just like the region-less DVD players, remember that one?), while the DRM in the crippled version could not be turned off.
We'll get the crap, and the Chinese will still be free to get the best of both worlds. Wow! We're living in interesting times.
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
I have no idea what's going on with Apple. They are generally anti-DRM,
What's going on with Apple is very good marketing spin. They are the world's leading provider of DRMed media, and really the only object lesson that this might all work -- yet somehow come out smelling like a rose.
I've seen and read various comments from Steve Jobs (who also runs a movie studio) on the topic, and it's clear that he is not at all anti-DRM -- He claimed that the nextgen DVD standard must be "uncopyable" for example. But at the same time he's rather pragmatic about it and argues that you don't need to turn the world on its head to achive perfect digital security (as WinTel is apparently trying to do.) But, if this catches on, I agree, Apple will surely adopt it.
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
When I saw the line about "no unannounced DRM," the first thing I thought of was Kazaa saying "contains no spyware." This denial from Intel is about as believable.
For sale: one sig space, gently used. Inquire for details.
Man, if half of what you are saying comes true then it really confirms RMS's analysis (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html and many others) of the situation from long ago. A few years ago at GE it always seemed that Jack Welch would take absurdly radical positions in order to pull the organization in a certain direction. Five years later his previously-crazy views were mainstream. RMS seems to have a similar knack.
No PC hardware maker can realistically survive selling hardware that is not compatible with the latest version of Windows.
Except apple. When oem computers start to ship with longhorn, I'm going to have to reccomend people not buy them, and choose either apple, or a custom built pc that can run older versions of windows that don't use the Trust system.
Perhaps in your country it's illegal.
*awaits counterparts in russia / korea / india to step up to the plate*
You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
There is a lot of hype here.
I have one acronym for you: IPv6.
As in, there will be DRM on the Internet backbone when Hell freezes over.
No penguins were harmed in the making of this post.
Sure, IBM might be in it on the Intel side, but they do make other non-crippled systems (Unless you count trying to run AIX as crippled wrt OpenPower) that start at the $3600 mark. If Apple does switch, that doesnt mean it's the end of using a well-known alternative to Intel/AMD based hardware.
The only thing is that it wont help in a network made to only accept and trust "DMCA Compliant nodes".
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Thats the scariest thing Ive ever heard. Lucikly nobody will stand for it :)
Nobody could stand the Pentium III ID-chip, yet it was shipped and nobody cried because of assurance it was DISABLED by default.
They never told anyone that it could be activated and deactivated in software only. It can, any malware can read your CPU ID without your consent and knowledge under a Windows OS. It doesn't matter that you have set it to disabled in BIOS, any software can enable it. I think Linux prevents this because of security, while Windows allows it. However, the crime and lies are with Intel, which shipped a feature nobody allowed.
What we need is to educate ignorant users into responsible and knowledgeable users. Don't treat them like idiots, explain every detail to them, or refuse to fix their problems.
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
As always, we need to tell this to the world.
People are ignorant sheep, so they need to be told what to think. We just have to keep doing it like they are, and leave the choice to the people.
We need to make Linux better, so people will see it as a viable alternative.
Point them to the GNU-pages, make them read "the right to read", etc. Find good sources with less FUD, because FUD will only hurt us in the end.
Make a living based on only free software and stop supporting the Microsoft monopoly by using their OS.
I'm fine with DRM as long as I can install my pirated windows, office and run my pirated mp3s
You forgot the USA-torn country of Japan: DRM in Japan.
Taiwan, Korea, etc, there are companies there already introducing DRMed technologies. Like always, they are ahead of the curve.
at least for free OSS. They might as well rename the "trust chip" the "OSS demand stimulating device".
Its very rare to see a home system with 100% legit software and media. Some of its even unwittingly so (if a computer savvy person comes round to put a 'picture editor' on your machine it takes some knowledge to distinguish between the standing of Photoshop, The GIMP, a free demo, a cracked demo etc. to most people software is just software etc etc.) I think its fair to say most people end up with a blend of paid-for and not paid for, I suspect it probably pans out that they overpay for the paid software leaving things about even. The computer industry seems to survive and profit on this balance. But one can even imagine a scenario where people become unwilling to buy a computer. Hmm, 800 for the system, but 500 for the office suite? Thats 1300, too much for me, might put the cash toward a car and keep the Pentium 1. But the industry might have seen 800 + pirated office software + 200 from games + 50 from subscriptions etc without DRM/TC. And then perhaps they'd buy the office software any the next year.
