DRM Based on Trusted Computing Chips

An anonymous reader writes "We've always know that Trusted Computing is really about DRM, but computer makers always denied it. Now that their Trusted Computing chips are standard on most new PCs, they've decided to come clean. According to Information Week, Lenovo has demonstrated a Thinkpad with built-in Microsoft and Adobe DRM that uses a Trusted Computing chip with a fingerprint sensor. Even worse: 'The system is also aimed at tracking who reads a document and when, because the chip can report back every access attempt. If you access the file, your fingerprint is recorded.'"

Comments

Sweet

[arrrrg]

I want one !!!!!!!!

Re:Sweet

[LoonyMike]

I want one !!!!!!!!

Sure, just press your thumb against this pad and it'll all be taken care of for you. No need to worry with pesky order or payment details.

Biased article?

[Dibblah]

Oh, come on. Drop the bias. This is technology aimed towards businesses. People who have truly sensitive information and need to be able to track who sees it. It's not targetted at warez-kiddies, movie downloaders or porn magnets. Sure, it will be used in that capacity sooner or later, but the hardware manufacturers are responding to a perceived customer requirement.

Re:Biased article?

[Roachgod]

Its not biased, its true. When trusted computing was announced it was to 'foil malware'. Now it has been switched to 'foil owner's use of own property'. Realistically, every company is going to demand this feature to lock down their software on user PCs and to try and make piracy stop completely. For a while, this will seem reasonable, but then it will inevitably be abused. Forced upgrades and time outs that can't be undone or reset come to mind. And once software demands it, people (like myself) that use older equipment will be forced to upgrade to the new hardware in order to use the new software, even if the old hardware is 'powerful' enough to run said software adequately. Its really just a cash out for the assorted industries at the user's expense.

So, while the current incarnation may seem ok, things are only a few steps from being really bad and invasive. Couple this with the DMCA, and half the things we take for granted with computers now could be taken away, and it will be illegal to 'break' things to get those abilities back.

Re:Biased article?

[KitFox]

But if you run a business, and made the choice to use WordPerfect, or even a freeware Linux application, would you want to be FORCED to purchase MS Word to read a document that another company sends you? Not only that, but they intend to lock out the capabilityt o export (No Copy/Paste, etc), so you need to buy Word for EVERYBODY who needs to read the document.

Now comes interesting Tidbit Number two...
The article mentions "My fingerprint results in Access Denied, but the person who wrote it gets into the [document]." Right... So what if they want ME to be able to get in, but not my coworker? How do they acquire MY credentials to allow me in? How secure is this acquisition? Already things like PK Encryption require chains of custody and KNOWN Public Keys to have the proper security. When you get into the extremely-high levels of security, it gets somewhat complex. But now there is a certificate associated with my fingerprint?

Overall, while they claim "Makes it easier", from a security standpoint, I actually see a lot of room for complication, error, and massive breaches of security. And as the article points out: Do you REALLY trust Microsoft to not have security holes? One "Oops" and suddenly the document that you need -ME- to be able to read is not at all accessible by me, but who knows who instead.

And what kind of "Oops" does it take? Gee... Spoofed email of a Public Key maybe? Social Engineering of a phone call to claim to be me, and give them a false cert fingerprint? And of course if I use Linux, I'm {censored} out of luck. If Linux will even RUN on the systems anymore, since Microsoft doesn't sign it to be trusted.

Re:Biased article?

[shmlco]

Agreed, in that the article epitomizes bias with a capital B. The system is enabling users to --selectively-- lock MS/Adobe documents on notebooks, which after all, have a rather high theft rate.

And it "records" fingerprints. Oh my. Of course, many systems of this type only record data points and are unable to reconstruct the fingerprint from those points. This could be of that type, though I doubt the author would admit it. Even so, please explain to me how recording the fingerprint of someone who's trying to gain unauthorized access to MY secure data is a bad thing?

Fundamentally, the author is spinning each point to "prove" his agenda. Personally, what I gain primarily from this article is that Information Week's editorial standards are lower than I thought...

Re:Biased article?

[Anonymous Coward]

>People who have truly sensitive information and need to be able to track who sees it.
People with truly sensitive information have other means of protecting them, and i
doubt they see putting them on laptops as the best means of securely storing them.
In the company i work, we have a system that uses encryption keys, those are stored in
a special safe in a guarded datacenter. Not on a laptop.

>This is technology aimed towards businesses
This system is aimed at the mass market, which means not at people who possess information that needs heavy protection. If this was a server platform targeted thing, it would be different, but even Intel has changed LaGrande from Itanium-based to client systems only.

>It's not targetted at warez-kiddies, movie downloaders or porn magnets. Sure, it will be used in that capacity sooner or later
You got that one dead right. Except that it will not come as a side effect, but as the intended means
of the original design. We'll wait and see, i predict this will take more rights away from you and
give more means of collecting data and controlling your actions on the devices you bought to the corporate world. And not only illegal actions that you mentioned will be sanctionized, but also
percieved illegal actions. Copying the CD you bought for listening in your car? Rip the CD to mp3 format for easier storage on your fileserver? Any other thing any other company with money enough
might object to? Any fucked up thing a marketing droid will come up with and which will be pushed to legal status by lawyers in court?

Do not just whisk this away. TPM/TCG will go a long way and you and all the other users out there
will suffer from it. So i for one like to see the bias in the article stay right there.

Re:Biased article?

[Stan Vassilev]

It's not targetted at warez-kiddies, movie downloaders or porn magnets ...yet

This is how these things get adopted: they are offered to the businesses and parents, but soon same businesses will demand to control their users because of piracy and infair business tactics.

And you know it'll get used for privacy invasion and remote control.

Slowly, carefully, but it's inevitable. Few years from now we won't even know how it happened.

It's not the gun that kills, the man holding it is. Whether the technology is "evil" or not basically is completely unrelated.

Re:Biased article?

[mshiltonj]

the hardware manufacturers are responding to a perceived customer requirement.

I don't believe that for a second. They are responding to arm-twisting by Microsoft and Adobe (,etc.) and working *against* customer interests. Consumers have no interest in DRM at all. The question on manufactures' minds is how much DRM they can shove down consumers' throats before they balk and stop buying. They are counting on consumers being either too ignorant or too passive or too apathetic -- until it's too late.

Re:Biased article?

[Anonymous Coward]

Slowly, carefully, but it's inevitable. Few years from now we won't even know how it happened.

Look at your PC today... it's the last generation of personal computer that you will own. Future PCs will be nothing but set-top boxes for content, and the transmission/playing/reading of that content will be brokered by the corporations who control the millions of crippled machines they've sold: Microsoft/IBM/Dell/Intel/Apple.

Why bother waiting for Sony to sell you a CD with malware on it that will take over you machine... these PC effectively come rootkitted straight from the manufacturer, and it can't be removed because it's built into the hardware.

Re:Biased article?

[rsmith]

No system that someone else has physical access to is secure.

If the laptop is stolen for its data most of the protection effort is in vain. The thief can rip out the harddrive and read it's contents on another machine. Unless the harddrive or the files are well encrypted. And even in that case, the laptop user could yield to rubber hose cryptanalysis.

If the "trusted" computing chip uses keys to sign/encrypt things, those keys will get leaked/hacked eventually.

Sensitive data does not belong on a laptop.

Re:Biased article?

[Anonymous Coward]

YAY! Software prices are coming down! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY DOWN!

Seriously, I hate DRM. It screws with software licensing, it screws with fair use, it screws with copyright expiration and it screws with history. (There was a story on NPR a few weeks ago about a storage room at some major company (Shell Oil?) that was hadn't been accessed in, like, 50 years. When they started going through it they found all this cool stuff from the 30's 40's and 50's: movies, letters, memos, documents, manuals, etc. All of which gave some insight into how the culture there operated at the time. I mean, how do you preserve stuff like that when you have DRM that makes everything expire at some point?) Anyway, back to my original point. While I agree with practically everything you say, you have to remember that the vendors don't live in a vacuum. When my dad finds out that the two-year checkbook software he's been relying on won't run anymore until more dollars get spent to "upgrade" it, well, let's just say I want to be there with a bucket of popcorn to watch when he storms into Best Buy with my Mom to have it out with the folks that sold it to him.

Remember the Sony rootkit? TurboTax DRM? Try improving net profit by keeping piracy down with NO FREAKING CUSTOMERS. The ***only*** reason consumers aren't screaming about this yet is because they don't know it exists, nor how it is incompatable with their expectations about what it means to 'buy' something.

Trust me, not all the cards are on the table yet. :)

Re:Biased article?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

> Seriously, I hate DRM. It screws with software licensing,
> it screws with fair use, it screws with copyright expiration
> and it screws with history.

I concur. However, let's face facts. It also screws with copying CDs and DVDs from friends, which is the real impetus behind the politics for and against.

After all, if nobody did this and only did fair use copying, the companies wouldn't give a rat's ass.

Re:Biased article?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

> Consumers have no interest in DRM at all.

Not true at all. They have the interest that promoted the creation of the copyright and patent items in the Constitution, which is to say, to promote development of new inventions and works by securing for their creators a limited but exclusive right to their creations. This advances technology as well as culture much faster than it otherwise would. That is of significant interest to consumers.

And, quite frankly, it's probably of greater overall importance than is "fair use". Not that that implies there should be no fair use, but let's keep things in perspective.

Re:Biased article?

[zecg]

Consumers have no interest in DRM at all.

Yes, they do. Just yesterday, they were still that video cards are not HDCP-enabled. High-definition porn that is only pumped through the a secure pathway is their interes.

Re:Biased article?

[Anonymous Coward]

my. Of course, many systems of this type only record data points and are unable to reconstruct the fingerprint from those points.

So in other words, if the computers recognize your fingerprint as 4A-32-09-1B-6C, all I gotta do is send the authentication server a message saying my fingerprint is 4A-32-09-1B-6C and I'm you? Sweet! If all developers were like you, this will be easy to hack because none of them would have thought of that. Single factor authentication for the win!

Re:Biased article?

[ozmanjusri]

After all, if nobody did this and only did fair use copying, the companies wouldn't give a rat's ass.

Bullshit they wouldn't. The software companies realise they have a product that never gets old, never wears out and will perform the task it was purchased to do until hell freezes over unless they find a way of breaking it. Software companies have been trying to find ways of making software wear out for decades so they can rake a continuous income from their customers the way other manufacturers do. They use product activation to tie the non-wearing software to the fragile hardware for example, but their customers hate them for it.

The customer wants to buy a tool and use it forever, or until they no longer have a use for it, whichever comes first. We know damn well when they're being scammed, and want nothing to do with this license once and pay forever crap. We've tolerated buying the same product over and over again because we accepted we were paying for new features and improvements.

The cost of production of each copy of a program is nil, so the only controllable cost variable for a producer of software is the cost of development, the development of those features and improvements we've been paying for. If they can get away with using this DRM garbage to artificially obsolete programs, they won't need to keep improving the software, they'll have their continuous income without the cost of development. Say goodbye to software innovation.

Re:Biased article?

[sqlrob]

creators a limited but exclusive right

Limited? Where? Stuff created before I was born will still be protected after I die. That's not limited.

Re:Biased article?

[msobkow]

The objectives have not changed, people are just beginning to understand that if I protect my information, no one else can access it. The reverse side of that equation is that if someone protects their information, I can't access it.

i.e. The technology that allows the *AA to come up with usage-restriction schemes is the same technology being mandated by privacy advocates when your address, financial, health care, and other information is accessed. It is expressly stated in the Canadian requirements for such systems that you must log every attempt to access a document.

So stop your freakin' panicking already, you anti-DRM wankers! Take it to the courts and fight the problem where it needs to be solved -- on a social/legal level.

That includes whoever came up with this flamebait phrasing:

Even worse: 'The system is also aimed at tracking who reads a document and when, because the chip can report back every access attempt. If you access the file, your fingerprint is recorded.'"

Re:Biased article?

[Yartrebo]

Those people shouldn't be keeping secrets in the first place. I cannot think of anything in this world requiring more than a cursory amount of security.
  - nuclear weapons -> should be dismantled and made into reactor fuel, like the former USSR is doing.
  - trade secrets -> should be made open, to improve competition and make a freer market.
  - military secrets -> Shouldn't be carrying out assasinations and offensive wars. In case of an imminent or actual defensive war, I can see the point though.
  - privacy -> done on one's equipment. These chips will lower ones privacy.
  - financial information -> Once again, should be public. Fraud (both financial and mob) is nearly impossible when any concerned group can peer into anyone's or anything's (refering to corps/govt/military) financial info.

PS: I'm not in favor of much financial privacy, so long as it's applied very, very equally. I'd rather know every last movement of Delay's money and have my money movements universally known than not.

Re:Biased article?

[Anonymous Coward]

"The question on manufactures' minds is how much DRM they can shove down consumers' throats before they balk and stop buying. They are counting on consumers being either too ignorant or too passive or too apathetic -- until it's too late."

Smells just like government:

"The question on governments' minds is how much authoritarianism they can shove down people's throats before they balk and stop supporting them. They are counting on people being either too ignorant or too passive or too apathetic -- until it's too late."

Re:Biased article?

[Antique Geekmeister]

The designers of Trusted Computing have thought very hard about how to transfer and manage semi-private keys: I've seen some good presentations on it, and it has a public/private key handling capability, much like PGP. One problem is that to load new keys, those new keys have to be signed by an existing key owner. And to do that, you basically need to buy them from Microsoft, who can and will put in back doors.

Second, Microsoft seems to be keeping the master keys, and you can be quite certain that the US federal government is keeping additional keys or a copy of the master keys. And the US government has demonstrated repeatedly that there's always some idiot willing to violate other people's privacy for political or criminal goals: sometimes that idiot is the president, such as Nixon in the Watergate scandal or Bush with the recent discovery of warrantless wire taps. The deliberate difficulty of creating your own private keys on the fly, for private users, means that both Microsoft and the US government will always have access to your most private materials.

It's certainly possible to create authentication and encryption systems where there need be no law enforcement access, or master keys. PGPphone did this many years ago, and PGP does it now. But it seems a requirement of all corporate grade systems now that the manufacturer cooperate with federal demands for backdoor access: notice how the Clipper Chip was pulled from the market when it was discovered how to use it with your own private keys.

Re:Biased article?

[Znork]

"This advances technology as well as culture much faster than it otherwise would."

Yep, that's what is quickly becoming the worlds most parrotted unsubstantiated claim, with more and more indications, ranging from the rapid ascendance of opensource through the economic rules of free market competition, suggesting that it's blatantly false.

I suggest that competition, communications and the free exchange of ideas drive the advance of science, technology and the arts. I suggest that intellectual monopoly legislation not only does not serve its purpose, it actively slows the advance down through removing competetive pressure and the introduction of barriers for information combination.

Re:Biased article?

[Anonymous Coward]

No shit. I keep a copy of Acroread 5.something around to view .pdf files without installing a 40 megabyte POS in /usr/bin. Lately I've been noticing that many .pdf files will render (I can see the page) and then about 1/2 second later the whole page is blotted out with a black mask. WTF?

Software companies are on the upgrade gravy train. So much for backwards compatibility.

Re:Biased article?

[roman_mir]

When my dad finds out that the two-year checkbook software he's been relying on won't run anymore until more dollars get spent to "upgrade" it, well, let's just say I want to be there with a bucket of popcorn to watch when he storms into Best Buy with my Mom to have it out with the folks that sold it to him. - and so what? Nothing good will come out of that BestBuy is not writing software. They sold him the package and he read the license, didn't he? I mean, if he read the license and still used the software for 2 years prior to this moment, he was OK with it, wasn't he? Nothing will happen, worst case scenario? The police will come to subdue an unrully customer.

Re:Biased article?

[NemoX]

The ***only*** reason consumers aren't screaming about this yet is because they don't know it exists, nor how it is incompatable with their expectations about what it means to 'buy' something.

By saying "yet", you imply that you believe people will start screaming about it, at some point. I think you give way too much trust in that the general public is actually educated enough to differentiate between propoganda and the truth. I think they will be fed some load of crap about hackers, and theives and such. Then the media will help by putting a bunch of it in the news in a timely manner, and all the people will be like "wow there's a lot of that going on, I understand" then they'll say my favorite line "...besides, I have nothing to hide, I'm not a theif or a hacker" (which is equivilant to what pastor Martin Niemoller is known for saying). Then they will be forced to pay annual fees and all that nonsense, and continually be told new reasons "why" they have to pay more and more, and the general public will just eat it because, the majority of people are just plain stupid.

First they came for the [hackers] and I did not speak out -- because I was not a [hacker].
Then they came for the [music and movie theives] and I did not speak out -- because I [never stole music or movies].
Then they came for the [software pirates] and I did not speak out -- because I was not a [software pirate].
Then they came for me -- and by then there was no one left to speak out for me.
(Attributed to Pastor Martin Niemöller, German priest during WWII as the Nazis took everyone away to the camps)

Re:Biased article?

[msobkow]

Ah, I see. I point out that it's a two-sided coin and call those who want it both ways wankers, and that's trolling. :P

It doesn't change the truth -- you can't have it both ways. Either security works and you have privacy/protection, or you can pirate to your heart's content. The writing is on the wall: society and legislation want the privacy.

Re:Biased article?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is technology aimed towards businesses.

No it isn't. It is for control freaks. I'm sure the Chinese government, where Lenovo is based, will be all to happy to promote this level of control.

The trouble with the ubiquity of dytopian Orwellian visions is that, being so common, they are dismissed out of hand as just so much paranoia. What's going on couldn't be any more real: power is being concentrated into fewer and fewer hands; and those hands are doing all they can to track your whereabouts, what you say to who and when, and even what you read. Really. That's what's happening. Right in front of your face, and you still don't get it. Or you excuse it, because it's for 'business'. If that's just 'business', then fuck business. You need a whack with a cluebat.

Re:Biased article?

[Anonymous Coward]

Leave it slashdot readers to only see that which reinforces their own prior opinions on a subject.

Many of you may not realize it, but both Adobe Acrobat Reader and MS Word already support the features described here - ability to prevent access to documents, prevent editing, copying from, printing, etc. What looks to be "new" is the use of the finger print scanner instead of typing a password to unlock credentials. Ask a security expert - and they might say this is a good thing.

Clearly there are legitimate reasons for content owners to want to secure their documents with DRM ... think medical test results, attorney-client privileged communications, non-public information about corporate earnings, etc.

But everyone simply focuses on how evil the content publishers are when they want to protect music and video from people that want to use that content however they see fit - including sharing that content with their friends - or the rest of the world.

The issues should not be about the need for information privacy and protection - but rather the burdens that the DRM technologies impose on people that want or need access to such protected information.

Chief among these issues is vendor lock-in. Adobe and Microsoft would love to make their products the de facto standards for sharing such secured information. We are also seeing a similar competition for multimedia content with Apple, MS, Real, DivX, and others.

