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."
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/31/154 6252&tid=172&tid=109
Well, because the "staff" ignored my duplicate notification, as usual, here's a link to the previous story and here's my comment there.
Please note, just because the domain of a news site is different and someone included Schneier's URL this time doesn't mean that the story isn't a duplicate.
Thanks for helping to make Slashdot a better place.
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.
Is that YOU, the computer OWNER is not trusted. This is the first step towards taking actual ownership away from the owner and handing it over to the manufacturer after the fact.
Which is why I do not support Digital Restrictions Management.
Corporatism != Free Market
You only trust someone if you have good experiences with it again and again.
Like this story, for example.
Would I rather have too much security in IT or too little? I vote for too much. The first day my firm makes the news because of some breach that results in piles of data being released is also the first day that I'm looking for a new job. No thanks. Users are pretty forgiving when they understand why we do things the way we do. Nobody ever got id-thefted by this way.
Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies.
Never forget: 2 + 2 = 5 for extremely large values of 2.
As bruce pointed out MS might have an own agenda.
I think this is a reason:
TC faq
The second, and most important, benefit for Microsoft is that TC will dramatically increase the costs of switching away from Microsoft products (such as Office) to rival products (such as OpenOffice). For example, a law firm that wants to change from Office to OpenOffice right now merely has to install the software, train the staff and convert their existing files. In five years' time, once they have received TC-protected documents from perhaps a thousand different clients, they would have to get permission (in the form of signed digital certificates) from each of these clients in order to migrate their files to a new platform. The law firm won't in practice want to do this, so they will be much more tightly locked in, which will enable Microsoft to hike its prices.
n/t
Trusted Computing will be DOA. It's a pipe dream, and it will never work.
Not because it's technically unfeasible, but because the market won't stand for it. Let's say that Microsoft declares that Word 2006 will only open "trusted" documents. Total lock-in. Would any sane business buy in?
Absolutely not. My company still uses Word 2000 - and many of Microsoft's problems stem from the fact that they have to bend over backwards not to break legacy APIs and file formats. 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.
Look at the failure of Divx (the self-destructing DVD format). It had some major studio support, and yet it was practically stillborn. Users drive technology, and users don't like to have to deal with jumping through hoops. 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.
That's why Trusted Computing will fail, even though parts of it are a good idea. Microsoft can't force people to accept it. The real world of economics doesn't work that way. They can't force people to upgrade, and as long as they have to support legacy data, they can't totally lock down the system.
I dislike Microsoft as much as anyone, and for all the clout they have in the market, they can't do everything. Trusted Computing will either be full of holes (likely) or a major flop depending on how much security they apply.
Having learned that, a few companies (I believe M$ was one of them) changed from "trusted" to "trustworthy"
The Raven
Which is why I'm looking forward to getting a Intel based Mac which can happily dual boot XP and OSX until a certain point when I'm fine with formatting the XP bit entirely off.
(assuming, of course, that Apple doesn't go into this too, in which case I'm stuffed)
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
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
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has posted numerous articles concerning the subject of DRM and trusted computing which carefully and thoroughly explain to the user the promises and potential problems with these technologies. There is one article in particular which suggests "Owner Override" as a solution to the problem of policies being enforced against the owner of the computer as if the owner was an adversary. The article is linked below:
Trusted Computing: Promise and Risk
Not to be a troll, but there is no difference between "licensing" something and "buying" it. When you walk into a store and purchase something, you are agreeing to an implicit license. Usually this is along the lines of, "return it here for up to 30 days. If anything goes wrong after that, the manufacture will fix it up to a year. Beyond that, do whatever you want but we're not repsonsible."
When people refer to "licensing" they usually mean signing some other contract that does not include the "do whatever you want" clause implicit in "buying."
When "YOU BUY" something today, more often then not their is an explicit license agreement. If you don't like the limitations, it's your own damn fault for spending money on it. You should have found a license that allowed you to own the product.
Don't get me wrong, I hate M$ and the **AA's as much as anyone and despise their licensing schemes. You must realize, however, that you do not have any rights that are not given in the contract that you agreed to in purchasing something. Where as in the past licenses were implicit and you could claim that the store owner/manufacturer is responsible for "X", now the contracts are explicit.
Until we get around to changing the law (in America), it's perfectly legal for companies to take your "rights" away, but only if you're dumb enough to let them.
There is no belief, however foolish, that will not gather its faithful adherents who will defend it to the death.-Asimov
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.
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)