Intel/AMDs/Microsoft's DRM/Trusted Computing is just going to transform every current Office pirate into an OpenOffice.org user with implications for (a) the rate and quality of development of the software and (b) market share.
I can't believe Microsoft have actually done the figures on this and figured out DRM etc. will make them richer by handing their OSS competitors such an advantage. Surely they haven't gone the MPAA/RIAA/FAST line of believing each pirated copy is a lost sale? I expect them to say so publically but I thought as a business they were smarter than that. I think they are making a rod for their own backs with Longhorn etc.
secret private keys are embedded in the chips, so that only these chips can decrypt what is encrypted with the matching public key
"$1000 20 meg hard drives"? No thanks.
The way things are now, you can get a used computer that is good enough for
internet use, is expandable, and you can run some (older) games on
for around $50 dollars (sometimes much less!) at various thrift stores.
I once saw a complete PII box with 10 gig hard drive (that worked!) for
25$, sans monitor at a local thrift store here in LA. You can slap together
a current box for just a couple hundred bucks, that dosen't have DRM shit,
and can do just about anything you can possibly want.
Sadly, it looks like dark days ahead of us if this DRM
shit goes through. You will have a few choice: spend a few hundred on a locked down,
peice of shit that basicly has a middle man telling you
what you can and cannot do WITH YOUR DOWN DAMN MACHINE. Or you can spend
maybe $4000 or more for a basic box with the current technology of the time
without these "features" (I'm willing to bet that they will sell non-locked
down/not-as-locked-down "development", "corporate", "professional"-or whatever
the hell you want to call them boxes at exorborant prices), or you can spend hundreds
getting the old non-DRM'd hardware from a second hand source. This might be good
news for those who have boxes sitting around unused and who need to make a quick buck,
but for people on a limited budget, or who love freedom, this will suck and suck hard,
Hopefully this will lead to the true "next generation" of P2P apps: net-wide distributed decryption tools.
Oops, wrong url. It's: OpenCores. On another note, I wonder if, since I'm talking about chip designs, it would be possible to build a "fake" DRM chip, and sell it on a cheap PCI card, or something...?
Look at Microsoft's history. There will be flaws, there will be exploits. Black-hat hackers are going to have a field day attacking something they despise so much.
Microsoft surely aren't that dumb? To not realise that their system is going to be cracked within weeks? And that the repercussions will bite them in the ass ten times harder than anything that has happened before?
Obviously ISP's can't start making this mandatory right now. The Trust system doesn't really begin to roll out until the Longhorn release next summer. It would then take another few years for the majority of PCs to be replaced. PCs get replaced rather quickly through the normal obselecence and upgrade cycle. You can potentially see mandatory Trust compliance for internet access somewhere between 2010 and 2015.
Many PCs are not directly connected to the internet, but through a router with NAT. The PC is sitting somewhere on the LAN. Actually, I use this setup at home for a single computer because it is quite convenient.
I think that will be another technical difficulty for enforcing Trust compliant computers (and if the $50 router has to be Trust compliant, so what? I could live with that and use it as it is)
C - the footgun of programming languages
I didn't say "no DRM" but "no new DRM". Replace new by unannouced if you want to - the statement remains valid.
TODO: 753) write sig.
why does everyone keep forgetting that without a ...
sh1tload of "back end technology", example
electricity not one computer on this planet would work. you could still smelter a soda can tho.
so please if you don't want to make the friggin
law books exponentially bigger with entries
keep it simple. the computer IS acopy machine.
so sorry. forget about DRM and the such for the sake of making money with it. it redicilous!
it's what a computer does best. it copies, duplicates, it calculates, stop friggin crippling it. it not a feature it's a road block!
you just wait and see what is goign to happen
once the gamerz have to start dealing with this.
it just like the grafic cards. who needs a
super computer grafic card. everybody in the industry laughed about it. now even yer grand ma
demands a geforce 5200! you will see what the consumer (NOT THE PRODUCER!~) thinks about this.
stop freaking making the computer a computer for the producer! it's for the consumer -or- user!