For these players, DRM is as much about a barrier to competition as it is about protecting content. Will you be able to play your iTunes acquired content on your new Microsoft Plays-for-Sure devices? Don't bet on it.

In an ideal world - there would be no need for DRM. And we would not need to lock our cars and houses. Just as the choice of whether to actually lock a house or a car is up to the owner ... the choice about whether to lock a document or a piece of multimedia content is up to the owner as well. We - as consumers - can decide whether such protection is worth living with by not buying it.

Re:Biased article?

[Dr. Blue]

Not only that, but they intend to lock out the capabilityt o export (No Copy/Paste, etc), so you need to buy Word for EVERYBODY who needs to read the document.

No, that's just silly. They (meaning Microsoft) have no intention of locking out export or other capabilities. That would be a supremely stupid business move, and they're certainly aware of that. What they will do is give the creator of a document the ability to protect a document in this way. But it's the document creator that's in control, not Microsoft. The only difference between this and what you can do now (for example, with printing and cut/paste disabled for a PDF document) is that what's done now is ultimately hackable, and this won't be. But be honest -- how many protected documents are actually hacked now? Do you really think that the addition of hardware to make this unhackable is all of a sudden going to make everyone lock down their documents when they don't do so now?

You had some good comments about the complexity of getting this to work right, and I'd bet that the first iteration or two will have some problems. But then you went back to Microsoft-paranoia when you said:

And of course if I use Linux, I'm {censored} out of luck. If Linux will even RUN on the systems anymore, since Microsoft doesn't sign it to be trusted.

You're going to run Linux under Window????? Otherwise, what in the world would Microsoft have to say about it? There is no way (nada, zip, nothing) that any trusted platform could ever stop Linux from running. It's not designed for that and it simply doesn't have the capability for this. You might not be able to access data from Windows partitions from a Linux boot, but Linux would happily run and do everything it does now. Nothing will ever stop that.

Re:Biased article?

[Anonymous Coward]

The cost of production of each copy of a program is nil, so the only controllable cost variable for a producer of software is the cost of development, the development of those features and improvements we've been paying for.

The cost of duplication might be close to zero, but companies that sell a lot of software have a world wide sales force of several thousand, they have call support centers of several thousand, and they run add campaigns that cost billions.

Do you even know how much big companies spend on advertising? Nokia spent over $1B last year: that's about $5/phone they made.

So get over it. Nobody wants just the disk. Your right, if that's all that was needed then software would be super cheap.

Re:Biased article?

[repvik]

But if you run a business, and made the choice to use WordPerfect, or even a freeware Linux application, would you want to be FORCED to purchase MS Word to read a document that another company sends you? Not only that, but they intend to lock out the capabilityt o export (No Copy/Paste, etc), so you need to buy Word for EVERYBODY who needs to read the document.

Reading the document will never be the problem (Unless it is locked). Microsoft has, and will always have a free reader that is capable of reading the document. Anything else would be bad business practice, because it would actually force users over to other office suits that allow anyone to read the document, regardless of operating system and software. Interoperability is key. The user (read company that buys the software) needs to know that all clients can read what they send out. If they're suddenly locked out by all clients needing to purchase the latest and greatest MS Word, they're going to look for alternatives fast.

Re:Biased article?

[symbolic]

Say goodbye to software innovation.

Maybe...but also consider that this is a golden opportunity for others to step in and offer more reasonable terms...the DRM-dependant companies can sit back and bask in newly-created (and presumably endless) revenue stream until one day they'll wake up and be so far behind the game they'll never catch up. I'm positive that the pro-DRM companies think they have the upper hand, but when you play with fire (or in this case, a maelstrom), it's a game you could end up losing in a big way.

Re:Biased article?

[Jaseoldboss]

I was quite depressed reading an article like this, it seems we're on the slippery slope to all sorts of mischief, slowly as you say. eg1 eg2

Then again, we can always rely on organisations getting too greedy too quickly. If software piracy is greatly reduced (how many people have actually paid $600 for Photoshop to edit a couple of wedding photos?) this may mean a mass migration to F/OSS software, which could represent too large a userbase for vendor lock-in to be a viable prospect.
When Microsoft brought in Product Activation for Windows and Office how much of the savings on piracy was fed back to customers in the form of lower prices? (clue, the answer is negative!)

Re:Biased article?

[Nogami_Saeko]

Software companies are on the upgrade gravy train.

Indeed they are - and I absolutely refuse to support any company that tries to pull "maintenance contract" style systems for minor releases. I used to use a FTP package called "Serv-U" for many years, but as soon as they started doing "support licenses" for routine maintenance releases, I dropped their product and never have looked at them again.

They may have changed their licensing again at some point, but it doesn't matter any more - they lost a customer and I'll never use their product again.

N.

Re:Biased article?

[howlingmadhowie]

i can see a huge problem with this.

at this moment in time, microsoft doesn't really mind about kiddies copying games and xp and stuff, because they know, that these kiddies will get hooked and then at some stage found a business and pay big time through the nose.

now, if this trusted computing crap get's going, the kiddie's won't be able to copy duke nukem san andreas III anymore, and microsoft will have lost its chief method of recruitment.

wierd

howie

Re:Biased article?

[GrumblyStuff]

So what's the problem?

Just live longer.

Re:Biased article?

[TheGavster]

I like having the call center there in a pinch, but I'm pretty sure that all consumers (except those whose career is in sales ...) would agree to forgo being pressured by salesmen and being bombarded by ads on every concievable surface if it meant they could save $5 on something like a cell phone (what is that, anyway, 5-10%? Don't know where Nokias fall in the price spectrum).

Re:Biased article?

[Sigma 7]

Now comes interesting Tidbit Number two...
The article mentions "My fingerprint results in Access Denied, but the person who wrote it gets into the [document]." Right... So what if they want ME to be able to get in, but not my coworker? How do they acquire MY credentials to allow me in? How secure is this acquisition? Already things like PK Encryption require chains of custody and KNOWN Public Keys to have the proper security. When you get into the extremely-high levels of security, it gets somewhat complex. But now there is a certificate associated with my fingerprint?

Under Windows XP, with an NTFS filesystem:

- Right-click on any file, select properties.
- Click on advanced, and check "Encrypt contents to secure data."
- Click on Details...

That's how it basically works. The technology is already there in Windows - the only difference is that it is now bound to a fingerprint reader, vhere the fingerprint reader uses existing known keys to gain access to the file.

Of course, DRM as it is claimed to be going will make this larger scale. You can be the judge of what comes next.

Re:Biased article?

[Anonymous Coward]

the hardware manufacturers are responding to a perceived customer requirement.

don't believe that for a second. They are responding to arm-twisting by Microsoft and Adobe (,etc.) and working *against* customer interests.

Sorry but you are not the customer. You are merely a consumer.

Re:Biased article?

[drDugan]

I agree, and IF IP systems had remainied in the limited state where they started, they do promote idea exchange.

The state of IP protection must change or be eliminated to have any hope of people maintaining the colloquially understood meaning of "freedom".

Re:Biased article?

[drivekiller]

So how does one produce content in your world?

Re:Biased article?

[westlake]

Pastor Martin Niemöller

On instinct, I would mod down to hell below zero any quote from Pastor Niemöller or Gandhi.
Because it will almost always be wildly inappropriate, vain and self-serving and guaranteed a quick mod up to +5. Godwin's Law.

Re:Biased article?

[computational super]

There is no way (nada, zip, nothing) that any trusted platform could ever stop Linux from running.

Except, of course, "protect" the boot sector from modification (and no more booting from disk or CD, either), which is exactly what they'll do. And, of course, to tie off any loose ends, circumvention will be a jailable offense.

Re:Biased article?

[shmlco]

And if the laptop is simply a target of opportunity, stolen off a table in a restarant or the airport? Somehow I doubt the average thief has the skills to crack sophisticated encryption schemes. It's much more likely that after a cursory inspection of the contents looking for unprotected credit card numbers and the like, the drive will simply be wiped and the system resold on ebay.

From my perspective, any amount of protection is better than none. From yours, it would appear that no one should ever actually use a notebook to do anything, and that one should ever bother to lock their doors in what could only be a futile attempt to keep out master criminals.

Re:Biased article?

[zcat_NZ]

I think we should try to promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.

Why limited times? copyright is a tradeoff between providing the incentive to create, and the harm that a monopoly on ideas creates. Incentive falls off exponentially; Walt Disney made films believing they would only be protected for 14 years, and it's unlikely he would have been any more inspired knowing that his heirs would continue to profit for another 90 years beyond his death.

On the other hand, harm is at least directly proportional. A copyright lasting 28 years keeps the material out of the public domain twice as long as a copyright of 14 years. It may even be worse, since a copyright of 90 years beyond the authors death means copyright holders are often unknown and many works of art will have perished before they can be legally copied and archived on a more long-life media.

'Exclusive rights' should extend only to publishing; where money is paid for copies. Personal copying and any sort of transformative use should be no business of the copyright holder.

"He who receives an idea from me receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his [candle] at mine, receives light without darkening me."

The first and foremost consideration should always be "progress of the sciences and useful arts" as a whole. Always ask yourself "Where is the promotion of progress?" Without that, there is no foundation of Congressional power and therefore no basis in law.

Re:Biased article?

[djnichol]

Umm. Consumers are basically stupid and are ripe pickings for corporation-fascist antics like this.

Re:Biased article?

[sqlrob]

Unless Disney is first against the wall when the revolution comes, along with Sirius Cybernetics, I could live as long as Methuselah and won't see stuff leave copyright.

And most of these DRM solutions do not have expirations coded in.

Re:Biased article?

[IgnoramusMaximus]

So how does one produce content in your world?

Under corporate auspices of course. That is you can produce (certain kinds of, approved by your computer and its true owners) contents all you want, but you cannot distribute it unless you become a contractee (read: a serf) of one of the feudal information brokers of the future. They will approve for distribution by certifying your contents, perhaps distribute it themselves, or even promote your stuff and send you the cheque for the 2% cut of the profit, after taking their 98% "Intellectual Property Facilitation" fee. You will have no choice but either to comply or not to distribute anything using any sort of the information processing equipment (read: home enterntainment systems, disk players, Internet, or home computers). You could still use a typewriter + a hand-cranked printer to distribute your works (all computer printers will be Treacherous Computing enabled) and mail it or post it on lampposts as a distrubution system. Just don't do it in the view of the new "Civic Improvement Cameras" which the police is already proposing to be installed on every corner and in people's homes as per the other Slashdot story just a few days back.

Re:Biased article?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it's fine by me, perhaps now people will stop using OS:es and software made by Micronazisoft and other fascist companies, and switch over to *nix/open source. But knowing that all humans are idiots until proven otherwise I guess that will not happen.. =((( //M3X6

Re:Biased article?

[Sathias]

Surely not all the hardware and software vendors are going to collude on this, though. Surely a company, for example AMD, would see that people really don't like being tied to this sort of racket (because thats what its like, a mafia protection racket) and would see they stand to make a lot of money selling hardware which *isn't* trusted. Surely if such product was available, people would move to it in droves. Surely those would be the more computer literate people who are the ones who their less-literate friends go to advice when they have computer problems, like this would end up being for them. And surely, the profit margins of the companies that try this shit would get fucked in the ass like it deserves to be.

Re:Biased article?

[arminw]

....Clearly there are legitimate reasons for content owners to want to secure their documents.....

The problem is that if you send me that secret document, you also have to give me the key. This means you have to send the key securely so nobody else can intercept it along the way, but you also have to ensure that I and not somebody else is at the receiving end. Further, if you don't want me to pass the secret on to someone else, you'll need to figure out a way to prevent me from giving the key, and the encrypted file or the decrypted file to someone else. Since digital data is easily copied by nature, you have a job that is ultimately impossible. If I want to give the secret data to someone else, you really have no way of preventing me from doing that.

All information ultimately has to be made available to the human senses, mostly visual and audible. In that case, a camera and a microphone can always capture the deepest and darkest secret and broadcast it to the world. The only secrets that truly are secret, as least so far, are those between you and God alone.

Therefore, all the so called "secure" TPM or whatever will not keep any secrets safe. It may make it less convenient, mostly for all users, but no secret worth knowing can be kept so for long. All anti-copying measures have failed until now and will continue to do so.

Re:Biased article?

[colinrichardday]

And how do Adobe Acrobat and Microsoft Word prevent unauthorized users from opening documents in xpdf and/or OpenOffice.org? Or running strings foo.doc?

Re:Biased article?

[Anonymous Coward]

If enough people do that, the store might think twice about keeping that particular software in stock. That in turn hits the publisher and gives them a smack upside the head.

Yeah, it's unlikely, but it's legally the only thing you can really do.

Re:Biased article?

[Alsee]

Oh, come on. Drop the bias

Have you ever read the specifications for this system? Do you have any understanding of how it works and what it is designed to do? I have read the engineering specs and I do understand it.

It is explitly designed to be secure AGAINST the owner. It is explicitly designed to deny you knowledge or access to your own keys. Explicitly designed to deny you access to and control over your own files (Sealed Storage). Explicitly designed to prohibit you from backing up or recovering your own files in a variety of circumstances. Explicitly REQUIRED to IRRETRIVABLY DESTROY your files in certain circumstances. Explicitly designed to spy on the software you run and spy on various other things you do, and to securely send that spy report to other people over the internet (Remote Attestation).

IBM even ran a TV commercial advertising the fact that these chips in their ThinkPads are boobytrapped to self destruct if you attempt to get at your own master key to your own computer.

This is technology aimed towards businesses.

Ahhh... which would be why this technology is in the hardware specification for a fully operational Windows Vista home PC system? You were saying?

the hardware manufacturers are responding to a perceived customer requirement

Bullshit, pardon my bluntness.

Microsoft declared that any hardware that is not compliant with this specification will be incompatible with Windows. Period. Case closed. No PC manufacturer or retailer can realistically survive selling hardware that does not WORK property on the latest version of Windows.

I have spoken to at least one company that expressed being cornered into supporting this, and somehow I doubt they are the only ones that feel that way.

If this really were in response to customer requirements, if this really were designed for customers, then why the hell does the specification FORBID the customer from knowing their own master key? Why does it FORBID any manufacturer fromselling a company such a system along with the master keys for thier own computers? If I were president of some Fortune 500 company and I say to a hardware manufacturer that I want to buy 25,000 of these PCs and I want a CD logging the 25,000 master keys for these systems, the manufacturer is prohibited from supplying them. He is prohibited from making the sale. He is forbidden to supply the product that the market actually wants.

-

Re:Biased article?

[Alsee]

greater overall importance than is "fair use"

That's interesting... considering that the US Supreme Court first established Fair Use some hundred and fify-odd years ago on the grounds of affirmative Constitutional rights.

let's keep things in perspective.

Yes, let's.

-

Re:Biased article?

[Alsee]

real impetus behind the politics for and against [DRM]

While I'm sure there are a variety of people with a variety of reasons, I'd say that the issue here is that it is unjust and unacceptable to have a law that says INNOCENT NONINFRINGING PEOPLE go to prison.

I have no objection to anyone using any and all the DRM they like.

The problem is the dumb-ass DMCA. The solution is to pass the DMCRA which simply says that innocent NONINFRINGING people do not go to prison under the DMCA.

If you want to defend DRM, if you want to defend the DMCA, if you want to defend the status quo, then you need to explain why INNOCENT NONINFRINGING PEOPLE SHOULD GO TO PRISON. You need to explain how it is just or acceptable to send innocent noninfringing people to prison in the name of some holy crusade against copyright infringment.

The simply fact is that if we pass the DMCRA, if we FIX the DMCA to say that noninfringingpeople don't go to prison, well then DRM simply won't work. The free market would finally be free to to respond to natural market forces and free to respond to legitimate market demands. Every single application of DRM interferes with absolutely legitimate and perfectly legal uses. The market would be free to provide DVD players able to play international disks. The market would be free to provide DVD players that do NOT lock out the fast forward button during the ten minutes of commercials at the biginning of some DVD movies. The market would be free to provide products and services from moving my legitimately purchaced music off of one brand of damaged old DRM music player and onto my newly purchaced music player of a different brand.

Now you explain to me why the HELL an innocent noninfringing person SHOULD be placed in prison at gunpoint for moving their legitimately purchaced music from one broken old music player onto a different new music player? And you explain to me why the HELL someone else should also be put in prison for selling them that product or service... or even merely for supplying them with bloody INSTRUCTIONS enabling them to move their music from their old player to their new player.

So I have no problem with apllying all the DRM you like. I just have a problem with horribly broken and evil laws to imprison innosent noninfringing people in some misguided attempt to get DRM to actually work.

Go ahead, use all the DRM you like. Just don't expect some fscked up right to pull out a gun and imprison me for making perfectly legal noninfringing use of something I purchaced.

-

Re:Biased article?

[angulion]

And for what exactly is DRM needed in this case? You have basic encryption on file in windows at the moment, requiring a password (logon). If that is not good enough you can use SecuSafe or some other 3rd party tool that encrypts the whole harddrive, like on the previous company I was at.

If you use Linux there is a whole slew of encryption algorithms to use along with crypto loopback device.
Yes, it still isn't "easy enough" to have all drives, including root encrypted as of this moment, but it is getting there in a while..

Re:Biased article?

[Dr. Blue]

Except, of course, "protect" the boot sector from modification (and no more booting from disk or CD, either), which is exactly what they'll do.

Ok, if you think that's the way it will work, please show me where in the TCG or other trusted platform documentation that it says anything about stopping something from booting or running.

That's simply not part of the trusted platform concept. A trusted platform will still boot anything, whether Linux, Windows, FreeBSD, a VMWare platform, ... All the trusted platform can do is keep you from accessing data that is locked to some other configuration.

Re:Biased article?

[angulion]

Also I call BS on this.
We read not too along ago about a Finnish music exec that said "it is a privilege to be able to play a CD in anything but a CD player". What at least the music industry would like is that you buy the same music again and again for all the different devices you own, or should I say "own".

Re:Biased article?

[Anonymous Coward]

The objectives have not changed, people are just beginning to understand that if I protect my information, no one else can access it. The reverse side of that equation is that if someone protects their information, I can't access it.

That first bit about switched roles was fair enough, I guess. The one problem with this kind of reasoning is that it fails to account for the imbalance of interests between the consumer and the company. A company 's information will always be more sort after than the consumers, and as consumers who support the company, we will always be part of a balancing act between consumer satisfaction and corporate protection. Very few biological people give a rats ass about their documents being read.

Everything you said after that initial comment was complete and utter bullshit. We don't like the state of our already tattered and comprimised privacy, but well maintained computers and the internet were one of the the last few safe havens where you were in control and had to answer to nothing and nobody. Now trusted computing is endangering this haven. We would love to fight it out on a social/legal level, but, as most can see, we don't stand a chance. Who has the money to stand up to corporate giants? The DMCA is proof of the clout that these organisations hold.

Finally, that remark about that singled out comment was the hipocrasy in its purest form.

Re:Biased article?

[msobkow]

Fair enough.

