Slashdot Mirror
Trusted Computing And You
sebFlyte writes "There's an interesting look at the Trusted computing initiative running over on ZDNet UK, written by security guru Bruce Schneier. He looks at the suggestions for best practice made in a recent policy document, and Microsoft's 'Machiavellian manoeuvring' to stall said document. He posits their moves are to avoid having to enforce such best-practice when it comes to Vista's DRM and other copy-restriction technology." From the article: "This sounds great, but it's a double-edged sword. The same system that prevents worms and viruses from running on your computer might also stop you from using any legitimate software that your hardware or operating system vendor simply doesn't like. The same system that protects spyware from accessing your data files might also stop you from copying audio and video files. The same system that ensures that all the patches you download are legitimate might also prevent you from, well, doing pretty much anything."
To say I don't trust "Trusted Computing".
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
Well, trusted computing should start with a trustworthy company. That means good, consistant company ethics and ethical people working and representing the company.
Evolution or ID?
We, as computer users see it coming, just like a satellite sees the storm. We just have to keep broadcasting.
I don't get it.
You only trust someone if you have good experiences with it again and again.
Like this story, for example.
Oh you gotta love that "-1 Redundant" on a duplicate story. The fucking moronic irony of a moderator.
In the future, waste your mod points, positive or negative, on stories that aren't duplicates.
Is that his name or his mental condition?
Look, morons, if you can't find an editor that can see a dupe from the previous day, get the fuck out of the business.
Aside from offering me the chance to insult morons,
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Security is always a balancing act between usability and security. If you want the closest thing to total security then you'll disconnect your computer, lock it in a safe and never remove it. Of course that makes the computer useless. If the amount of time and effort you have to put into jumping through hoops outweighs the security benefits of the system then clearly you have your priorities screwed.
More importantly, if *I* paid for the computer and *I* paid for the software, why shouldn't *I* choose what I can do on *my* computer (within the law)?
http://blog.nexusuk.org
>Is that YOU, the computer OWNER is not trusted.
You hit the nail on the head, my friend.
Most people read the words "trusted computing" and they assume they know what it means. They think it means you, the user, can trust you computer to be secure. So, so wrong.
One of the seminal papers in the field of trusted computing is called "Programming Satan's Computer" (PDF file).
In that paper, the point is, when the user of the computer is as evil as, say, Satan, how do you protect the information on that computer?
In other words, the whole approach of trusted computing is looking at the user as the bad guy.
I'm going to apologize in advance for this slightly off-topic metapost, but here goes:
Look, I understand that you don't want to waste your time reading something you already have formulated an opinion about, and that you might have some knowledge about.
But just because there has been one article published about a certain topic, does not mean that there is not valuable information and/or insight in another article covering the same topic.
You don't want to spend the time to review a related story? Fine, then don't.
But don't waste your time posting "It's a dupe" posts or "Editor sucks" posts just because you read something similar yesterday -- then you're just compounding your own problems.
Plus, you're wasting my time by posting duplicate posts to a duplicate article.
Have nothing valuable to say about an article, dupe or not? Then don't say anything. Just move on.
Knowledge of a subject is not a boolean variable. I, for one, welcome the opportunity to learn more about topics that interest me.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
I find your faith in human nature disturbing...
Your whole argument is based on the assumption that Windows would only allow use of locked formats.
Of course it won't work that way, it'd be corporate/product suicide.
However, only Windows will be able to use these locked formats. Which means that once locked formats come into circulation, you will always forever after have to use the Microsoft-mandated access method. Your old DVDs will still play on your new PC, and your new DVDs will still play on your new PC, but they won't play on your Linux box or your OS X box and so on.
Locked formats will be rare for years to come. It has to wait for market uptake. You won't see locked DVDs released right away, because that means that all existing electronics will be broken, which again would be corporate/product suicide. It'll be years after DRM is already integrated into those electronics, when a large quantity of the user base has those DRM-capable electronics, that you'll see locked formats released on a large scale. Years after people have seen no detriment form DRM and have already accepted their DRM-capable electronics has standard. Years after, for the vast majority of the populace, the DRM actually doesn't hurt them in any way, because it only stops the real thieves and the Free Software nerds.
You completely missed the way it works. Nothing will cease to work. The new "trusted" content simply won't be accessible by old PCs (carrot). It's like they don't meet the minimum specs. To finish the job you stop providing interoperability, you only provide migration (stick). It's like having a friend who'll open your document in a newer version of Office, edit it and then you can't open his version.
You mustn't forget that the primary goal of Microsoft isn't to piss off users. They want to make sure everything is working smoothly, as long as you're going down 1 Microsoft Way.
The only reason XP's Product Activation crap didn't result in a backlash is because 99% of users never had to deal with it since they got XP with their new PC - preinstalled and pre-activated.