So what, horde Pentium III systems, linux, BSD and macs. Then build an ad hoc wireless 'internet 3' with like minded folks?
This sucks!
In this dark future I guess I could use linux (I am sure it will support this DRM crap with IBM behind it) and only consume creative commons media...
Seems it is time for a website like notrustedcomputing.org (by analogy with nosoftwarepatents.org).
There already is: http://www.againsttcpa.com/.
Yar.
I saw this article and found it plausible however, film tends to be
an immersive experience. Who is seriously going to watch a big
name film on a tiny iPod-like screen? I don't watch movies on my
computer very often because I have a home entertainment system
in the living room purpose-built for that task - larger screen, a
surround sound set of speakers. A two inch LCD screen and a set
of headphones to watch on the bus on the way to work just won't
be as satisfying as watching a film in a real auditorium. The iPod
worked since it was the logical extension to the Sony Walkman
idea.
Horrible.
I suppose one should purchase non-DRM infected technology
while one can.
And mom and dad will go out and buy a New and Enhanced and Compatible computer just to get the damn *FREE* CD to play and shut the kid up.
You must not be a parent. Those of us who are know that the only correct response to this kind of whinning is to tell the kid to STFU and finish eating their gruel before you decide to sell them off for medical experiments.
FreeSpeech.org
That was sort of what i was leading too when i mentioned 'make your own'.
Few of us can afford ASIC's..
Curious though, i didnt know a fully functioning ARM core was done.. Where did you find that at? The last i heard of was pulled by a C/D by Arm..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I bet there would DMCA issues with a product like that.
Gotta love all these acronyms. Its starting to sound like the government around here...
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Occurs to me in light of your post above, that this applies just as much to linux and other non-M$ OSs -- a big vendor could put a lock on TC-linux, since small developers wouldn't stand a chance. Need to recompile your kernel? Sure!! just tell us what you need, we'll recompile it for you to TC specs, and you can then download this TC-linux update for your system -- for a suitable fee, of course. Source code included, for all the good it does you, so the the letter of the GPL is not violated (tho the spirit is raped).
You make a good point too in another post, about how either Apple goes TC, or Mac users get locked out of even more of the computing world than they already do.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
AgainstTCPA.com - Computers and Internet gave you freedom. TCPA would TAKE your FREEDOM.
If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough. (Alan Kay)
So what, horde Pentium III systems, linux, BSD and macs[?]
No, there is no point.
The new computers are the same as normal 'old' computers if you do not activate the Trust chip. There is no reason *not* to get a Trusted Compliant computer. That is how they intend to simply hand them out to everyone without resistance. You could just buy a new computer and leave the Trust chip off.
The problem is that anyone with an old computer will increasingly suffer and get locked out of everything. The same goes for a new computer with the Trust chip off. You'll get locked out of more and more websites unless you *have* a Trust chip *and* you turn it on. It's all "opt-in". If you don't "opt-in" then you get locked out.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
how do we stop it from becoming too much of a problem??
:)
The only way I see to stop it is massive public backlash. Informing people you know is helpful, but we really need the regular media to pick up on the story. Do you happen to know any reporters?
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Amusing place for a line break (at least on my screen):
:)
Unfortunately I have grave doubts for our side. We have too many people who think
We should be so lucky to have *that* as a problem
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Isn't "The Thing"(tm) about Linux that you get the source code and can change the source code if you like and re-compile?
Once you make changes and re-compile you executable is no longer signed.
You cant make Linux TCPA compliant and have it still be "linux"
True that he made the speech partially in response to 9/11, however the the governmental desire/effort towards Trusted Computing predates it and has only expanded since then. Government grants for Trusted Computing are close to a hundred million dollars a year and only increasing. Two Cyber Security advisors quit with the complaint that the government had not yet taken sufficently forceful policy/reglatory steps to drive it forward (the current advisor is no less dedicated to Securing The Network than the previous ones). As I recall one complaint in the resigation letter was failure to adopt an exectutive order requiring security on all new governmental computer purchaces as a means of driving the market for such computers. There have been government policy papers calling for stong and active policy - I should have saved a link, I haven't been able to relocate it. Thus far the Whitehouse has only adopted the more passive parts of the policy, allowing the private sector to roll it out. Once it is substantially in place the government is favorable to policy and regulation to drive the final stage. The governemnt won't pass a law making you buy a Trusted Computer - that would provoke outrage. But once all new computers are shipping with Trust capability standard, and once and most of the public own compliant computers, and once a few of the ISP's start making it mandatory, the government would be very favorable to standards and regulations that would drive it to *all* internet providers and *all* internet connections.