But as long as you are not forced to run a particular OS/hardware combination to access the 'net, I honestly don't see the problem.

OS manufacturers have to be provided appropriate keys for enabling an installation against the hardware. That has to remain open and flexible, but it is a social/regulatory problem, not a fundamental issue of the hardware binding.

As to the data, sorry, but nothing I read in the GPL since '86-'87 or so has ever attempted to restrict a user's data, nor what kind of data they manipulate with GPL utilities. You wanna use GNU C++ to build the control system for tactical nuclear delivery systems -- go ahead!

You wanna use GNU utilities to encrypt media files and share keys -- we wanna change the license to stop that. WTF?!?!?!?

No one has ever had an issue with encrypting bank statements, customer data, other business information, porn archives to hide from spouses or roommates, etc. Now that this one particular use of encryption and locking threatens media piracy, it's an issue that needs a license change to fix?

Sorry, no. I don't buy it. Most technical issues of media portability can be addressed, but no one is posting suggestions on how to do that. Instead they just whine that they aren't going to be able to copy media without restriction. As I can't think of any need for unrestricted copying other than blatant piracy, I have no sympathy for the whining.

Re:Biased article?

[peccary]

No PC manufacturer or retailer can realistically survive selling hardware that does not WORK property on the latest version of Windows.

I have spoken to at least one company that expressed being cornered into supporting this, and somehow I doubt they are the only ones that feel that way.

Agreed - unless the Chinese government (in conjunction, perhaps, with a few other governments) decide they don't want to be held hostage to an American company.

Re:Biased article?

[Alsee]

But China will LOVE Trusted Computing. They can get that Great Firewall to actually work. They can track dissidents. That can control their population. It's a wet dream come true for any repressive regime.

-

Re:Biased article?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that the power lies with the corporate giants who seem to be able to relatively easily abuse their power and ally to sink opposition. If this technology is abused, we are screwed! Open source is in grave danger of being hardwired against. You mustn't forget that these corporations have been created and optimised for making the most amount of money, despite the law, in the shortest amount of time, and the open source community is a black hole into which consumers venture and quality is rapant, and those who escape are rarely as receptive to pricey, non-free software.

It's a similar problem with the issue of unliscenced copying. Most of us honestly pay for content and we want to be able to copy it wherever we want. This means onto music players that don't rely on collaborating with the company who developed the DRM on the content. We have (well had) our rights, and they have been restricted. Where it becomes similar is that corporations such as Microsoft have a stranglehold on the media market. They can then charge whatever they want to whomever they want for the key to their DRM. From there, monopolies, price-fixing, no privacy.

However, I do respect the need for companys to protect against piracy, but the lengths they go to offends me as a consumer. From observing their unscrupulous behaviour, I can see why people have no moral quams with pircacy.

Re:Biased article?

[wild_berry]

But if it's a corporate notebook computer, it would be a good idea use the TPC to stop unauthorised programs from reading or writing data on storage, rendering a stolen work computer -- without startup password or 2-fac codes -- useless to a thief.

Re:Biased article?

[msobkow]

Ok, let's paint a picture of how I see a DRM-OS world panning out:

Hardware manufacturers provide a "hobby" key with every board they ship. The hobby key lets you run an unauthenticated OS on DRM, such as your home-brew build of Linux. The resulting OS itself may or may not be trusted by a media application, depending on the policies of the media application provider.

"Official" OS vendors such as Novell/SuSE, IBM, Sun, HP, Microsoft, Apple, etc. are provided with "certified" keys for the DRM chips. The DRM system automatically rejects virus infections or mods of the OS that aren't authorized by the vendor. i.e. An OS installation with a support contract is a guaranteed known starting point for third-party vendors to build and deploy products.

The next complaint people have is that you're being "forced" to buy an OS if you want media playback. With virtual hosts, that is a non issue. The base OS is a full DRM-enabled system that has licensed/supported media playback, the hosted/sandboxed OS might be DRM-enabled or it might be your hobbyist build. You still have playback access via the base, but not the opportunity to "crack" the media with a modified OS. Maybe some bright person even works out a way that the hosted OS can control/request the base OS to handle media playback that seems to be under the control of the hosted OS, but is actually just a window/portal to the base/DRM player (think X11, but handled by the base OS so the playback remains sandboxed.)

The third parties can rely on DRM to ensure that their software is deployed on a certified OS. For example, DB/2 UDB Enterprise might refuse to run on your home-brew Linux, but the developer edition wouldn't care about OS certification.

What some view as a "lock out", I view as pure opportunity for support and service vendors. Now you can have an SLA that means something, because all the vendors are dealing with replicable environments.

Think about it.

Your OS vendor provides a known state and patch level. DRM protects the core OS from modification, viruses, etc.

The third party vendor and OS vendor are responsible for keeping their releases in relative sync so that you don't get the common situation of "patch hell" where there are only a very few possible combinations of patches that will allow a particular group of third party applications to coexist. DRM allows the OS vendor to force the third-party vendor to keep their stuff up to date as well.

Think "maintenance and support contract", not home user, not home developer. The corporate and internet enterprise environments need DRM or equivalent to deploy and manage stable infrastructures that can't be interfered with.

OSS redefines the market as service based instead of product based, but it introduces an instability to the core OS that (theoretically) isn't there with a vendor OS. DRM allows a hybrid model -- OSS sharing of source, with vendor-certified DRM builds provided for a support contract.

Note the point is not to force you to license a seperate copy of a DRM OS for each box, but to ensure that the box is maintainable in a distributed environment. Everyone who has worked even a moderately large company knows of dozens of horror stories of rogue/infected PCs damaging data, costing time, costing money, and sometimes costing legal fees.

Re:Biased article?

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, I do like the picture you painted, but the main problem with it is that we can be painted in however the artists want to paint us in.

I'm afraid you have fallen into the idealist trap. You assume that these companys won't screw us over. They may well not, but with them controlling the majority of popular software and hardware, DRM can become a nightmare.

I think I'll leave it there. Consider this a cowardly forfeit. It's been kinda fun making up this load of bullshit. As you probably guessed, I know jack about these issues. Seriously though, I do think that you give too much credit to the corporations. It was fun arguing.

Re:Biased article?

[msobkow]

Quite welcome. It's fun to bounce around ideas instead of just making a comment and disappearing from the thread. :)

I Trust My Computer.

[Anonymous Coward]

For me, it's even replaced God. And the design is intelligent.

Re:I Trust My Computer.

[SleepyHappyDoc]

That's OK. It doesn't trust you.

Re:I Trust My Computer.

[FrkyD]

That's OK. Neither does God, Organized Religion or your Government.

Re:I Trust My Computer.

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

> For me, it's even replaced God.

It also seeks omnipotent knowledge of you, for the purpose of sending you to the bad place for thinking lustful thoughts.

Why people object when the government does this, but slobberingly fall to their knees in praise when God does it, I'll never know. Dare one think the unthinkable thought? That God is an ass not deserving of worship?

Nah! A few more centuries of pop culture percolation required...

Re:I Trust My Computer.

[labratuk]

Along those lines, anyone interested in this subject may enjoy this short film.

Oh no, I can hear them cry

[thegrassyknowl]

This and the plan to put a camera in every house...

What next?

I would sell my soul for total control over you. Or something like that. What has come of the world that corporate greed has taken over from the free harmonious society? I would love to say everyone will just scrap computers and move onto other ventures (like going outside) but that is the Utopian view. In reality the Orwellian scenario us coming upon us. It won't be long now people.

What is sad about this is they are touting the "legitimite" uses of making sure software is unmodified and doesn't contain root kits and protecting sensitive data from attackers. I find it funny that SHA1SUM and gpg --checksig tells me when my download isn't what the author intended. Cryptoloop (and a tonne of other software) keeps my files highly secure and safe from prying eyes even if they do steal my disks.

There are no legitimite uses for this technology that can't already be accomplished today. There are only evil uses!

Re:Oh no, I can hear them cry

[Anonymous Coward]

There are no legitimite uses for this technology that can't already be accomplished today. There are only evil uses!

IBM/Lenovo builds this, because a) Their business customers want it. or B) They are involved in some sinister conspiracy with the music/movie industry out to get you and your file downloads, which would benefit IBM how?

Re:Oh no, I can hear them cry

[ardor]

Simple. Our old friends RIAA and MPAA gotta love this.

The media industry does NOT need PCs. On the other hand, PC and laptop vendors do need media as its one reason more to buy a computer. If the studios want, there will be no video playback for PC, they can rely on dedicated DVD players. This wouldnt hurt them, but it would hurt IBM/Lenovo, Dell, Acer, and MS since they deliver the most used OS for the computers. So the *AAs can force MS and the IHVs to play along. As a side effect, ANYTHING can be DRM'ed. This is both good and bad, but the bad side really overshadows the good one, since I DO NOT trust the content producers. However, there is the chance of all this breaking down due to faulty implementations and pissed customers (like "now this piece of shit tells me that I am not allowed to watch my damn video again just because I got my Windows reinstalled!") just like what happened with copy-protected CDs.

IBM, Dell etc. are not the evil ones here, neither is MS. Its the *AAs who don't care about destroying the universal computer.

Re:Oh no, I can hear them cry

[Anonymous Coward]

.. you are only talking about home media use. (btw. I don't want DRMed media, and I don't agree with your premise that the media industry don't need computers, I believe we are far past that point.)

But computers are actually used in businesses too, where the needs and concerns are quite different. Where "the content producers" are managers, accountants and product planners that need to ensure that confidential info and plans are kept confidential. There is no need creating an elaborate indirect explanation (or conspiracy), use Occam's razor, the IBMs and likes are just responding to their business customers needs. They buy quite a lot of computer systems you know.

Re:Oh no, I can hear them cry

[KitFox]

like "now this piece of shit tells me that I am not allowed to watch my damn video again just because I got my Windows reinstalled!"

Don't act like it's news. Microsoft already changed it's license agreement. Now, for all you folks who like to upgrade your computers, a new motherboard means you need to buy a new copy of windows for a new license. Yep! Windows MAY NOT be transferred between different PC's and changing out the motherboard constitutes a new PC according to Microsoft now. In fact, according to a Technet Community Chat, replacing a DEFECTIVE Motherboard still requires a new license! As they said:
"Q: k guys, my question is .i have a system i sold, mainboard is to handle a 3.2 processor but originally sold it with 2.4 with promise of upgradeability to 3.2, though main board works fine with 2.4 it does not with 3.2, is this considered a failed mainboard
A: This is still considered an upgrade if the motherboard is changed. You might want to try using the latest BIOS for the motherboard. If it still doesn't support the 3.2 GHz CPU and you replace the motherboard then you'll have to sell them a new OS." - Microsoft Technet Community Chat

Quite a bit of fun, no?

Re:Oh no, I can hear them cry

[exKingZog]

That only applies to OEM copies of Windows, not boxed. Still sucks, I know.

Re:Oh no, I can hear them cry

[Anonymous Coward]

IBM, Dell etc. are not the evil ones here, neither is MS. Its the *AAs who don't care about destroying the universal computer.

Oh god, you are so fucking wrong it actually hurts to read this.

DRM is all about controlling applications -- music and video are just the high-profile stuff. Applications spread/use data, if you are going to control data, you must control applications. TCPA hardware decides which code gets to run, and what it can access... and it does it behind walls of encryption to ensure that *you* can't see what is executing. IBM, Dell etc etc all have massive hard-ons for this hardware because *THEY WILL CONTROL WHAT YOU DO WITH YOUR PC*. They will broker the CPU, memory, hard disc, sound/gfx card on your machine to the RIAA/MPAA members, or just anyone they feel like. You will have no say in the matter. They can install software on your computer without you ever knowing about it, and you will not be able to remove it or disable any undesirable features because your computer will not be "trusted" anymore.

In addition, it will allow them to take GPLed software like the Linux kernel and make it de facto proprietary... simply because the hardware will not "trust" the binary unless it is signed by Dell/Intel/IBM etc etc. So your GPL source is worthless in that world -- you can't modify it... hell, you can't even recompile it yourself without modification, because the result won't work as it did.

Re:Oh no, I can hear them cry

[artifex2004]

Microsoft already changed it's license agreement. Now, for all you folks who like to upgrade your computers, a new motherboard means you need to buy a new copy of windows for a new license.

Good thing they can't retroactively change earlier agreements.

Re:Oh no, I can hear them cry

[Shanep]

What next?

Open Hardware to go with our Open Source Software?

I imagine the smaller hardware shops like Soekris will become more popular and be able to ramp up production, become cheaper and more viable. I realise that Soekris make stuff for embedded and router type hardware, but surely there will always be desktop and laptop machines available without built in DRM?

Hmm, maybe some motherboards put out with some powerful FPGA's for the CPU and maybe some other parts for controllers and graphics.

Surely the people can take the power back!

Re:Oh no, I can hear them cry

[Shanep]

That only applies to OEM copies of Windows, not boxed. Still sucks, I know.

If I have to change motherboards or upgrade overall to a better machine and I want to transfer my retail boxed copy of Windows XP Pro to the new machine, will I be able to do it without having to ring Microsoft and pay to talk to one of their trained monkeys?

Surely Microsoft are playing with more fire here with Apple doing so well and looking to do better with comparably performing machines. Especially if in the future Apple provide a Win32 API emulation layer like Wine to allow Win32 apps to run under OSX at approx native speeds (on average, I've seen performance benchmarks for Wine which vary from slower to even faster under Wine).

Re:Oh no, I can hear them cry

[pathos49]

so what will this do to the TCO of a MS PC?? Seems enterprises with boatloads of PCs to maintain may have increased costs. Maybe a New Apple would be a good substitute. Unles this nefarious chip is in them as well

Re:Oh no, I can hear them cry

[MooUK]

"In addition, it will allow them to take GPLed software like the Linux kernel and make it de facto proprietary... simply because the hardware will not "trust" the binary unless it is signed by Dell/Intel/IBM etc etc. So your GPL source is worthless in that world -- you can't modify it... hell, you can't even recompile it yourself without modification, because the result won't work as it did."

And now we see why v3 of the GPL has provisions to prevent this.

Re:Oh no, I can hear them cry

[CrazyDuke]

So, basically, Microsoft wants to cash in on all those cheap OEM PCs where the caps on the motherboard blow their tops after 12 months of light use?

Re:Oh no, I can hear them cry

[Sicnarf]

yea except the current implementation of encryption software isn't yet usable for the average user.
what we need is a GUI friendly implementation for every app, even better, a service app that the OS integrates, that everyone can use to easily encrypt/check/decrypt documents. we need an easy way to distribute public keys, not only as your sig in newsgroups.
if built (this OS-level encryption service), the security concepts need to be presented without the current technological terminoligy. i mean you need to be a geek or a pro to use GnuPG, or a fair amount of training is needed that nobody is willing to spend money on.

<rant type="mostly useless">
we still use POP3 unecrypted for day-to-day email messages. why can't email servers provide secure alternatives? too much support costs? sigh.
also i hate that alot of companies are increasingly using the web browser as a base for applications. we're wasting so many hours putting all our functionality in HTML + $favouriteLanguageOfTheDay. it's a huge mess. java hasn't been able to provide a simple implementation with applets/swing (library is too huge to comprehend that it's easier to develop web apps). it all comes down to technology changing so fast, while the web has stayed the same. ok i'm getting offtopic now. ignore.</rant>

Re:Oh no, I can hear them cry

[Dwyan]

Indeed. This situation is likely to be what the GPLv3 is going to address. If you distribute an open source program for a treacherous machine under GPLv3, you not only have to provide the source code, but also a means of ensuring that the recompiled code is usable. Which means that if the binary needs to be signed by trusted keys, then you must also supply a set of trusted keys along with the code so that someone who modifies the code can use the result as well.

Re:Oh no, I can hear them cry

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate to tell you this, but Apple are racing down the Trusted Computing route too -- all their x86 Macs will include it. If you think OSX won't end up tied to a particular Intel x86 machine, then you are fucking cracked.

Re:Oh no, I can hear them cry

[mrchaotica]

Good thing they can't retroactively change earlier agreements.

Bad news, buddy -- with Treacherous Computing they've "fixed" that little "problem." And if you buy into it, you won't be able to do a damn thing about it except bend over, drop your pants, and say "thank you sir, may I have another!"

Re:Oh no, I can hear them cry

[cosminn]

In addition, it will allow them to take GPLed software like the Linux kernel and make it de facto proprietary... simply because the hardware will not "trust" the binary unless it is signed by Dell/Intel/IBM etc etc. So your GPL source is worthless in that world -- you can't modify it... hell, you can't even recompile it yourself without modification, because the result won't work as it did.

Now that's pretty far fetched if you ask me...They will not do that, it's almost impossible for them to do so - think about how many millions of programs are floating out there...are they going to sign all of them?? MS has digital signatures incorporated for software sicne XP SP1, and they weren't used at all almost. In Vista they take a more important role since now if it's not signed it'll ask you for everything it does if you allow it (Vista Beta did at least) so it'll be annoying for the user and it'll force software devs to sign their software...hell, not even all MS software is signed yet...

Furthermore, Dell sells servers with Linux on it, IBM is one of the big guys behind Linux and Intel doesn't have any gain from this move, they sell hardware not software, and they'll want to do so (server room).

DRM is not all that bad, it's just the shitty abuses by *AA and some other companies that suck.

Re:Oh no, I can hear them cry

[mrchaotica]

But the people who do care about freedom will be horribly marginalized compared to the people who don't. Joe Sixpack isn't going to want to get a weird, slow FPGA system instead of his shiny Dell or Apple when he doesn't even understand what Treacherous Computing is, much less why it's bad for him.

Re:Oh no, I can hear them cry

[Anonymous Coward]

Now that's pretty far fetched if you ask me

No, it's quite easy to do... you need to read up on this stuff.

They will not do that, it's almost impossible for them to do so - think about how many millions of programs are floating out there...are they going to sign all of them??

They don't have to sign all the programs... unsigned software will still run, it just won't have access to "trusted data". Seriously, you need to find out hwo this stuff works before you start throwing around "they will no do that" comments.

Furthermore, Dell sells servers with Linux on it, IBM is one of the big guys behind Linux and Intel doesn't have any gain from this move, they sell hardware not software, and they'll want to do so (server room).

I'm sorry... what? Dell and IBM sells Linux... and they have no interest in ensuring that you run only approved kernels. Good god man, have you even thought this through properly. Those are two companies that have the most to gain from "owning" their own copy of the Linux kernel through DRM and code signing. IBM's investment in Linux will pay off once they can take ownership of it and ensuring that their machines only run IBM approved kernels?

Re:Oh no, I can hear them cry

[Matilda the Hun]

Not to say that I don't agree completely with this, but I think these kinds of topics require another moderation:

+5 Tinfoil Hat

Re:Oh no, I can hear them cry

[patiodragon]

"So, basically, Microsoft wants to cash in on all those cheap OEM PCs where the caps on the motherboard blow their tops after 12 months of light use?
--
USA: "We're number 49! We're number 49!" (in literacy)"

Uh, I hate to be a stickler, but shouldn't that be "WHERE number 49"?
-USA guy

Re:Oh no, I can hear them cry

[symbolic]

Now that's pretty far fetched if you ask me...They will not do that, it's almost impossible for them to do so - think about how many millions of programs are floating out there...are they going to sign all of them?