There you have it. As long as you don't try to use "alternative" applications which require you to import data from the leading software, you shouldn't notice it. Using Outlook? Never see a problem. Try to import the mailbox in Thunderbird? Doesn't work. Try using Linux and you'll meet nothing but a wall of DRM. It is everyone but the Windows users that will be inconvienienced.
Kjellla
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Why would Linux not run on a TCPA machine? The Linux distribution could simply ignore the fact that there is even a TCPA chip in the computer as it can ignore any other piece of hardware if you tell it to just by not configuring it. Unless there is a TCPA-bootable-disk-key-checker the BIOS runs, but why? They would stand nothing from that- the applications, data, and even the hard drive partition are encrypted and not visible to to other OSes from what I have heard. This would be an additional expense and have no benefit.
Just "gittin-r-done," day after day.
How does an artist's decision to publish via a DRMed medium force you to compensate them for their work, if you don't want to buy it?
If I can't buy a mother board without trusted computing then I have no choice but to buy artists that only use DRM.
This means that I could not play any media of artists that refuse to use DRM or sell non-DRM media.
Don't you understand. DRM is not about stopping piracy. It's about controlling content. What happens when the organizations that control DRM don't like your art and refuse to let you DRM it? Its censorship by proxy.
If all tvs, computer, and portable audio can only play DRM then only content that will be allowed to play is those which are liscensed for DRM and if those giving out the DRM codes don't like what you have to say may not let you DRM it.
Would you trust these corporations with your freedom of speach?
Look. I don't mind DRM on DVD's and WMA files becuase I'll buy them... But when I have no choice to what other media I play especially if it's media content that non-corporate artist plays on my computer then I'm hostile toward the idea.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
While I certianly hope there is a public backlash against Trusted Computing, almost everything you said is wrong. Unfortunately the "common understanding" of Trusted Computing is completely wrong.
Let's say that Microsoft declares that Word 2006 will only open "trusted" documents.
Wrong. It will be able to open both Trusted and Untrusted documents. It will be able to save both Trusted and Untrusted documents. An Untrusted loads can become Trusted saves, but Trusted loads can never become Trusted saves. It has a tendancy to encourage a movement from Untrusted to Trusted and prohibits any movement from Trusted to Untrusted.
The new software can open and save anything. If you have the new software then eveything "just works".
Any normal wordprocessor can only read and save Untrusted documents. A normal word processor cannot touch Trusted documents at all. A normal word processor doesn't work when anyone gives you a Trusted document.
If you have Trusted software it always works, and tends to move more things into the Trust zone. If you have Untrusted software then sometimes it spits out error messages at you.
If Joe and Jane Sixpack find that they can't play their old DVDs on their new PeeCee, they're taking the thing back. If their old MP3s don't play, they'll take it back.
You have it backwards. Old stuff always works on the new computers. The new Trusted Computers "just work". Old DVDs and old MP3s play just fine on the new DRM lockdown computers.
What will happen is that Joe and Jane Sixpack find that they can't play the NEW DVDs and NEW CDs on their OLD PeeCee. Joe and Jane Sixpack will take little Tyffani and Tyler through the McDonalds drive through and get a pair of McHappymeals. And in the pair of McHappyMeals will be a pair of FREE CDs! One CD will be free Britteny Spears Trusted music and the other one will be a Trusted Spongebob Squarepants game. When they get home they will find that the new trusted CDs DON'T WORK in their old obsolete Untrusted computer. Litte Tyffani will yell and scream that she can't play her Britteny Spears CD and ask what's wrong with their crappy old computer... that the CD works just fine on the shiny new computer at her friend's house. Little Tyler will yell and scream that his Spongebob Square pants game doesn't work on their crappy old broken computer... that it works just fine on the shiny new computer at his friend's house. The kids will be whine city: What's wrong with our compyuooooter? Why doesn't it work on our compyuooooter? Why do we have such an old crappy compyuooooter? We need a new compyuooooter!
Joe and Jane Sixpack will go out and buy a new Trusted Enhanced computer just to get the bloody FREE CDs to work and shut the brats up.
Mark my words, there will be all sorts of free crap givaways that only work on the new Trusted Enhanced computers.
Old stuff works on the new computers. New stuff does NOT work on the old computers. If you do not but a Trusted compliant DRM lockdown computer then you're screwed and none of the new stuff works. You get locked out of everything new.
as long as they have to support legacy data, they can't totally lock down the system
Wrong. They *DO* support legacy data. It is all of the NEW data that gets totally locked down. It is all of the NEW software that gets totally locked down, but it can still real old unlocked data. It's the NEW websites that will be totally locked down, unviewable unless you have a Trusted Browser. A Trusted webbrowser can see all of the websites, it is normal old webbrowsers that get locked out of the new websites.
Yes, at first very few websites will be willing to lockout everyone with a nonTrusted browser, but there are MANY reasons for them to do so and the number of such sites will only increase as more of the public is handed Trusted compliant machines. One of the primary reasons for websites to do this is to lock out anyone from using pop-up blockers or ad-blocke
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.