The mainly EU work on a new "Information Society" does not directly mention Trusted Computing, but they are very pro-DRM and big on "Internet Governance", and tons of vague talk about 'security' that (IMO) imply/require Trusted Computing capabilites. The UN Next Generation Network (NGN) work groups are much the same, strong words about Internet Governance and lots of very vague talk of 'security' that (IMO) implies/requires Trusted Computing capabilites.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
I think I missed a critical point in my post. The reason it is so insidious and the reason they *will* be able to deploy it is that Trusted Computers are always "better" and "more functional" than normal computers. There is never any reason *not* to have one.
A Trusted Computer can do anything a normal computer can do. All of the old stuff still works on the new computers.
It's normal computers that can't read the new files or run the new software or view the new websites. It's all the new stuff that *only* works on new computers in a new extra 'handcuff mode'. If you don't turn on the handcuffs it's a plain old computer that can only use the old stuff.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
I'm fine with DRM as long as I can install my pirated windows, office and run my pirated mp3s
I'm not sure if you were making a sarcastic pro-DRM quip... if so I have a reply:
I'm fine with DRM as long a no one faces prison for making NONINFRINGING use, nor faces prison for helping/enabling someone else to make NONINFRINGING use.
That is all that the DMCRA would do, it would amend the DMCA to say that noninfringing people do not go to prison.
Of course if people do not face prison for removing/circumventing DRM in order to make noninfringing use, and if people do not face prison for offering information/products/services for striping/circumventing DRM, then there can be no expectation that DRM will ever actually work, that it would ever actually prevent infringment.
The fact that DRM would be rendered absolutely WORTHLESS is merely a side effect of not sending INNOCENT NONIFRINGING PEOPLE TO PRISON.
It is simply an unfortunate fact that you cannot expect DRM to work without innocent noninfringing people face prison.
If you were not making a sarcastic post in support of DRM... well.... nevermind. Chuckle.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Sure, it might be reverse engineered on one person's PC - but that won't help anybody else. Every computer will have a unique private key embedded in it, and you'll need your own key to do anything useful. Kind of like trying to play a game online with a CD-key that you shared around the entire apartment complex - it will get banned.
The problem is that the reverse engineering procedure won't involve a few lines of code - it will involve hardware probes. That means expensive equipment and clean rooms - for each pc that is to be cracked.
This is the problem with hardware-enabled DRM.
It all depends on what you're trying to bypass. If it is just installing the latest game, then you can defeat the system since only one person needs to crack their PC, decrypt the game, and redistribute it. On the other hand, if your ISP blocks packets from non-DRM machines, then you're up the creek.
You need an Orwellian translator to read it:
"Nope, we never have not not had unannounced DRM-free lacks in our not implausibly deniable non-product less non-rollouts... moving forward."
Intel has pulled an end-run around you and is beckoning you to join them on the Macintosh platform. Haha, who would have thought that Apple would have Intel-based Macs?
This is all very interesting, and i know you lost the one link, but until i see some sources I dont have anything except your word for me to rely on... Please find me some sources if you want these claims to be taken seriously... On the other side of things, i do think that this will happen... how soon, who knows...
"Its a grey area". "How grey?" "Somewhat of a charcoal shade"
A successful troll, then. ;)
SIGSEGV caught, terminating
wait... not that kind of sig.
Ok, I think I have a suitable smoking gun document.
First you'll need this definition:
ICT = Information (and) Communication Technologies.
Document. At first it sounds potentially innocent, but about half way through it becomes explicit that it is talking about a 2010 agenda for a Single European Information Space, a unified Trusted interoperable DRM Information Society. The source for it is the European Union's official portal for "institutions and bodies of the European Union, including the European Parliament, the Council of the Union, the Commission, the Court of Justice, the Court of Auditors, the Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions, the European Central Bank and the European Investment Bank."
The following list is merely to cite the government bodies, not specific documents...