Of course not- that's the whole point. They get to decide what runs and what doesn't, not you, the owner.

Re:Oh no, I can hear them cry

[mrchaotica]

Yeah, but a fat lot of good it'll do if the kernel stays stuck on version 2. The question is, how do we get Linus (and the other contributors whose consent is required to change the license) to realize this?!

Re:Oh no, I can hear them cry

[Anonymous Coward]

You will have to ring them, but they don't charge to reactivate.

Re:Oh no, I can hear them cry

[jallen02]

It might take a little more processing power, but that is about it. Courier-IMAP comes with TLS and SSL by default. I always use TLS for access to my mail these days.

Jeremy

Re:Oh no, I can hear them cry

[Sri Ramkrishna]

Dude, let them. I think you'll find that they'll slit their own throat if they create the "cornered rat" scenario. Part of the teenage culture has always been about sharing stuff like music, games, and whatever else.

If that part gets complicated there will be much greater pressure to deliver a better product. In a lot of ways, easy copying allows industries like the RIAA a greater pass. Once you raise the barrier, consumers are going to have greater scrutiny of what kind of music they buy. They'll find that they'll be making a lot less money and morever they can't blame piracy. Who will be their boogey man now?

They'd literally give the market to those who can produce music cheaply and without DRM. In fact I think this has happened before in the late 80s after the software industry largely gave up on on copy protection after it proved that the money spent on copy protection wasn't giving a return of greater sales.

Let them do it. I don't think consumers are that dumb. Nobody likes being controlled. If they get that impression the industry will suddenly have a big magnifying glass over their heads. I think they aren't going to like it.

As for open source, I think closed source people will have accept open source like linux. It's already a huge market, you cannot ignore it or prevent it from being runned on computers. I don't think people really understand how powerful it is. Most of the web is on apache running linux/bsd. Perl/Python are standards in a lot of engineering companies. Linux is used cheaply to create movie/digital effects. Hollywood lose a lot of money if movies suddenly jumped in price because they had to use windows to do special effect. They'll probably be forced to offshore that stuff to foreign countries who do allow linux to boot on their computers. It'll be fun watching, get popcorn.

If you don't think so, better get to work, the only way is to provide a better product than windows and mac. Help out the GNOME and KDE products, make that Linux desktop awesome. Make X work out the box. Create UAC (user action committees) to force hardware manufacturers to support drivers for linux. Become a political force. That's the only way to get them to do things. Become the market!

sri

Re:Oh no, I can hear them cry

[exKingZog]

Yeah, you'll still have to ring them and re-activate (after >3 hardware changes, I think). The only versions un-afflicted by product activation are the corporate volume-licensed versions, or copies used under relevant MSDN licenses. So unless you're a business or a developer, you'll have to re-active.

The thing is, most people just don't upgrade, except by the 'buy-a-new-one' method. The only people who do regularly upgrade are us geeks (who have the know-how to run Linux anyway), and hardcore gamers (who, in my experience, tend to have pirated volume-licensed versions of XP).

Re:Oh no, I can hear them cry

[ZachPruckowski]

Yes, but it's the nerds who tell the uncaring people what kind of computer they want. If a friend of mine is going to buy a computer, he'd ask for my opinion. And I would be up front: If you buy a TC'd computer, you give all your rights to use it to the hardware company who sells it to you. And they won't like that option.

Re:Oh no, I can hear them cry

[jZnat]

Maybe OEMs will look towards providing alternatives to Windows with their home PCs they sell to save money. Dell is installing Firefox as the default web browser in the UK and other areas, so it can't be too long until then...

Re:Oh no, I can hear them cry

[jZnat]

I guess you missed the joke, but Microsoft's EULA states that the license can change at any time without notice. Of course, I'm sure they'd never try to defend their EULA in court in fear of probable losing, so there's nothing to worry about.

Re:Oh no, I can hear them cry

[jZnat]

If you sell the open hardware system at a cheaper price (or with more benefits) to Joe Sixpack, I'm sure he'd consider that a bit more highly than you'd think. Joe likes to get a good deal, mind you.

Re:Oh no, I can hear them cry

[westlake]

Open Hardware to go with our Open Source Software?

This simply drops Linux and Open Source off the edge of the world.

Re:Oh no, I can hear them cry

[Alsee]

While an Anonymous has already answered your questiom, I'd like to gie a signed post that contains more details and actually backs it up.

Now that's pretty far fetched if you ask me...

That's only because you are not familiar with the system yet. You can't credibly say it's far fetched until you understand it.

They will not do that, it's almost impossible for them to do so

If you're a programmer and you're up for reading through 300+ pages of technical specifications, as I have done, you can read the Trusted Platform Module specification on the TrustedComputingGroup.org website. It provides detailed enginering specs on how they CAN and ARE doing it.

If you want a good layman explanation of the general system and what it does and how it works, I can direct you to this very good Wikipedia article on it.

So you are mistaken. That CAN do it and they ARE doing it. What they are doing, in a very simplified nutshell, is that each chip contains a unique crypto key. The chip can examine the program you run and generate an unknown crypto key. A specific and individualized crypto key for that exact unmodified program. The chip can then use the crypto key to transform any data as it is being read, and then de-transform the data as it is being written. The effect of this system is to "encrypt" the actual logic and operation of the software on the raw data.

If you change evenm a single line of the program then the chip generates a different key. Trying to run the program with the wrong key means that the program operates on the raw data in a completely different and useless manner. Any attempt to read a file will load random encrypted garbage, andthing the code attempts to do will merely be a random scrambling of random data, and when you write or use the data it is nothing but destroyed random noise.

think about how many millions of programs are floating out there...are they going to sign all of them??

No. They don't need to.

The new computers *are* normal computers and they can do anything and everything a normal computer can do. One of the most insidious aspects of Trusted Computers is that there is absolutely *NO* reason not to have one. Everyone will wind up buying them because there is no reason not to. Every single new computer on the store shelves will be Trusted Computing compliant, likely by the end of this year.

A Trusted Computer is a normal computer PLUS an extra optional mode. Essentially all existing software will continue to work just fine in the "normal computer mode".

The issue is that the NEW software and the NEW filetypes and the NEW websites and the NEW internet protocals, that all of the NEW stuff will ONLY work in the new Trusted Computing "Enhanced" DRM-enforing handcuff mode. If you have a normal old obsolete computer, none of the new stuff works for you at all. If you have an obsolete old computer you get locked out of all of the new stuff. If you have a new Enhanced computer and you refuse to "opt-in"... if you refuse to activate the new optional handcuff mode... you again get locked out of all of the new stuff.

The NEW software that is designed to use the Trusted Enforcment chip will only work if you have a new computer and you activate the handcuff mode. If you attempt to modify the software it no longer works. If you attempt to remove the DRM code from the software and run it on a normal old non-DRM computer it does not work. Only the unmodifed software works, and only on a new computer, and only if you "voluntarily" place the handcuffs on yourself.

Furthermore, Dell sells servers with Linux on it, IBM is one of the big guys behind Linux and Intel doesn't have any gain from this move

IBM is already building Trusted Linux!

IBM is already building a specialize version of Linux to be run on top of this hardware. A fully c

Re:Oh no, I can hear them cry

[Alsee]

While I agree with you and appreciate your post, there is one very critical mistake in it. A very common missunderstanding about the system.

TCPA hardware decides which code gets to run

No, it doesn't.

The new computers can run any and all software. The issue is that is software is designed to use the new hardware then that software will only work on the new hardware and it will only work in it's exact unmodifed form.

Old software and normal software still works. The new stuff only works on DRM hardware and it only works if you "voluntarily" turn on the new DRM handcuff mode. If you attempt to modify the software it no longer works. If you attempt to remove the DRM code and run it on a normal computer it does not work.

So the new system does not restrict what code can be run. These new computers are normal old computers that can run all of the old software. That is how they will get everyone to buy them.... everything still works. The issue is that all of the NEW software and new file types and new internet protocals and new email will only work on the new computers in the new handcuff mode. If you don't buy a new computer, or if you don't "voluntarily" put the handuffs on, then you get locked out of all of the new stuff.

This is a very critical issue. People who mistakenly think the new hardware restricts what software can run then assume that the system must and will fail in the market place, and they therefore assume it's not a real threat. They would be right - such a system would fail in the market place. However Trusted Computing does not work that way. It does not have that problem. Trusted Computing can and will be flooded onto the market place because there's no reason not to buy the new hardware. The new "enhanced" hardware can run everything the old "obsolete" hardware can run.

-

Re:Oh no, I can hear them cry

[1053r]

Never, ever, underestimate the idea of a corrupted government. Nowadays, the government (US government, at least) is mostly controlled by big corperations and the RIAA/MPAA. All they would have to do is to make it illegal to make computers that don't have this DRM "functionality" and feed the public some crap about it stopping software pirates. Now, I would like to see this open hardware as much as you would, but this is probably never going to happen.

Re:Oh no, I can hear them cry

[Anonymous Coward]

TCPA hardware decides which code gets to run

No, it doesn't.

If you want to be nit-picky about it... yes. You can switch it off, but then your PC will not be trusted in the same way it would be if you modified the kernel. I fail to see the need to go into such detail in a simple explanation... if you want to back it up with a more detailed explanation, fine, but your post does not contradict the original.

Particularly since this explanation came at the end of the message.

you will not be able to remove it or disable any undesirable features because your computer will not be "trusted" anymore.

Re:Oh no, I can hear them cry

[arminw]

.....If you have a normal old obsolete computer, none of the new stuff works for you at all. If you have an obsolete old computer you get locked out of all of the new stuff.....

Since there are millions of "old, obsolete" computers around, someone will see the opportunity to write the same kinds of software functions that the new DRMed software provides. There will be a functional equivalence of office and photoshop and many other programs that will run on ALL computers, old and new and the documents produced will be readable on all of them also.

Then the purveyors of the "new" software will be locked out of all the old computers or will have to come out with a new and an old version. They will also have to ensure that all the millions of old computer users can still read the data created by the new DRM enabled software. The scenario you are writing about would only happen if everybody switched to a new TPM system overnight. How many people are still happily using Win98 or even Win95 today? Getting everybody to use a unified computing model like this has about as much chance as all of us learning Chinese or they all learning English. Pretty soon the hardware makers will see that the extra cost of the TPM gets them no return and may even cost them sales. At this point they'll just leave them out to save a few dollars or yen.

Where is there a capitalistic advantage for a computer maker to go to extra expense? There will always be some that will advertise that they sell a system that does not force users to use any particular software and will allow their computer to read the data that is generated by their friends, regardless of whether these friends have an 2015 super duper system or an ancient 2006 Winxp or Mac OSX system. I have recovered files from a 1988 Mac and edited them on a 2005 Windows computer.

This TPM idea is a flash in the pan that will die on the vine as soon as the content makers figure out how to make all the new technologies work for them so they can make lots of money. It may take them a few more years, but they'll figure it out.

The only way this will work is for a WORLD wide government mandate that no more general purpose computers may be sold unless they have these "security" chips.

Re:Oh no, I can hear them cry

[arminw]

.....the current implementation of encryption software isn't yet usable for the average user....

Many people leave their car unlocked because there is nothing worth stealing therein. Likewise, most people don't care if anybody reads their e-mail that they had a great time with the kids at the beach last weekend. Security by the obscurity of being part of millions of e-mails works for most people. Having three locks on the front door and three sets of keys is a lot of trouble each time you want to go in or out. Perhaps the new, extra cost security module will be a little USB plug-in device for those who do have deep, dark secrets the wish to protect, but why make everybody pay for a Vault combination lock on their house door?

Re:Oh no, I can hear them cry

[Tim C]

Seems enterprises with boatloads of PCs to maintain may have increased costs.

Two points:

1) enterprises (along with pretty much every business big enough to have a "real" IT department) are going to be buying PCs from big-name vendors, which will come with Windows pre-installed
2) *if* they then wipe that install (which they may not, due to vendor support issues) they'll almost certainly have a site licence for Windows, Office, etc anyway.

In other words, no, the enterprise isn't going to be affected by this one bit.

Re:Oh no, I can hear them cry

[Shanep]

Open Hardware to go with our Open Source Software?

This simply drops Linux and Open Source off the edge of the world.

Why? If the Open Hardware is not compatible with any other arch, then we'd just have a new target arch. If the Open Hardware is compatible, say with IA32 or some other popular arch, then we'd merely have some machines which might not be bleeding edge, but at least would be without TC. Also, we don't even have to use an FPGA if TC is kept out of the CPU and left in the motherboard chipset and firmware. I mentioned the use of FPGA's only as the worst case.

Also, consider DVD players. They have been available region free for a long time, from nations which will provide desired products as long as there is a market. The whole World will not just roll over and pander to the US. The EU will become stronger as the US continues to piss everyone off and the days of this sort of shit will be numbered. I hope.

Re:Oh no, I can hear them cry

[Alsee]

You missed some very critical points.

There will always be some that will advertise that they sell a system that does not force users to use any particular software'

You have it backwards.

It's the new computers that are unrestricted in what software they can run.

It's the old computers that are restricted in what software they can run.

and will allow their computer to read the data that is generated by their friends

It's the NEW computers that can always read the data. So again you have the effect backwards. The very objections you are making in fact work to DRIVE MORE adoption of the new computers.

Everything works on the new computers. No problems, no errors, no headaches. Everything Just Works.

Old computers are:
resticted and incapable of running any of the new software;
resticted incapable of using any of the new files;
resticted incapable of reading the new email;
resticted incapable of viewing the new websites.

Sure some of this new stuff will be slow to appear, but there are tons of websites that would absolutely JUMP at the chance to use this system to enforce ad views. With the new system the website can prevent you from using a popup blocker or ad blocker. Either you view the ads along with the webpage, or they refuse to let you see the page at all. Go ahead, tell me websites won't love that - even if it means locking out some users? That they won't love DRM enforcment on all of the website content? That they won't love the ability to block deep linking? That they won't love the ability to enforce cookies? That they won't love the ability to securely track and count visitors? That they won't love the ability to have visitor's own computers enforce any and all terms of service they like?

I think ads are going to be the biggie biggie item getting many websites using it.

Where is there a capitalistic advantage for a computer maker to go to extra expense?

The advantage is in not having the Microsoft monopoly lock you out of the market and drive you bankrupt.

Microsoft simply declared that Trusted Computing is a hardware requirement for full compatability and full operation for Windows Vista. No PC or hardware manufacturer can reasonably survive in the market selling hardware that is not properly Windows Compatible. Cannot survive selling systems that do not work. Cannot survive selling computers where Windows pops up error messages saying that you can't do X Y and Z because you have incompatible hardware, and blaming the problem of the hardware maker.

Including a Trust chip on the motherboard costs about $5. That is the new standard motherboard. It can run anything. It can run Trusted Windows Vista, and it can run Linux, and it can run BSD. The motherboard WITH the Trust chip is unrestricted.

On the other hand a motherboard without the chip is restricted. It can't run the latest version of Windows.

And it's just not worth it for a motherboard maker to make two separate lines, one with the chip and one without. It's cheaper to just manufacture one line with the chip and sell it to everyone. If you want to run Linux or BSD on it, you can just ingore the chip. You can pretend it's not there. The chip has no effect on you. The only effect the chip has is that you wound up blowing $5 on a chip you won't use. You wound up blowing $5 supporting an evil system you hate. And you pay that extra $5 because the motherboard manufacturer factors it into the price, and it's cheaper than making a second model without the chip.

Since there are millions of "old, obsolete" computers around, someone will see the opportunity to write the same kinds of software functions that the new DRMed software provides.

Ok, sounds like Linux and gimp etc etc. Go right ahead.

The software you write will work on both systems. No reason NOT to have a Trusted computer.

The commercial software will only work on a Trusted system with a Trusted install and

Re:Oh no, I can hear them cry

[arminw]

......It is the person with the old non-Trusted computer that gets increasingly locked out......

That was my main point, the millions of users of older equipment will represent a sizable market that WILL be filled. This will be especially the case as more and more users find out that they are able to do a lot of things with their old machines that their friends with the newfangled machines can no longer do. There will be software written that will continue to install and work on the old and new systems and their makers will make a lot of noise that their software has NO DRM restrictions. Once users learn that older is better, then old systems will become valuable and there will arise mod kits that will allow the old computers to work with all the new software and destroy the functionality of the TPM chips with modifications. Once Joe user finds out that the new computer they just bought from Dell or whoever no longer lets them copy their CDs to their iPod or watch their DVDs on their laptops, there will be 42 million or more users that will make enough noise to have the DMCA repealed. Politicians still ARE sensitive to the screams of voters if enough of them do. MS and all the content makers will then have gone too far and the backlash will crush even them and all their bought and paid for legislators. Up until now, DRM really has not affected the huge masses of consumers out there, but once they realize what is happening and that their government is the reason they can no longer listen to content they legally bought, wherever, whenever they want to, that will change in such a big hurry that all the lawyers all put together in the whole USA won't be able to stop.

Re:Oh no, I can hear them cry

[Alsee]

There is one critical fact you missed. One critical point you missunderstand. The Trust chip does not work the way you think it works. The Trust chip in a new computer does NOT, I repeat NOT prevent the computer from doing anything a basic computer could have done. That's not what it does.

able to do a lot of things with their old machines that their friends with the newfangled machines can no longer do

NO SUCH THING EXISTS. That is the point you are missing.

Any software that runs on an old computer equally runs on a new computer. Anything you can do on an old computer, you can equally do on a new computer. There is nothing you can do on an old computer that you cannot equally do on a new computer.

If you can't do it on a new computer, you can't do it on an old computer either.

Buying a computer without a Trust chip is like buying a computer without speakers. A computer with speakers can do anything and everything that a speakerless computer can do. There is no practical reason to hang onto an old speakerless computer. There is no practical reason to go to a store and specifically avoid computers with built-in speakers. There is no practical reason *not* to accept the computer with speakers built in by default.

It's the old speakerless computers that are restricted. It's the old speakerless computers that choke, fail, and abort if you try to run software with integrated sound in it. It's the old computer that will choke and fail to display a webpage at all if it that webpage has an integrated sound file.

All of the old sound-free software works just fine on the new speakered computers.

The new Blu-Ray or HD-DVD disks will not play at all on old computers. The new Blu-Ray or HD-DVD disks have "integrated sound". The new Blu-Ray or HD-DVD disks will not even play on a new computer, unless you let the speakers turn on.

Yes, turning on the speakers puts you into DRM-hell handcuff mode. But that has no effect on the normal old sound-free software. It only affects the optional new stuff, stuff that doesn't work at all on an old computer.

Old software and new software and old websites and new websites all work just fine on the new computers.

Some publishers will publish software or movies or music or books or games or websites that will only work on the new computers. Anyone with a new computer has more choice. They can use and do anything an old computer can do, PLUS they have the added availability and ability to use this new stuff in handcuff mode.

The only reason *not* to accept the new computer is abstract and philosphical. The only reason to avoid the new computer is as a protest. By avoiding the new computer you may be philosophically pleased with yourself, but in all physical and practical ways you have limited and restricted yourself. By buying an old computer you have a strictly less functional strictly less capable machine. You may buy the old computer as a boycott against the new computers, but you are the one who will suffer for it. You become the restricted one. You are locking yourself out of the option of using any of the new stuff. Locking yourself out of any websites that use the new system to enforce that ads get displayed along with the webpage.

Mom and Pop Random American will go through McDonalds and buy a pair of Happymeals for their two kids. One Happymeal will contain a FREE CD with the latest Brittney Spears songs. The other CD will contain a FREE SpongeBob Squarepants game. And Mom and Pop will get home and the kids will be whining and screaming that their new free CD's don't work on their old obsolete computer. They will whine that the CD's *do* work over at all of their friends' houses on their shiny new Enhanced computers. And the kids will whine whine whine about having such a crappy old computer that doesn't work. A crappy old broken computer. The obsolete incompatible old computer doesn't work right. And the kids whine whine whine. And then Mom and Pop go out and PAY for a shiny new Enhanced comput

Re:Oh no, I can hear them cry

[arminw]

.....People will get these new computers because every new computer will be sold with this hardware standard by the end of the year, and they'll buy it because the free promotional McHappymeal CDs *only* work on the new computers......

So you really think that millions of people will throw their otherwise perfectly good computers in the trash, just because their whiney kids want to play the "free CD? I guess they'll have to throw all their CD players and iPods into the trash also, because they will not play the new Britney noises either.

How many people are still using Win98 or even Win95 even today? Go to the store and see how many NEW programs you can buy that will still play on 10 year old hardware? Sure, the latest games won't -- so what! As long as a significant number of old dog computers exist, programmers will write software for them and most websites will work just fine. Neither HD TV nor the new TPM computers offer any compelling advantages over current technology. When Joe user learns that he/she can no longer do with the new computers what they were used to doing for years with the old, they'll take the new computer back to the store. Do you really think that users will be pleased when they learn that they can no longer play the new music they bought on one or more iPods or burn a CD of favorites for their car? iTunes has DRM, but it allows users to do these things. If the new DRM no longer allows this, the shit will hit the RIAA and the stink will be horrendous.

How happy will someone be when they learn that the movie they just bought will not play on the same old PC or DVD player that all their older movies in their collection work with? They'll likely take that shiny piece of DRM crap plastic back to the store and demand their money back. After millions of current PC owners do this, new movies will still be released that work on the old machines. As long as there is money to be made from people running the old computers and DVD players, there will be people who will supply that market. Neither the new computers nor the new HD TVs and disks give anywhere near the advantage jump that the current DVDs offered over VHS tapes or CDs did over vinyl.

Perhaps when at least 50% of all households can have an affordable 100Mbyte/sec or better fiber connection, HD TV and the new computers will provide a video on demand killer app, that there will be a huge incentive for the masses to adopt them. How many users, even today are still happy with dial-up internet connections?

Re:Oh no, I can hear them cry

[Alsee]

So you really think that millions of people will throw their otherwise perfectly good computers

No, I said all new computers would be sold with this hardware.

Given the rapid obselecence and replacement rate of computers, a very substantial percentage of them will be rountinely replaced in a mere four years or so. And that is completely neglecting any ADDITIONAL pressures to upgrade to these new systems that will increasingly appear in a year or two or three.

What percentace of people are using PCs more than six or seven years old? And what percentage of them would continue using such PCs if they found those systems increasingly unable to run new software, increasigly unable to or read new file types, increasingly unable to view webpages?

Is there really any point in quibbling over how long it will take to hit say 70% deployment? Not every long at all. It took four years - FOUR YEARS - for windows XP to hit 70% marketshare, as measured by internet browser user agents. And if anything, those statistics are biased against Windows users and towards Linux and Mac users, and they are registering over a 25% userbase with Firefox.

Develoment on Trusted Computing started a decade ago. These are long term business plans. You can't seriously argue that any meaningfull percentage of the population uses ten year old PCs.

If ISPs were to announce that they no longer supported 10 year old PC, do you seriously think there would be enough percentage of users getting locked out to stop ISPs from ending that support? No. That maybe 2% of people with ancient obsolete hardware would simply be force to upgrade to modern compatible machines or see their internet connections fail. The ISP isn't locking out 10 year old computers, they just aren't supporting them any more. And if you can't get them to work, well too bad.

Go to the store and see how many NEW programs you can buy that will still play on 10 year old hardware?

That software will run on the new machines.

As long as a significant number of old dog computers exist, programmers will write software for them and most websites will work just fine.

Sure, write all of the old style software you like. That software will run on the old machines and the new machines. And everyone howbuys a new computer or replacxes an old computer will be getting a build in Trust chip "for free".

Yes, tons of websites will have no interest in using the Trust system. But can you seriously tell me that people will NOT upgrade to new computers if they increasingly run into websites that don't work? At first just 1% then 2% of websites. Then 10% and maybe 20%. Can you seriously tell me *MOST* people won't buy new computers when 20% of the websites are spitting out error messages about their obsolete incompatible hardware? can you seriosuly say 10% or 20% of websites might not use the new system to enforce ads if 70% of the internet population has the hardware to support it?

There's a coming change over to IPv6 anyway, and a lot of old hardware and software is going to be incompatible and obsoleted and phased out in the transition anyway. I am making a wild guess... a very plausible guess... that they will seize the opportunity tie the two transitions together as much as possible. They'd get a free ride on the back of IPv6.

iTunes

So they roll out a new music service with the exact same terms as iTunes, and it only works on the new hardware, and the RIAA lets the new service undercut the origional iTunes on price. The RIAA will love the new hardware. They will be more than happy to forgo their usual profit margins to run "introductory rates" and "introductory terms" to drive adoption. They can always raise prices and change the terms and DRM restrictions two or three or four years later. They know they have to basically match the current DRM terms to attract the initial market. And they will be thrilled at the ne

Re:Oh no, I can hear them cry

[arminw]

.......There's nothing a new computer can't do that the old computer can do......

It is hard to disagree with you, yet none of us can really predict the future. You could be right. However, if the DRM restrictions are too draconian the old computers will at least be kept for certain purposes. Apple uses DRM, but it doesn't really prevent most users from doing what they wish, such as playing the music on multiple iPods or computers. Users may burn custom CDs for special uses etc. Movie DVDs play on most computers without trouble. If the new computers don't allow for convenient backups of data and software because of these new "Trust" chips, corporate as well as home users will complain to the hardware/software makers and not buy these things. If millions of iPod owners learn that their Government prevents them from listening to any of the new music they bought because of the DMCA law that prevents any copy protection that has been broken from being made available to them, that law will be dumped.

The nirvana dream of the content creators in cahoots with the electronics makers forcing everybody to repurchase their entire library of content and software will end. Once I own say "The Sound of Music" on one format, why should I have to buy it again and again each time a new format comes out? In analog days it was technically more difficult to copy from say vinyl disks to cassettes. It had to be done one at a time and in real time. Also, the quality drops for each copy.

When the information is coded into a collection of bits, the copying can be made easy and almost automatic and there is no copy loss. Digital technology has destroyed the dream of the content makers of getting money over and over again out of the stuff they have stored in their vaults. The CDs can be ripped to play on anything and so can the present DVDs. The content makers are trying to thwart this natural easy copy-ability with artificial technological and legal shackles.

Eventually the content makers may develop new business models that are cognizant of the fact that the days of them getting paid over and over again are permanently ended by the very nature of digital technology and no artificial technical nor legal obstacles will work in the long run. Trusted computing will work for security, but not DRM. The experiment with DRM will end in failure.

Decreasing functionality

[IgD]

When Windows 95 came out it was a major improvement in technology. Windows 95 was easy to use and resulted in improved performance. Compared to Win 3.11 you could multi-task apps very well. The jump from Win 98 - Win2K was also significant for the general stability of the OS. As time marches on there has been little innovations and improvement. It's curious that companies are marketing products with decreased functionality for users. It seems almost like a suicidal business plan. At some point you would think people are going to say no. It's almost like companies want to frustrate customers and accelerate the adoption of Linux.

Re:Decreasing functionality

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly, despite what most people here on slashdot think, this is highly unlikely to _ever_ work as the companies are planning. It is just far to technical, there are simply too many areas for it to break down. Imagine to problems when some doesn't work. Companies won't tolerate that, _at all_.

On another note, it's also rather suicidal for the US / Western tech companies. India, China and most of Asia will quite happily continue producing non-TC'd hardware and software, that just works. By tying itself so closely to this, MS in particular to accelerating it's downfall as the domiant os company. And none to soon either. Welcome to the new world order :)

OBjoke

[Xemu]

In Soviet Russia, the documents report back when you read them! Oh, wait...

Re:OBjoke

[Slithe]

In Soviet Russia, document cites you!

Does your PC have Trusted Computing?

[iso_bars]

You can find a list of known Trusted Platform Module (TPM) manufacturers and implementations from the TPM Matrix

Re:Does your PC have Trusted Computing?

[Anonymous Coward]

hi, i'm not update-to-date on Trusted Computing, but don't all new intel chips have some form of TC or DRM?

Re:Does your PC have Trusted Computing?

[symbolic]

That's a long table - maybe it would be more helpful to list the manufacturers who don't support this junk. If I want a non-TC-crippled machine, I won't care who makes them, I'll want to know who doesn't.

Re:Does your PC have Trusted Computing?

[jZnat]

Surprisingly, Sony only has a single entry on that list (Vaio BX series laptops).

Re:Does your PC have Trusted Computing?

[Anonymous Coward]

yup.

*THIS* is what FOSS is all about.

[bennomatic]

Free is as much about the principle as the price. GIMP really isn't a photoshop substitute, but if I had to offer up my thumb every time I was about to use Photoshop, I wouldn't. I refuse to work that way; I'd rather use lesser-quality tools than be monitored and have each use of the software I've licensed be tracked with as much dilligence as a mortgage contract signature...

Re:*THIS* is what FOSS is all about.

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

I'd rather use lesser-quality tools than be monitored and have each use of the software I've licensed be tracked

You won't even be able to use your OSS tools on a "trusted computing" platform. That's the whole point.

This new scheme is aimed explicitely at locking out any software from vendors that don't lick the RIAA/MPAA's collective bottoms.

Re:*THIS* is what FOSS is all about.

[Stan Vassilev]

"Free is as much about the principle as the price. GIMP really isn't a photoshop substitute, but if I had to offer up my thumb every time I was about to use Photoshop, I wouldn't. I refuse to work that way"

Somehow, million of people don't refuse this way and put themselves to authorisation and authentication ("genuine advantage") procedures, product activation and "calling home" on startup.

So you may not, but the business doesn't care about you, you're a minority.

Re:*THIS* is what FOSS is all about.

[Anonymous Coward]

You won't even be able to use your OSS tools on a "trusted computing" platform. That's the whole point.

Then we build our own hardware.

Re:*THIS* is what FOSS is all about.

[Antique Geekmeister]

Oh, that's a different matter. The offering up your thumbprint to use, say, Photoshop, is for commercial artwork. Stealing movies before they get released and selling cheap DVD's of them in China is a huge deal to Hollywood, and this is aimed at forcing the artists to really authenticate themselves. Getting them to actually use passwords and use them properly has proven quite difficult.

Re:*THIS* is what FOSS is all about.

[roman_mir]

Tell me, did you pay for your copy of Photoshop? How many people do you know that did not pay and are using it? Well, DRM is a great tool to keep people who are not paying for software, for music, for video, for books off those materials. Say it ain't so. Tell me, is it really the manufacturers' faults that people are dishonest? Do you think DRM would have ever appeared if people never broke copyrights? It would be very difficult for just one corporation (even Microsoft) to force hardware manufacturers to put DRM into their hardware. But when it is every single content company and software manufacturer that wants it, then it is a totally different story. Users who pirate stuff - this is the reason there is DRM.

Re:*THIS* is what FOSS is all about.

[Sicnarf]

that sounds scary, could you elaborate? does this mean if i have a trusted computing platform, then i can't run linux? or are you talking about not being able to open documents with your OSS tools? i'm getting paranoid... ;) i'm getting scared of these megacorps who don't give a shit about the users rights and their belongings !

Re:*THIS* is what FOSS is all about.

[Anonymous Coward]

The fingerprint sensors are fantasticly annoying.
In my office, I have to gently breath out on the sensor on people's computers *every time* I want to surreptitiously access their files.

Re:*THIS* is what FOSS is all about.

[Sicnarf]

these millions of people either:
a) don't know the long term implications that will (one day) bite them in the ass.
b) are forced to use a certain product (eg: at work).
c) don't have the time to figure out alternatives and just want to get work done.
d) what you said, but i think the majority would prefer freedom.

Re:*THIS* is what FOSS is all about.

[Stan Vassilev]

Thing is we oppose at the idea of these things, but when they come in small portions and properly "marketed", we accept them. Where is your freedom? Your government tells you what you can do and what not (and it sometimes right, but also many times wrong), eavesdrops your phones and communications because of phantom threats and even forces you to pay for the pleasure or you go to jail.

This is not freedom, but we came to accept it and live with it. I'm not saying I like any of this, but just like I don't like it, I may wake up one day and find out I've trained myself to accept it as a fact of life.

Shouting about those issues on blogs and news sites won't change the direction of the way things develop. The majority of people have to refuse to use these technologies to make a real difference, and I just instead see the majority of them accepting them even today, despite the vocal minority of people opposing it. Therefore it's hopeless.

Re:*THIS* is what FOSS is all about.

[Travelsonic]

Well, DRM is a great tool to keep people who are not paying for software, for music, for video, for books off those materials.

It's called a crack, if you didn't get the memo. ^_^ GOOGLE is all somebody would need to crack a demo version into a full version, and comes in handy if you lost a serial number to a copy of software you bought a license to (later losing it to a hard drive crash).

And surely you mean media that is supposed to be paid for outside of being given a legal CD from your friend because he/she is tired of it, or other fair-use/first sale related means, right?

Re:*THIS* is what FOSS is all about.

[Stan Vassilev]

And yes, I am a normal fucking good looking fucking person who is still, somehow, smarter than you, better looking than you

:) smart people who post here get the hint the first 5-6 times they are modded -1 for posting incoherent insults and obscenities, but you apparently don't.

Re:*THIS* is what FOSS is all about.

[Sicnarf]

agreed, shouting here won't help, but it's better than nothing ;) i'll keep influencing others on a small scale.

"This is not freedom, but we came to accept it and live with it. I'm not saying I like any of this, but just like I don't like it, I may wake up one day and find out I've trained myself to accept it as a fact of life."
i think when/if DRM goes too far, that there will be a mass revolt and there will eventually be laws that forbid DRM on a mass scale (how it's currently planned). i think people will, in the long term wake up when they find out how nasty the whole issue is.

it takes time, but i think the average user will find out. people aren't dumb, they just currently don't care about these issues. sure the governments are tapping our telephones and what not, that's not a big issue except for drug users etc, however i think DRM will go too far and people will protest, even cooperations when they can't access their data with ease and become dependent on others. anyways, good day :)

Re:*THIS* is what FOSS is all about.

[Anonymous Coward]

I call bullshit on this.

Ever seen the FOSS Linux TPM driver? http://sourceforge.net/projects/tpmdd
Perhaps you never read any of the research IBM has done regarding Linux and trusted computing? This should get you started: http://www.research.ibm.com/secure_systems_departm ent/projects/tcglinux/.

Re:*THIS* is what FOSS is all about.

[swilver]

Of course not. If 5% of the market is Linux, and that 5% want to continue running linux, they'll want some hardware to run it on. Now, a 5% market share in, say, Motherboard hardware (and a pretty exclusive one too, pretty much a monopoly for Motherboards that STILL work with Linux) is a HUGE deal. If Asus, Abit or whoever doesn't jump on it and produce "compatible" motherboards, then you can bet your ass someone else will.

Re:*THIS* is what FOSS is all about.

[jez9999]

And how exactly are they gonna produce compatible motherboards when they don't have non-DRMed CPUs to go in em (assuming the supply of old CPUs runs out)? The biggest problem here is the CPUs. You can probably find some manufacturer of other components that will avoid building in DRM but CPUs are incredibly complicated to manufacture and the barrier to entry to the market is so high that if the 2 big players jump into bed with DRM, we're fucked... surely. :-( Please feel free to prove me wrong.

Re:*THIS* is what FOSS is all about.

[mrchaotica]

And when Microsoft and the hardware companies and the media cartel see Linux users refusing to bow to their whims, what do you think they're going to do? That's right, they'll just complain to the Government that we're all "hackers" (in the bad sense) and "ter'rists" ('cause a "ter'rist" is defined as "anybody the Powers That Be don't like"). Treacherous Computing will be mandated by law ('cause we want better "security" to protect people (and children!) from that evil stuff online), and only Treacherous systems will be allowed to connect to the Internet. Having hardware that you actually control (instead of "benevolent" corporations like Microsoft) will become more and more regulated. It'll be just like trying to own a gun, except without the 2nd Amendment and the NRA.

Anyway, my point is this: you think free-market forces will correct this problem, which is optimistic to the point of delusion because we do NOT have a free market anymore!. The time to start fighting, en earnest, against this is now because your "5% of the market" isn't gonna save you!

Re:*THIS* is what FOSS is all about.

[mrchaotica]

Somehow, million of people don't refuse this way and put themselves to authorisation and authentication ("genuine advantage") procedures, product activation and "calling home" on startup.

Did anybody else munge that together into "authoritarian," like I did?

Re:*THIS* is what FOSS is all about.

[TheRaven64]

We're talking F/OSS here, not x86 closed-source code. There are a lot of CPU makers out there. So, maybe Intel and AMD don't want to play? What about IBM? Well, maybe not, since they are Trusted Computing members (although they do seem to be trying to build a business around F/OSS, so maybe). What about Sun? Fujitsu? FreeScale? Any of the ARM licensees?

5% of the PC CPU market is about what Apple have, and remember how long IBM and Motorola were actively competing to keep their business, in spite of Apple being a lousy customer. Oh, and I suggest you look at F/OSS growth reports. It is likely to be closer to 10% by the time trusted computing seriously tries to prevent untrusted operating systems from booting.

Of course, the next problem will be ISPs requiring trusted computing platforms to connect but, again, I suspect that few ISPs (or businesses of any other kind) would be stupid enough to build a business model which automatically excludes 10% of their potential customer base.