The United Nations Press Release establishing the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG). WGIG still seems relatively small and relatively early in their work. Far bigger and more developed is the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). And of course there's the Whitehouse with the National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace, almost a Megabyte worth of PDFs I haven't even begun to dig through.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
A successful troll, then. ;)
I'm not sure if you're actually suggesting I was trolling, or merely teasing about it.
If the former, I suggest you check the replies to my post and my answers to them. I'm pretty sure I covered every question/challenge with a response & suitable reference link to back it up. No Troll.
The only reason I didn't give *you* any refference documentation is that you did not make any specific challenge/question. If you dispute any specific point just let me know.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
It is *possible* to crack/fake the Trust system, but it is extremely difficult and it is subject to some pretty severe limitations. I am a programmer and I have studied the Trusted Computing Group technical specifications in detail.Hundreds of pages of dense technical specs.
The Trust chip has a unique 2048 bit RSA asymmetric private key locked inside (the PrivEK) and a matching public key. This key comes with a crypto signature from the manufacturer to authenticate it as a genuine Trust chip. (The manufacturer key is itself authenticated by a Trusted Computing Group signature, but we can ignore that for this discussion.)
You cannot pretend to be a compliant Trust computer unless you have a key and matching signature. It is mathematically infeasable to forge the authentication signature, so your only option is to use a genuine key and a genuine signature. The only way to obtain a genuine key and genuine signature is to buy an entire motherboard and rip the key out of the chip.
It is certainly possible to rip a key out of a microchip given a suitable laboratory and the requisite expertise. However the Trusted Computing specification also requires that this chip be boobytrapped to self destruct if it detects you attempting to extract your key. Yes, it is still possible to extract a key, but you need a really good lab an some hardcore expertise to disarm or bypass the boobytraps while trying to read the key. You are also going to fail on your first umpteen attempts and you'll need to keep buying new ones until you get it right.
Ok, lets say you *have* managed to extract a key. Now you *can* build a fake Trust system and beat the system. Well, then we get to the limitations I mentioned before. Every chip has a unique key, remember? If you try to use this extracted key in more than one computer then they will spot the duplication. They will then put your key on a revokation list and all of your newly liberated computers drop dead. The key doesn't work any more. So for each computer you want to liberate you need to buy a genuine Trusted motherboard and physically rip a chip. One rip, one liberated computer.
Ok, so you do the one rip one computer deal. Well you *STILL* need to be insanely careful. If they ever detect you doing anything you aren't "supposed" to be able to do, if they ever detect that you cracked your machine, then they once again put your key onto a revokation list. Once again your computer drops dead. You now have to go out and pay for ANOTHER genuine motherboard and rip a new chip.
And here's where it *really* gets fun. As part of "activating" the chip and creating a digital identity you might just be required to register your real name. If they see you cracking the system and re-registering new keys repeatedly, well they may just refuse to register you a digital identity anymore. You can rip keys all you like, it won't do you any good. The key doesn't do anything until it is registered and activated. At that point *you personally* would effectively be banned from the internet or using computers at all. A computer death sentence.
The people behind this are not stupid. They are spending BILLIONS of dollars on this because it *doesn't* fail in the ways that normal DRM fails. They also made sure that when it does fail there are ways to revover from that failure, and some of those recover methods can be pretty drastic. If some brand of chips is found to have a flaw, a hole in the system, well they can put that manufacturer key on a revokation list. Every single peice of hardware from that manufacturer would then DROP DEAD. Potentially millions of PCs dropping dead overnight. This is some hardcore shit. I seriously hope that a flaw *is* found in some brand of chips... I seriously hope they *do* revoke that key... I seriously hope they *do* cause 5 millions computers to drop dead... billions of dollars worth of computers to drop dead... millions of angry owners taking to the streets with pitchforks and torches to LYNCH the
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
I couldn't locate any Steve Jobs quote about uncopyable DVDs. I spend a while on Google trying.
All I've seen is this Steve Jobs interview where he seriously trashes DRM.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Sorry, I read it in the print WSJ, which I think are pay-only online.
Jobs doesn't trash DRM at all there -- he simply argues that systems will be broken, so it's not worth investing a massive engineering effort into something that's never going to be 100% effective.
It seems highly likely that Apple will use TCPA features to keep OSX/Intel off generic PC hardware. The trusted boot-up features seem directly applicable to preventing OS piracy.
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.