Re:*THIS* is what FOSS is all about.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually I'll use my PIRATED copy of Photoshop C.S. on my "old school" dual G5 tower. If the industry want to fight dirty they should not be surprised when we disregard their rules entirely. And yes it will be good enough for quite some times, filtes are applied almost instantly, etc.

You may be shocked to actually READ this, but how many of you have pirated software of your own? Do they elite rich think the poor will allow themselves to be locked out of the information age leading to a permanent two tiered society? Not bloody likely...

Re:*THIS* is what FOSS is all about.

[killjoe]

"Free is as much about the principle as the price. GIMP really isn't a photoshop substitute, but if I had to offer up my thumb every time I was about to use Photoshop, I wouldn't. I refuse to work that way; I'd rather use lesser-quality tools than be monitored and have each use of the software I've licensed be tracked with as much dilligence as a mortgage contract signature..."

Maybe, maybe not. Lots of people puff up their chests and say things like this but when push comes to shove they will just bend over and take it.

If the consumers in the US were actually aware of their power things might be different but billions of dollars worth of marketing research hasn't gone to waste. The companies and the politicians know exactly how to push your buttons to get you to buy whatever shit they are selling.

Re:*THIS* is what FOSS is all about.

[PinkyGigglebrain]

" i'm getting paranoid... ;) i'm getting scared ..."

Good, paranoia and fear are healthy responses when someone threatens you, your lifestyle, your beliefs.

This is all going to get a lot worse before anything starts to improve.

Re:*THIS* is what FOSS is all about.

[roman_mir]

Are you trying to prove my point, or are you agreeing with me then? Because what you are saying is exactly the reason DRM is coming into this world. I don't know anyone who lost their license key for something, I certainly don't lose them, but I know hundreds of people who use cracked software, downloading copyrighted MP3s, movies, books, uploading them. Well, DRM is coming to town to stop that.

Re:*THIS* is what FOSS is all about.

[Alsee]

You won't even be able to use your OSS tools on a "trusted computing" platform. That's the whole point.

No, you have it backwards.

The way they are going to get everying to buy the new Trusted Computers is that they can do anything and everything an old computer can do. They can run anything and everything an old computer can run. THAT is the point. Everying will buy them because there's no reason not to.

The issue is that the new computers are "enhanced" with something "more" and "extra". There's an extra DRM-enforcement handcuff mode. You can "opt-in" to activate the handcuffs. And the issue is that all of the new software and new file types and new internet protocals and new email will only work on the new computers in the new and extra handcuff mode.

Anyone with an old obsolete computer will be locked out of all of the new stuff. Anyone who refuses to to activate the new handcuff mode will be locked out of all of the new stuff.

It's the same deadly-effective Microsoft tactic of Embrace, Extend, and Exterminate. The new computers embrace everything old computers can no. The number one rule of the Embrace Extend Exterminate tactic is to ensure there is no reason NOT to switch to the new system. The point is to Extend the system such that anyone without the new system is forced to suffer. Anyone without the new system increasingly runs into error messages when they try to use the new files and whatnot.

The point is to trick your family and your boss into making YOU suffer for not adopting the new system, to trick them into forcing the new system onto you. What are you going to do when your mother or your boss sends you a new Trusted Computing protected email? An email that can only be read on a Trusted Computer in handcuff mode? Are you going to explain to your mother and your boss why you refuse to buy one of these new Enhanced computers? Are you going to sit there in the phone walking them through the complex steps of resending the email in non-protected mode? THEY are going to blame YOU for causing the problem. They are going to tell you to fix YOUR PROBLEm, and that you should just buy a new COMPATIBLE computer. It's your computer that is old and obsolete and incompatible. You are the one refusing to get it to work. You are the one babbling complex computer techno mumbo jumbo about it. You are the one making wild rants against Microsoft. You are the one refusing to upgrade.

-

Re:*THIS* is what FOSS is all about.

[tepples]

And the issue is that all of the new software and new file types and new internet protocals and new email will only work on the new computers in the new and extra handcuff mode.

It appears you watered down your spiel from last time. Last time you claimed that residential ISPs would actually terminate access to the old protocol (DHCP). What changed?

What are you going to do when your mother or your boss sends you a new Trusted Computing protected email?

Mother: Please turn off encryption before sending e-mail. Boss: Do you claim that all employers in the United States, even those in the Linux industry or in Massachusetts, would switch to treacherous mail simultaneously?

Are you going to sit there in the phone walking them through the complex steps of resending the email in non-protected mode?

You mean like "go to dubya dubya dubya dot get thunder bird dot com and follow the instructions"?

Re:*THIS* is what FOSS is all about.

[Stan Vassilev]

The point of posts like that is to laugh at how uncomfortable they make losers like you.

Oh sure :) As you see I'm terribly uncomfortable right now. You only attract pitty to your persona with those silly posts. Of course, I could be a totally serious psycho who's standing outside of your house right now waiting for your kids come out and play. hmmm, you decide.

I'll be waiting.

Re:*THIS* is what FOSS is all about.

[oopsdude]

You won't even be able to use your OSS tools on a "trusted computing" platform. That's the whole point.

Actually, that's completely wrong. Untrusted OSS tools simply wouldn't be able to access the the "trusted" memory pool or interact at all with "trusted" components. See this FAQ.

Re:*THIS* is what FOSS is all about.

[Anonymous Coward]

well, apparently the mods do matter sometimes - when the karma gets this low you can't post more than once a day. Thankfully I don't usually need to post more than that. Waiting for me? I wouldn't be there for you dumbass - re-read my post. I'd be there for your sexy little children so I could get them drunk and videotape them fucking. Then I'd cut off their bodyparts and send them in a bloody envelope along with the videotape. Then I'd say something like "If you don't want any more body parts shipped to your house, you must mod me funny on slashdot from now on."

the fact that you say "as you see I'm terribly uncomfortable" just drives my point further. I am a successful it professional, one of the top people in the country, actually (by whatever criteria you want to measure, I like the salary/age ratio myself. As far as you go, you seem to spend your life in chat rooms as opposed to "outside". Hense, you are a big fat fucking loser whose wife probably doesn't "trim". Hey, dork, newsflash. No, I can't "see" if you are uncomfortable. In fact, none of the readers can. I can "tell", but I can't "see". You are typing ascii into a fucking text box. This is not the same as a conversation. This is a fucking text box.

Try doing this, as I have been quite good at it. Write good code. Implement real business solutions on a large scale. Do something important that you enjoy. Don't develop software and sit in front of a fucking stack dump all day. That's what the mexicans are for. seriously, it's sad that some people are such big losers. And they'll never fucking learn. Were you shoved into lockers back in highschool? I wasn't. And yes, I did take those same ap classes junior year.

Re:*THIS* is what FOSS is all about.

[neonleonb]

I think the point is that businesses will adopt this so that they can keep employees from leaking important information, and so that employee activities can be monitored. It makes perfect sense from a business perspective to require that all emails use TPM software. Then, those employees will want this software at home so they can receive messages from their bosses. They won't see the point of a second email program, so they'll expect their friends to use TPM, too. Thus it spreads. At every stage, it's easier to go along with it than fight it, and so it will succeed. There's no need for enforcement (except perhaps at the business level), and very few people would quit their jobs to prevent this.

Re:*THIS* is what FOSS is all about.

[Stan Vassilev]

Damn, you're so boring and predictable. I even wonder why I waste time replying, because I for sure didn't waste time reading all the stuff your wrote.

Re:*THIS* is what FOSS is all about.

[angulion]

AFAIK you will be able to run Linux on the hardware without any problems.
On the downside, the platform will run in "non-trusted" mode, thus blocking iTunes or similar music listening/buying.

What I question, if I have Windows installed and run it in "trusted mode", if I install Linux as dual boot and replace the bootloader with (for example) Grub or Lilo, will that disrupt the "trusted path" and in doing so also make windows run in "untrusted mode"?

Re:*THIS* is what FOSS is all about.

[Alsee]

Nothing has changed. When writing from scratch off the top of my head it's very easy for new things to be added or some old things to get left out.

Also I don't always mention the internet Trusted Network Connection issue because it is farther in the future, and because people tend to be more sceptical about it and it takes a lot more work to back it up.

Mother: Please turn off encryption before sending e-mail.

I don't know about your mother, but it would be a distinct labor working with my mother over the phone to locate some obscure menu at all, much less digging down through multiple levels to locate some obscure default setting that Microsoft deliberately buried. And her reaction would be general frustration at getting dragged through some incomprehensible set of steps just to get the email to work right.

It's the same tactic Microsofts used and still uses with Doc format files. People email doc files around, and it was the perople who didn't have Microsoft software and who couldn't read doc files that were "causing the problem". And then they change the doc format, and then it's people who have not properly updated to the latest Microsoft software who were "causing the problem" when old (cough cough)obsolete Microsoft software choked on the doc files created by the new software. Sure you can walk the person with the new software through the technical steps of manually saving the document in a NORMAL format, or at least saving it in the old doc format, but the typical user isn't exactly going to appreciate being dragged through that "complex" "techincal" "confusing" stuff just because *you* are having problems reading the perfectly good file they sent you. The works fine on their computer. The common solution is just buying the latest version of Windows with the latest version of Office. The person with the new software never sees any problem. All files work fine on their computer.

You mean like "go to dubya dubya dubya dot get thunder bird dot com and follow the instructions"?

A great many computer users are not really up for that. I have my mother happily using Firefox, but I set it up for her.

And then there's the issue if one of her fiends or coworkers sends her something Thuderbird can't read. If Thunderbird couldn't read doc files, which side is going to win the conflict? Is everyone going to move to Firefox and blame the people sending around doc files? Or will the blame be placed on the people who can't read doc files? Will they be the ones to switch to the "normal" Microsoft software that can read doc files?

-

Re:*THIS* is what FOSS is all about.

[tepples]

I don't know about your mother, but it would be a distinct labor working with my mother over the phone to locate some obscure menu at all, much less digging down through multiple levels to locate some obscure default setting that Microsoft deliberately buried.

My mother is a paramedic. As long as she knows Alt+Tab, she can probably figure out how to follow an illustrated web guide to configuring your personal e-mail account in Outlook Express to use traditional e-mail rather than Treacherous e-mail.

It's the same tactic Microsofts used and still uses with Doc format files.

Since Microsoft Word 97, .doc files have used an extensible format, such that everything from WordPad on up can read them, even if not with correct pagination and the like. If you need correct pagination, then export to PDF using either a print-to-PDF driver or a PostScript to PDF tool, which the free software community will likely have automated by the time Microsoft makes a "clean break" with the current version of the Word 97 format.

The works fine on their computer.

And the .odf file I sent you works fine on my computer, so why are you causing the problem?

And then there's the issue if one of her fiends or coworkers sends her something Thuderbird can't read.

Work-related messages sent within the company should be received on a work-related computer, which may be Treacherous. Personal messages should be sent not from their work accounts (which may be configured Treacherous by company policy) but from personal accounts (which are configured traditional). Do you seriously think gmail and yahoo are going to convert overnight to Treacherous-by-default if they want to keep support costs and bad press to a minimum?

Re:*THIS* is what FOSS is all about.

[Alsee]

Are you just playing devil's advocate? If you are I'd rather let this slide to focus on other things.

-

Re:*THIS* is what FOSS is all about.

[Stan Vassilev]

I get the hint all right, we discuss DRM, and you come here talk about your dick, having sex, being smart and beautiful. Guess you couldn't convince yourself or the people around you but hiding behind a silly nick name and posting anonymous on the Internet is so much easier :) btw: last word

Re:*THIS* is what FOSS is all about.

[Stan Vassilev]

BTW, the reason I keep replying is you're being increasingly nonsensical, repetetive and frustrated, trully attracting pitty with your posts. You're my free show, and we all enjoy a free show from time to time. Keep it coming.

Re:*THIS* is what FOSS is all about.

[chunky shit salsa]

Stan - you are the man. We've been reading this thread and totally cracking up. Thanks for the free show? No no, thank you. You have got to be by far the dumbest mofo on this site. You're talking to a guided script moron. welcome to the white list. the gay niggers like out white bitches bent over.
bend over bitch

Re:*THIS* is what FOSS is all about.

[Stan Vassilev]

"Stan - you are the man. We've been reading this thread and totally cracking up."

So did I! Because you know, even if you're using Perl script to generate most of the message (and maybe even this message I'm replying to), you still came here, read my message and added some content that directly addresses my post. You think using Perl for the insults and being called GNAA makes me silly for replying? Oh hell no, the joke's on your assholes! Hahaha!

"You have got to be by far the dumbest mofo on this site."

Yea I know this is EXACTLY how it would've been interpreted. And if I cared enough to look smart, I would've just ignored you, because you're an ignore material.

But do you know why I keep replying and doing it even right now? Because I'm curious, and learn new shit every day, and when I see something weird, I'm eager to explore it. Now I know more - that something as pointless and stupid as GNAA exists... Someone sat there and actually wrote a bunch of scripts and carefully scan online communities and apply them to spam users? Hahaha, what the hell is the point of that? What is the friggin point :))?

How do you live with yourselves :)?

You're not doing a dent, you're not changing anything. I can chose to ignore you as if you never existed, or I can talk to you until I'm receiving entertainment and then ignore you. It's my choice, not yours!

"You're talking to a guided script moron. welcome to the white list. the gay niggers like out white bitches bent over."

Oh bye bye to your white list, I've made a new user. What you have in your white lists is a user who'll now log out and never log in back.. I've just spammed GNAA! Not too shabby. See ya.

Re:*THIS* is what FOSS is all about.

[StanVassilevTroll]

the subroutine you've been talking to made a new user as well. you lose. suck the blood-covered shit out of my mouth Stan. I'll kill you. I'll seriously kill you. Just let me know where you live, you fuckin fucktart linux basement developer. Get a real fucking job loser. no, seriously. you're talking to a real person now. where is it where you'll "be waiting" because I'll be right over to kill you whole family after making them fuck each other on video tape at gunpoint. where are you bitch?
I'm a hacker. I'll find out one of these days. And then I'll decapetate your kids and switch their heads around. I've done it with plants. Now it's time for human trials. Seriously, where will you be waiting, because, just let me know. I'll fucking kill you.

hah

[Haveck]

"Trusted Computing" ... "DRM" ... "fingerprinting" the irony is all too overwhelming

I have one...

[Sepodati]

Hmmm... I have one. Well, a Lenovo Thinkpad with a fingerprint reader. Is this something that's already implemented on all of their laptops? Or something new they'll be adding? I couldn't tell from the article. Doesn't really bother me, either way, but just curious if there's a way to tell. I've never been asked to scan my fingerprint when opening a document. I'd probably just cancel the document and decide it's not worth bothering with, anyhow.

---John Holmes...

Re:I have one...

[Anonymous Coward]

More and more the computing industry is coming off as a racket. Every time I buy something digital I'm forced to pay for crap that I don't want. 6-in-1 card reader? Who gives a shit? Fingerprint sensor. I don't give a fuck. It's like buying a toaster with a built in Pez dispenser. Only, nowadays, you can't find a fucking toaster without the Pez dispenser.

WTF?

Re:Uh...?

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, it's funny...I've always considered myself to be one of their customers, yet never have I demanded that the guys I give money to treat me as a criminal. Weird.

Maybe you are not their only customer? Lenovo is responding to businesses that want to secure their information. If they have internal confidential information/plans of course it is the creator of the document (fx CFO) that decides who should have access to it, it is not up not anyone who receives it. This is a very legitimate business need. It is really that simple. Not everything related to computers revolves around our warez concerns.

What about the customer?

[Statecraftsman]

Wait a minute. I forgot. Or maybe I just never heard it explained right. Exactly how does this benefit the customer? How is nearly perfect DRM coupled with remote reporting of your access something consumers have asked for?

A while back processor serial numbers were added as a feature but I've yet to see a system where the ability to read the it was enabled. Trusted Computing is potentially 100x more intrusive so I don't think it's going far in cases where the user is the one who decides what system to purchase.

Re:What about the customer?

[Plunky]

Wait a minute. I forgot. Or maybe I just never heard it explained right. Exactly how does this benefit the customer? How is nearly perfect DRM coupled with remote reporting of your access something consumers have asked for?

Bingo!

The customers and the consumers are not the same. The customer is the corporation who wants to lock up its data. The consumer is the person to whom the corporation wishes to grant access to that data.

Yes, lots of consumers are also customers of the hardware manufacturers but the corporations are larger customers and their voice is louder. If you dont want this stuff in a computer that you are buying then you need to let those manufacturers know about it. Buy something else and send them a copy of the receipt with a note explaining why you didnt buy their hardware.

Re:What about the customer?

[jacksonj04]

At the risk of violating groupthink, it depends on the customer. For the home user, it shouldn't actually make much difference. For the multi-billion dollar company who don't want that internal memo to be leaked, it's invaluable.

Re:What about the customer?

[91degrees]

Well, the DRM type stuff is allegedly beneficial to the domestic consumer because without it the media cartels aren't going to distribute media for PC playback. The TCPA is beneficial to businesses because they can (presumably) lock down their systems pretty tightly somehow.

Not sure I agree that these are beneficial, but that's pretty much what the proponents claim.

Re:What about the customer?

[Antique Geekmeister]

There are several benefits of Trusted Computing for average users, benefits that are possible by other means but have never gotten the support to be implemented widely and become a standard practice. These include the ability to really authenticate patches for your operating system and software, so when you download your patches you haven't just automatically clicked on some flakey SSL key somewhere and accepted a Windows patch from Rootkits-R-Us.

Second, it does provide a robust and hopefully well integrated set of tools for encrypting and authenticating email and other documents. This is very useful for business contracts or sending personally encrypted email, and will wind up built right into Microsoft's email clients.

Third, getting real encryption into broad use has been a nightmare for Windows and other largely deployed OS's because of US laws about selling encryption tools overseas: Since the US government has bought into this project, they won't be blocking its sale overseas or otherwise interfering in its development. Those regulations have repeatedly been a huge burden for software vendors.

And you seem to have missed that while Microsoft has sworn on a stack of bibles that right now, they have no intention to mandate the use of Trusted Computing in their operating system or in Microsoft Office, it's only a matter of time before they provide features that only work with Trusted Computing, and then mandate it for new products. Expect it to be almost mandatory in all CPU's within five years, and for Microsoft OS's and core Windows software to require it within 10 years.

Re:What about the customer?

[jeffasselin]

I'm sorry, but I can't trust your post, as its Md5 hash doesn't correspond to the one in your sig.

Re:What about the customer?

[Zontar The Mindless]

...without it the media cartels aren't going to distribute media for PC playback.

I thought we were supposed to come up with reasons why TC is a bad idea..?

Re:What about the customer?

[killjoe]

BINGO. Listen up people, you are the product, not the customer.

getting out of computing?

[CAIMLAS]

Is it just me, or is anyone else thinking, "The way the industry is going towards Orwellian dystopian dreams, I might just want to get out of computing"?

Re:getting out of computing?

[geminidomino]

It's not just you...

Re:getting out of computing?

[PowerBert]

Nope, not just you! It may be time to invest in a lawn mower.

Re:getting out of computing?

[Anonymous Coward]

What will you do when the computer chip on the lawnmower only allows authorized people to start it? Trusted mowing will be implemented to eliminate the undocumented workers.

Re:getting out of computing?

[rbanffy]

We should not run. We should fight back.

Fortunately, we don't need firearms for this. We can stop using and recomending DRM capable hardware and we can halt software development for it. We must be very vocal in our opposition to this. We may may be few, but I am sure this audience is more influential than the average.

Re:getting out of computing?

[Nate B.]

Hopefully, I have good enough hardware to last for the next decade or longer. After that, who knows. Something tells me that commodity hardware will be available most everywhere except the industrialized nations. Here in the US, if you don't have the proper credentials you won't be able to write or tinker with software or hardware of any kind. Worse, if your computer fails a trusted handshake, no ISP will be allowed to let you access the Internet. Hopefully, I'm just feeling pessimistic.

If they out law my vintage motorcycle from taking the road, then it'll be time to take up arms!

Re:getting out of computing?

[omegashenron]

We can stop using and recomending DRM capable hardware

Try telling that to those out there who will want to play the latest and greatest WOW game (or any other game for that matter since the big developers wont stop). Instead I hope we'll eventually see PC mod chips for mainboards, hard drives and video cards but doubt it.

Re:getting out of computing?

[jellomizer]

Or do both,

have all the techs who feel strongly about this get an MBA become managers, and make non DRM corporate/institutionional policy.
Why do you think PCs and not Apples are the primary system. It wasn't because of the Joe Smoe consumer. The Management back in the 80s compared PC and Apples and found that PCs (called IBMs and IBM compatibles at the time) were less restricting and allowed easier growth because a bunch of companies make different computers that all work the same. So that is why they went with PCs and not apples, or other platforms wether they were technically superior or not, was not a major issue. When businesses use or don't use a technology then people who want to work from home will use similar technology, then their kids will use it. And people who want the technology see other people using it or not using it and make their decision based off of that. Being the techs in the trenches who scream this is Bad stop. will rarely get up to the higher ups because they just figure you are just worried about having to pay for your pirated software, not any bigger picture. So except for saying how stupid management is and DRM is, do something about it Get into upper management and bring your views with you and work from the top down to fix the problems. If you don't want to do that then expect your voice not to be heard.

Re:getting out of computing?

[Ullteppe]

Amen. When I started using PCs back in '88, there was a nice hobby scene for computing, and even the big companies seemed to concentrate on making product. Then the big corp's took over completely (In my mind this accelerated when MS trashed Borland on the programming language side). Now, even your own hardware is not yours to control anymore. The big corps want to control EVERYTHING.

Re:getting out of computing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just out of curiousity but all the middle management types who come up with this crap aren't able to implement it. Do you guys ever think that maybe we're the ones that will be designing and implementing this into our own PCs? How many MS folks on here really have no balls and will happily code DRM into products that they use at home for a purpose that they are now removing?

If we say "no", then it cant be implemented.

Re:getting out of computing?

[Anonymous Coward]

good point

Re:getting out of computing?

[dr.newton]

You're not the only one, but I'm leaning more toward "fight back" than "get out of computing".

We may not feel as if there's much we can do right now, but, as they say, every little bit helps, and if this stuff goes the way the corps want it to, we'll all be saying "We didn't ought to have trusted the buggers" in 15 years.

I'm at the very least not going to buy this hardware, and I'm going to tell people why not.

Re:getting out of computing?

[Odocoileus]

Given the total control that this sytem has over the computer, as long as just one weakness can be found, a virus could lockout the computer, hard. The people will not be as accepting should something like that happen. There is still a potential for intellectual mucking on the network side of this system, isn't there?

Re:getting out of computing?

[Sicnarf]

also, we need to be AGAINST PIRACY and encourage others not to steal software/media since THIS is what is fueling DRM in the first place!

Re:getting out of computing?

[westlake]

have all the techs who feel strongly about this get an MBA become managers, and make non DRM corporate/institutionional policy.

so long as internal controls look good to management and the board of directors - and outside auditors - your techie is not going to get that promotion.

When businesses use or don't use a technology then people who want to work from home will use similar technology, then their kids will use it.

the home pc market is driven by its own imperatives and not those of the office. has been for for the better part of twenty-five years.

that is the fundamental reason why OEM Linux tanks at retail and Win MCE becomes the default consumer install even on the laptop.

Re:getting out of computing?

[mrchaotica]

If they out law my vintage motorcycle from taking the road, then it'll be time to take up arms!

You might want to acquire those arms now, before you get put on some kind of "ter'rist" watch-list for what you just said.

Re:getting out of computing?

[Scooter's_dad]

What will you do when the computer chip on the lawnmower only allows authorized people to start it? Trusted mowing will be implemented to eliminate the undocumented workers.

Except the industry makes more money off undocumented (hence, underpaid) lawn workers, so you can be assured trusted computing will never come to that platform.

Re:getting out of computing?

[toddestan]

Is it just me, or is anyone else thinking, "The way the industry is going towards Orwellian dystopian dreams, I might just want to get out of computing"?

I'm thinking more along the lines of "Oh geeze, how many years will I be able to nurse along this Socket A system to keep it running?", along with "Should I go out and buy a newer system without TPM while I still can?", and "Should I start stockpiling spare parts too?".

Re:getting out of computing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, that's weird. Yes.

Trouble is, I fear the problem extends far beyond computing. I think Americans live in a society that virtually celebrates ignorance and egomania. We're so fucking proud of our freedom, that we're gonna ram it down everyone else's throat, even if that requires shackling them naked to a prison cell with a hood on their head. We're going to force the rest of the world to enjoy our freedom by compelling international trade agreements to enforce our IP laws and our IP cartels. I could go on and on, but in short: the people who live in the "Land of the Free" don't have a fucking clue what freedom even means.

Problem is, most of the rest of the world is even worse.

Re:getting out of computing?

[sploxx]

I share your sentiment, but I'm also very afraid that 'trusted' computing, DRM and especially software patents will still drive a lot of motivated, altruistic people out of the FOSS scene.

From the POV of the big. corps., this needs to be fast enough to avoid creating a powerful opposition - they're probably trying to tune the TCPA market introduction etc. to avoid this and bully the FOSS crowd until it vanishes => problem solved and another industry which is finally 100% 'professional'.

Re:getting out of computing?

[nestking]

Fight back??

I'm not really sure got this Trusted thing right (cause if I had, I'm really, terribly scared), but if I'm grasping the concept: major software companies have joined major hardware companies and music industry companies and movie companies and might as well have support from the government, which might just get a new way to monitor everyone. So we are going to: "get very vocal in our opposition to this"... Sure! That'll do it!

And how exactly are we going to explain people that doesn't know anything other than MS exists this is a bad thing. (I'm talking about people that speaks of internet as the thing 'behind the blue e', which are the vast majority) My guess is most of them are actually going to think this is something good. They don't think Gates is the devil, they beleive he's some sort of genius and trust MS. They like their MS applications and are thankfull for them. If you think about it, software companies are already in control of their computers, I'm sure nobody wants a strange game to be loaded into their computer's ram when they start up excel, however it was in most versions... To their concern now only *serious* 'trusted' companies (in their regard) will be able to be in charge of computers and hence viruses wont get there. They couldn't care less about interoperability, understand something must be done about piracy, would like to end viruses, wont believe they are losing their privacy:

-Mom, a great conspiracy is taking place to track everything you do on your computer
-Sweety we are going to take you to the doctor now, there's nothing to be afraid of, he just wants talk to you and feed you some anti depressives....


I'm sorry, but a bunch of nerds are not going to change people's image of ms, ibm, intel, amd, sun, sony, etc. They've seen to many propaganda.

About Security

[jdwclemson]

To make such a system work it seems like every computer in the country would need the fingerprint reader, or else, it would just be insane to knowingly submit yourself to such a system if you wanted to have full rights over your software. I agree that this certainly has a lot more to do with private security than DRM. I know a lot of companies with security issues and this technology would help. Don't forget Wells Fargo, millions of dollars spent recovering from a single laptop theft, where thousands of customers' personal information was put at risk. In fact, if companies did NOT use such robust security procedures, I would be reading an article later on about how fingerprint based technology SHOULD be used as it protects the rights of the consumers through better security. Having a watch dog is great, but it lowers how much you trust it's bark when you hear a warnings every time a fly lands in its vicinity.

Re:About Security

[Antique Geekmeister]

And as such usage grows, I expect to see a growing market for gelatin: the old Gummi Finger experiments, described in detail here on Slashdot, explain in clear language how to make a fake fingerprint that will work more than 85% of the time.

Re:About Security

[ultracosm]

If Wells Fargo had used decent encryption technology on their database (e.g. TrueCrypt) it would not be accessible, even if stolen. DRM isn't necessary to protect private data on a laptop. (I'm assuming a strong, verified encryption algorithm, applied properly, with a strong pass phrase. If the data is still useful in 10 or 20 years, maybe it can be deciphered with technology available at that time, but that probably applies to DRM too.)

Whether DRM is sufficient is another story.

Pulling the plug

[Ryvar]

Ultimately I think a lot of this DRM technology - specifically remote attestation - is going to result in me changing my habits in one minor regard - I'll be putting the wireless router on top of my desk, rather than under, with the ports facing me so I can easily unplug my computer. In the majority of cases, problem solved.

--Ryvar

Re:Pulling the plug

[AndyKron]

What if it saves up all the accesses in flash, or something until you hook your computer back up, and it reports all those accesses while it was unplugged?

Re:Pulling the plug

[Ryvar]

Easier to implement, and more likely, the program could just quit out immediately without an Internet connection.

And yet, I have observed through doing this with an increasingly high number of programs, that auto-Internet-registration installs will still function perfectly normally while unplugged from the Internet, and not bother trying to connect again to register once the machine is back online - nor is the functionality of the installed product reduced. This applies about 95% of the time in my experience. I doubt that it will be much different after the implementation of DRM/widespread TCM. Why? Developer laziness/shipping crunch. Thank God that the same companies which are so totalitarian about how their products can be used are the ones that usually enforce shipping dates to the detriment of their products.

--Ryvar

Re:Pulling the plug

[labratuk]

So you think messages to the 'authorities' can't be stacked up until you're connected again?

After all, you don't have the source to your OS, anything could be happening.

Re:Pulling the plug

[Alsee]

With Trusted Computing you'll start finding a lot of software doing Trusted installs. If you have no Trust chip or you don't connect for activation, it will be impossible to decrypt and install and run the software.

And yanking the internet connection doesn't do you any good when it's a website you're trying to access. One of the biggest motivations for wbsites to use this system will be to prevent you from running popup blockers or any software of adblocker. It will be impossible to view the webpage without viewing the ads along with it, and without enforcing any DRM and other rules and controls the website wants to impose.

And if you don't have a Trust enformenent chip, if you don't activate the new handcuff mode, if you don't permit the Trust chip to send a spy report back to the website, well then the website can and will just put up an error message telling you to fix your problem. It will be much like many websites today that throw up "helpful" error pages telling you how to turn on cookies to fix your problem or explaining how to turn on javascript to fix your problem, with the website itself refusing to display until your problem is resoved. Except now you'll get an error message explaing how to turn on the Trust system.

If you want to get a preview of what things could be like in three years or so, try surfing the internetfor a week with cookies and javascript permanently switched off. See howmany websites you get ACTIVELY LOCKED OUT from.

This is going to get very very ugly. Just pulling the plug isn't going to do either of us much good. :(

-

Re:Pulling the plug

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as you don't understand the source to your OS, it doesn't matter if you have it. Anything could be happening.

RMS's Nightmare is Coming

[edward.virtually@pob]

He warned us long ago. Of course, even now the masses will fail to be alarmed. "It's only a demo." Etc. "Boil 'em slow, they'll never know." Oh well.

Re:RMS's Nightmare is Coming

[killjoe]

I know lot of people here on /. hate his guts but there is no disputing the man is a genius and a visionary. Everytime he speaks people jump up and down here call him a smelly hippie or something but in a few years he turns out to be right.

You would think with a track record like he has he would get a little more respect around here but maybe it's good enough just to be right.

A significant improvement in usability

[Tim Ward]

If you're working somewhere where you have to be positively identified and sign on each occasion when you access particular sensitive documents then the techonology described is a significant improvement in usability.

You no longer have to travel to the document repository, and you are no longer restricted to the hours that the librarian keeps.

Re:A significant improvement in usability

[segedunum]

You could do that now with current, older hardware. The business, company or organisation using this technology to identify their employees would not be in control of it. The hardware and software companies will be, as well as anyone else they're in league with.

Re:A significant improvement in usability

[davecb]

No, the repository won't let you have the document because, although you can be authenticated, you're trying to move the document to an uncontrolled electronix device at a non-TEMPEST-shielded location.

You've acheived autheniation, and arguably need-to-know, but you've failed mandatory access control, trusted path, labelling and covert channel prevention.

You have nothing like the security of the repository, so you don't get the document.

--dave (former professional paranoid) c-b

Re:A significant improvement in usability

[Tim Ward]

Fair cop, I wasn't really being very serious, of course seriously paranoid organisations are not going to find stuff like this makes any difference.

Re:A significant improvement in usability

[Alsee]

You're advertizing the wonderful vitamins and minerals in a poisoned apple as a good thing.

You can get the exact same "significant improvement in usability" from a NON-poisned apple. You can do the exact same thing with otherwise identical hardware with otherwise identical capabilities, except where the company that owns the machines is allowed to know their own master keys to their own computers.

-

What about virtual machines?

[Anonymous Coward]

How would this sort of thing affect something like VMWare? If the O/S needs to be booted up on a trusted platform surely you won't be able to install it on a virtual machine. If the virtual machine can fool the O/S into thinking it's running on a trusted platform, doesn't that mean that you can get around the trusted component?

Re:What about virtual machines?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure there will be ways around, but they probably trust the DMCA to help them deal with that. The first person in the US to find a way around trusted computing is going to get nailed hard.

Re:What about virtual machines?

[Antique Geekmeister]

It's a very good question: I know that the Trusted Computing system is able to check boot loaders for signatures, and prevent or permit them from being used. But I bet that VMware is looking very hard at exactly how to manage this.

Re:What about virtual machines?

[Alsee]

How would this sort of thing affect something like VMWare?

Exellent question.

The Trust chip spys on exactly what software you run. It watches and logs every piece of software right from the BIOS to the bootloader to the operating system, and then it logs either certain applications or all applications you have run since bootup.

The Trust chip securely reports on the exact identity of the software. If you attempt to make even the slightest change in the BIOS or Operating System or anywhere else, the Chip logs that difference.

So the answer is that it is impossible for VMWare to work. VMWare cannot emulate the Trust chip because it does not know the unique crypto key locked inside of the Trust chip, and it cannot emulate the Trust chip by using a substitute key because you cannot forge the Trusted Computing Group's cryptographic signature to activate that key. So the VMWare only has two choices:

(1) VMWare BLOCKS the Trust chip - meaning the software does not work.

(2) VMWare BREAKS the emulation mode and passes I/O directly into and out of the Trust chip without filtering, without modification. The trust chip then "knows" and reports that VMWare is running and that the system is virtualized and again the software does not work.

Trusted Computing defeats/kills virtualization software like VMWare. The very point of Trusted Computing is to prohibit virtualization and to deny people control over their own computers.

-

Re:What about virtual machines?

[woolio]

Errr, I'm still reading up on this Trusted Computing stuff...

I thought the point of it was to only enable certain (signed) applications to execute.... (e.g. only Windows Media Player plays songs, and only outputing them to a (trusted) sound card driver).

Forget about what VMware would be able to emulate or not --- wouldn't such a system simply just prevent VMware from executing at all?!?!?!

If they have the capability to view and log applications, why should it stop only there?

Re:What about virtual machines?

[Alsee]

I thought the point of it was to only enable certain (signed) applications to execute

No. That is a missunderstanding that is repeated unfortunately often. No one would ever move to the new Windows OS if none of the existing software could run on it. People want to play the existing games, and companies want to be able to run their existing applications. Trying to impose such a system would flop the moment it hit the market. The people behind Trusted Computing know that.

Here are the basic aspects on how the system operates:

(1) The chip watches and logs what software you run, from the BIOS to the bootloader to the operation system. After bootup it also logs (at a minimum) the Trusted-related software you run, or potentially ALL of the software you run. That choice would be up to the OS.

(2) The chip uses something called Remote Attestation to securely transmit your hardware specifications and transmit this software log to other people over the internet. You cannot control or tamper with the contents of this spy report, not without destroying and invalidating it. Other people can then examine this log and decide if they approve of your hardware and your software. In particular they can examine it to determine exactly what software they are talking to right now. If they approve of that list then you are considered "Trusted". If they do not approve of that list then they simply terminate the communication.

(2) The chip uses that log system to generate internal crypto keys. If you modify the BIOS or modify the operating system then the chip generates different keys. The chip also generates a key specific to any particular program, and it locks that key under the key locked to the BIOS and operating system. If you attempt to modify a program then the chip detects that difference and it generates different keys.

So you go to an RIAA music store to buy music. They ask your computer for this spylog. They examine it and determine that you have an approved unmodified DRM-enforcing Windows operating system, and they see that you are currently running their approved unmodified DRM-enforcing music player. They then send the encrypted music file directly into your Trust chip, and then the Trust chip outputs the file locks that file under the approved music player key which is locked under the operating system key.

This is called "Sealed Storage". The chip locks a file so that it can only be read by the exact unmodified application, and only under the exact unmodified operating system, and only on that exact computer.

If you move to a different computer, that chip will have a different random key inside. That new chip cannot generate any of the keys used by the original system and cannot read any of the files.

If you stay on the same machine and try to change the OS, the chip generates different keys whill logging the modified OS. It now cannot generate any of the correct application keys.

If you're on the original machine with the unmodified OS, if you try to modify the application then the chip generates a different key while logging that different executable. The chip hands that application the wrong key and the music player cannot read the music file.

The only way to read or modify a file is by using (and under the conditions and restrictions imposed by) the exact unmodifed application that originally created the file.

It is possible for one program to deliberately pass it's key to some other program, but only if the original unmodified program was explicitly designed to do that, and only under the conditions imposed by that program. For example a DRM music player can build in a software update system. It would pass its current key to the operating system for safe keeping, the software would update and the Trust chip would generate a new key for the modified software, and the operating system would pass the old key back to the new software to be locked under the new key. And of course the DRM music player will only agree to pass its current

Trusted Computing == Untrustful Customers

[layer3switch]

Trust goes both ways. Software and hardware industry now keep treating software and hardware for consumers as if it's a privilage to buy, and assumes that none of customers can be trusted as owners of a product.

I'm just disgusted that companies are putting on a smile and trying to gain consumers' "trust," yet none trusts consumers. However when consumers do not trust companies by removing DRM, consumers quickly become criminals, and are called pirates and thieves. While companies abuse the consumers' trust and play market share or monopoly or pricing/licensing games, companies are just looking out for the economy/artists/share holder's best interest.

There is no such thing as "trusted" computing. No one trust anyone here. This shouldn't be called "trusted computing." This should be called "Untrustful Consumers Computing."

Re:Trusted Computing == Untrustful Customers

[LilWolf]

Reminds me of the Lafkon video about trusted computing.

http://www.lafkon.net/tc/

Torrent just in case it gets popular ;) http://www.lafkon.net/tc/trusted-computing.torrent

Re:Trusted Computing == Untrustful Customers

[dr.newton]

There is no such thing as "trusted" computing. No one trust anyone here.

Remind you of anything else? Maybe "Ministry of Truth"?

Re:Trusted Computing == Untrustful Customers

[_the_bascule]

Richard Stallman calls it Treacherous Computing

Consider more than the MSDOS PC

[dbIII]

When Windows 95 came out it was a major improvement in technology.

In what way was it better than OS/2, MacOS, Irix, SunOS, the soon to be released WinNT or other OS's with a modern GUI available at the time? It was a peice of garbage with no innovation whatsever, but it was cheap and was better than earlier versions of MSDOS and had a prettier graphical shell.

Re:Consider more than the MSDOS PC

[Anonymous Coward]

It was WAY better than win3.11 and MSDOS, the major OSes of the time. Stop comparing apples and oranges.

Saying it isnt a major leap because MacOS v whatever beat it on a DIFFERENT PLATFORM doesnt matter.

Re:Consider more than the MSDOS PC

[Stormwatch]

To be fair... on the tech side, Apple's System (renamed Mac OS on version 7.6) was not better than Windows 95. The Mac didn't get memory protection and preemptive multitasking until OS X, which is actually a whole new system with similar looks. Interface-wise, however, System 7 was better, far more intuitive.

Re:Consider more than the MSDOS PC

[Anonymous Coward]

AmigaOS was far beyond anything MS could hope to present even in 1985. Beat that.

Superior marketing and money beats superior technology each and every time.

Re:Consider more than the MSDOS PC

[Stormwatch]

No, it's more like incompetence beats itself. How's that joke again... if Commodore got the contract to advertise Kentucky Fried Chicken, they'd call it 'Warm Dead Bird".

Ah! I see a new profitable market! Fake Thumbs!

[maillemaker]

How long until you can buy a fake thumb with Elvis Presley's print on it? :)

Steve

And

[themusicgod1]

Exactly how would you do this? Everything will be done on computers in the future, taxes, job applications, schooling, you name it.

If we don't create alternatives now(and not in 10-25 years), the Trusted Computing Group will p3wn us.

For those keeping score there's only one key peice missing:
a law requiring the use of this DRM, or making illegal non DRM stuff, for the trusted computing group to win.

FreeBSD

[Anne Thwacks]

I run FreeBSD on my Thinkpad, but I may dual-boot to Solaris. Windows in any shape or form is out of the question, as I actually USE my PC for work, and I cant afford to have viruses, spyware, and other 180 solutions products on my PC.

If you play GTA on a DRM'd computer, and find Al Quaida or the Mothers of America send the hit squad after you because of your moral degeneracy (or any other reason), its not my fault.

Re:FreeBSD

[PatrickThomson]

It is easy to have a virus-spyware free windows computer, just be competent. Bitching about these as a personal problem only makes you look like a moron.

More RIAA Suits

[omegashenron]

I can just see it now - RIAA suing someone because their computer dialed 'back to base' providing their owners name and fingerprints (technology replacing law enforcement)... there goes the excuse that it was my children and I didnt know.

Right but...Change is good

[poptones]

You're right: this can *eventually* change the way we think about data and the way we interact with computers.

But not yet. This is just a "chip on a motherboard." So what if the adobe doc requires all this authentication? It's ultimately passing unencypted over a bus in a machine of otherwise conventional design. No core level encryption, no encrypted root level executable. That means all the "security" in the world is just so much appendage waiting to be hacked off by the first experienced coder to come along.

Such a platform CAN change the way we think about things, though. Ad denough encryption and it gets awfully damn hard to remove attributes form data. This is *not* a bad thing. Once we can give data attributes that canot be easily removed we enter into the realm of being able to move *things* across the internet. Want to move your World of Warcraft *things* into your new Sims pad? It can be done, if the game designers adopt the new standards for "trusted object model data."

This is not just about recording your biometrics every time you listen to maria carey. The possibilities this opens up can literally change the world economy - when the tools of production are in the hands of the proletariat, and the only raw material needed to supply that production is *knowledge,* a lot of people suddenly have a lot of new opportunities to better their lives.

Re:Right but...Change is good

[jackb_guppy]

You must also agree with the police chief.

Change is not always good. Why do I want to pay for equipment that I will not own?

These "TRUSTED" machines are untrust worthly. You will not be able to control what runs on them. Some one else will decide if you can use your own equipment. Just like the lies with HDTV and HMDI. It is about setting up toll booths deep in your own pockets.

Re:Right but...Change is good

[poptones]

Someone else ALREADY decides. If a manufacturer does not make a piece of equipment, you do not run it - period. If a manufacturer does not offer a driver or specifications, in most cases you are locked into windows are a hack that incorporates bits of windows code. If a manufacturer only releases a game for playstation 3 and all you have is an xbox, you're screwed. How is this any different?

You run whatever software you want. If the terms someone makes you agree to say "we can isntall whatever the hell we want on your machine at any time" then the simple solution is you tell them to go fuck themselves.

It's sad to see so much ignorance and fear regarding this issue. There is no reason at all (except one - we refuse to have a voice in the technology) we cannot have open source software running on trusted platforms. By the time the platform even means anything we'll have multicore cpus that support ring 0 virtualization anyway, which means most of the way we think about operating systems will be obsolete. When you can have windows and linux and a dozen other operating systems all running in their own sandboxes and sharing screen realestate and exchanging data via encrypted pipes, who cares if someone wants you to run their own media platform in order to view their movies? If the movies are good enough you watch, if not you - again - tell them to go stuff themselves.

Re:Right but...Change is good

[Anonymous Coward]

All those things can be done quite easily right now with or without encryption.

This is not just about recording your biometrics every time you listen to maria carey.

It's not just about that. Your right it's about a lot more. But the question is; Why the hell should anyone have to scan their fingerprint just to listen to Mariah Carey?

It has been a common practice at many banks to require people to place a fingerprint stamp on the back of any check they wish to cash. I have never liked the idea and have always refused just on principle. Imagine my principles about scanning my fingerprint to read a Word document.

Re:Right but...Change is good

[Antique Geekmeister]

You're missing a lot of details about this software. It's closed source, and a violation of the DMCA to reverse engineer it. That means writing an open source version of the encryption/decryption tools is going to be a nightmare.

Second, running it at the OS level instead of the hardware level of the built-in features of the Intel CPU's is going to really slow it down: that will probably hurt performance a lot of open source versions of the Trusted Computing tools, even if they're legally created.

Third, the next logical stage of Trusted Computing is hardware locking: motherboards that won't load unsigned boot loaders, or won't access DVD drives or hard drives without being authenticated with Trusted Computing licenses to be held by OS distributions or DVD drive and software vendors. This can be used to block open source operating systems from even booting, or to prevent Trusted Computing managed DVD drives from being able to read DVD's that have Trusted Computing signed DVD's in them without a Trusted Computing signed media player.

It's very nasty, and it's at the core of why Microsoft and Hollywood are collaborating so well in this project.

Re:Right but...Change is good

[MrShaggy]

But there are a lot of ideas that this can be used for. If the security is beefed up, then you have less reason to worry if the laptop that your company gave you got stolen. It would be a lot harder to access that system. With the recent rash of Credit card data that went missing this isnt a bad thing. Your on-line banking could also use this in order to determine that its you that is accessing their account from your pc. How about that pesky tax information that most of us have on them as well ? Can't get your sin if wedont have the finger-pad. As far as the rest, if hollywood wants that too for you to play thier movie on your laptop, then thats the way it goes. You are the one who wants to play it on the laptop, instead of the DVD machine. Some games want you tto have the cd in when yu play them. Whats so different? As far as the above who said that the question about the being the same as the police chief, no. It isn't anything like that at all. Thats outright watching everyone. A lot like those pesky illegal wiretaps. If i sent you a company secret and there was a way to add on layers of protection, I think that its worth any performance hit. I don't see many poeple wanting to play the latest and greatest FPS, while they are doing work on their companies laptop, while the boss is using a virtual desktop to see how you are making out. Shagz

Re:Right but...Change is good

[Anonymous Coward]

If the security is beefed up, then you have less reason to worry if the laptop that your company gave you got stolen. It would be a lot harder to access that system. With the recent rash of Credit card data that went missing this isnt a bad thing.

You do realize that DRM does nothing to aid actual security that couldn't be done better with user-controlled encryption? DRM is solely about preventing a computer's operator from performing certain types of operations on that computer. If you've done some programming, you'll realize that in every such "legitimate" example of DRM, it's actually easier and more secure to code the app as a client-server system, entirely encrypted and with per-user permissions on access to the server's data.

With things like your taxes and banking details, DRM won't make your records any more secure; if that were the goal, they'd just be encrypted on your HD under your personal control, and the hardware DRM would function based on personal encryption keys that you personally possessed. This is not how any DRM system in production works.

The sole actual purpose of actual DRM is to create a special class of theoretically impossible computations for the computer someone else buys, in order that self-appointed censors can exercise prior restraint on actions of users.

Re:Right but...Change is good

[jackb_guppy]

We have NO VOICE.

We have a few companies that are needing CASH in big buckets. They are driving the hardware changes, to support their monoplyies.

Microsoft's answers to most questions of why? Their customer reqested it. Who are MS customers???? It is not us or just about ANY HUMAN. MS will NOT sell to us. They sell to stories and manufactures.

I assemble my own machines, so I am a manufacure. I went to MS when W98OSR2 was out and requested to buy the OS, since OEM-DELL, assemeblers-could get OSR2. They first refused, then sent me into finding a distributer that will sell it to me in chuncks of 5, at full retail price, ONLY AFTER I pay $500 to the right to talk to them. That what pushed me in Linux.

This current stage of Trusted Machines is just another step in locking out Linux. The HMDI is doing that by having you buy into deal to get a key that will allow you to pay movie. With this step, you will have buy in just to use your machine, period.

MS Monoploy is live and well. They are the sherif in town. They want to see everythnig that you are doing. That better be puring large chunks of cash in their pockets.

Re:Right but...Change is good

[Anonymous Coward]

Whats so different? As far as the above who said that the question about the being the same as the police chief, no. It isn't anything like that at all. Thats outright watching everyone. A lot like those pesky illegal wiretaps. If i sent you a company secret and there was a way to add on layers of protection, I think that its worth any performance hit.

You're conveniently ignoring the fact that the extra layers of protection rely on the existence of a camera watching you.

Yes, there is a place for trusted devices. But I don't think it's on general-purpose computers. You can make special trysted-storage systems and so on for the cases that require such protection - banks, etc. Just like you put cameras watching everything about accessing the vault - but don't permanently attach a camera to everyone that has access to it[*], much less to any customer that makes a cash withdrawal.

[*] well, they started with the injecting RFID chips for dataceneter access already, so this part might change.

Re:Right but...Change is good

[ScytheBlade1]

Third, the next logical stage of Trusted Computing is hardware locking: motherboards that won't load unsigned boot loaders, or won't access DVD drives or hard drives without being authenticated with Trusted Computing licenses to be held by OS distributions or DVD drive and software vendors. This can be used to block open source operating systems from even booting, or to prevent Trusted Computing managed DVD drives from being able to read DVD's that have Trusted Computing signed DVD's in them without a Trusted Computing signed media player.

Linked through the article, I read the bit on BitLocker, MS's drive-level encryption that has the option of being secured with Trusted Computing chips. I found the steps to activate this almost funny:

Step 1: Turn on the TPM

1. Click through a bunch of stuff and reboot

Step 2: Set ownership of the TPM

1. Create the TPM owner password

Odd.... looks to me like the user has access to the key on the TPM (Trusted Platform Module)... huh. Suddenly, motherboards that won't load the trojan'd bootloader that I didn't know of sounds really, really nice. What's that, some script kiddie replaced my kernel with a rootkit? Dare I say it, TPM to the rescue!

Yes, I enjoy my sarcasm. However, since the end-user has the ability to completly reset the TPM module, to set the key, the password, etc... I suddenly want to purchase a computer with TPM installed. Once (okay okay, if) linux + bootloaders can support it, and/or vice-versa, this suddenly became an incredibly useful tool for making sure that your computers boot what you want them to. No more rootkits on the kernel level, or bootloader level, or even MBR level. Period.

Just because it can be used for DRM, doesn't mean that is has to be used for DRM.

Re:Right but...Change is good

[d34thm0nk3y]

f a manufacturer only releases a game for playstation 3 and all you have is an xbox, you're screwed. How is this any different?

When you buy software you have the right to make it run. You could still legally play that ps3 title on an emulator if you wish.

Re:Right but...Change is good

[Anonymous Coward]

hollywood and microsoft can bite my binary, magentic ass.

But seriously, dont kid yourself that its only MS who's greedily eyeing this stuff. I'll wager Apple or Tivo will be one of the first to implement the "motherboards that wont load unsigned boot loaders" option. As well as every 'software appliance' vendor out there. Probably a fair numer of large software vendors as well.

In my mind, i doubt this will be implemented for current generations of dvd's--it really cant. it will be forced onto HDDVD's or whatever the next gen is. With that, if MS backports support for these HDDVD's onto its older OS's. (2k/XP) you'll guarentee they'll only work if the mainboard supports the (un)trusted computing as well.

I have hope that the joe blow public will reject this kind of digital fascism, but at the same i'm sceptical. My gut feeling is the US will bite it hook line and sinker without widespread question, but other countries (maybe EU, canada, japan) may raise a stink and place some restrictions on its use with purchased media.

I do doubt that we'll see joe blow motherboard off the street which is 'locked' from booting whatever we want. There's no reason a whitebox board maker would limit itself in such a manner.

Re:Right but...Change is good

[Antique Geekmeister]

Please separate your ideas so they can be addressed one at a time, instead of all jumbled up.

The performance hit should be very slight with this integrated DRM. That's fundamental to the whole design of Trusted Computing: if consumers see a real performance hit, they will avoid the DRM controlled media or software.

There are serious trade-offs in having integrated encryption vs. ease of recovering documents. Trusted Computing has decided on, and implemented, a system where all keys are either centrally managed or can be created only with a centrally managed signature. This eases recovering lost keys, but it means a huge level of trust must exist in the central key authority: they can, and history shows that they will, turn over the keys for their own political or business reasons. And there really is no need to have such a central authority if your goal is user protection: the use and spread of PGP has shown how to do that.

No, the centralized key management is clearly focused on DRM. And the movie and software companies have repeatedly demonstrated their willingness to restrict you from legal use of their material. If they weren't, they'd have created or permitted a Linux DVD player years ago and avoided the whole libdvdcss mess where they sued people and got a portable DVD decryption library outlawed in numerous countries, a library that has been expressed as 2 lines of Perl code as a demonstration of how easy it is to do.

Re:Right but...Change is good

[Antique Geekmeister]

I agree with your analysis. Protecting boot loaders from viruses and preventing bootable CD's from being able to boot a secured system are very useful applications for something like Trusted Computing. However, take a good look at all those click-through tools for setting a new boot loader or manipulating the TPM module that you've described. They're Windows based, closed source, and Trusted Computing authenticated. That means that to add a new bootloader, you have to use the Windows controlled to load, guess what? A Windows bootloader! As near as I can tell, Trusted Computing cannot be legally reverse engineered due to the DMCA. So creating Linux tools for accessing the boot loader controls or other DRM managed hardware becomes extremely difficult.

Re:Right but...Change is good

[marcosdumay]

You mean that we can create more artificail scarcity, that will create more artificial markets where people trade more virtual goods. All that while adding near to zero worth on the real markets out there.

We really need to get out of those pyramids. Not create more.

Re:Right but...Change is good

[ScytheBlade1]

Yeah, I know. Which is the one amazingly depressing thing about it. It has so much potential for good, and yet... :(

Personally, I can just hope that it's the ream of click-through wizards that configure the TPM, not the TPM coming pre-configured that way. It sounds like it could work for linux, but, alas, the DMCA... sigh.

I'm just keeping my fingers crossed, that someone, somewhere, will find a way to make it work for better purposes.

Re:Right but...Change is good

[ScriptedReplay]

Hmm ... what happens if the bootloader gets corrupted? (hdd failure, for instance) There should be something like a stand-alone bootable medium that one can use to reset/deactivate the TPM. Otherwise you compound multiple points of failure into just this one.

Re:Right but...Change is good

[name773]

got anything for how this will change phishing attempts?

Re:Right but...Change is good

[westlake]

There's no reason a whitebox board maker would limit itself in such a manner. There is one reason to build TC into your boards: OEM Sales.

Re:Right but...Change is good

[poptones]

The reason all those tools are windows based is because it's windows. There's no reason at all we cannot have open source DRM, open sourced TCPA platforms, and open source kernels running on them.

Oh, wait.. there is that one thing: the OSS dogmatists are so busy screaming about how this is evil and going to "destroy the desktop" no one has time to actually develop some code that might make these things possible in the linux realm.

Maybe it's time for me to buy that Apple...

Re:Right but...Change is good

[Anonymous Coward]

Combine that with the software patent law the idiots in Brussels are trying to shove through and any person with an IQ above insect can figure out what we'll have. //M3X6

Re:Right but...Change is good

[Lehk228]

there has been linux support for TCPA at least as far back as 2003 Slashdot article here which so far is infinitely longer than windows has supported it. it seems by the time Microsoft gets around to trying to use TCPA for evil linux will already be established as an effective Trusted platform.

remember the point of TCPA is not to make it impossible to run unsigned code, but rather to prove to remote computers or local processes that what you claim you are doing is actually what you are doing. for example you could use TCPA to make sure that bots don't harvest email addresses from DNS records by providing a TCPA enabled java applet which does the lookup and protects it memory from snooping all the way down to the hardware level.

TCPA has the potential for evil, but so does any general purpose computer or any other device which can be modified to perform functions the user desires.

Yes TCPA will make it harder to crack DRM'd media, but it could also be used to enforce the GPL. source code provided in a special package which would only allow itself by compilers which are trusted to package the binary and source code together in such a way that they cannot be separated. the cost would be significant increases in the size of GPL software distributions since every package would always carry it's source code along with it. there could also be a function where a TCPA enforced one-way install would encypt the binary for local use only and stip away the source files in order to save disk space on a local system.

overall my point is that TCPA is a tool and like any other tool it should not be rejected just because it can be used for evil.

Re:Right but...Change is good

[techfury90]

Bingo, TC includes a feature known as Owner Override, which is exactly what you described. My Dell Latitude D610 has a TPM chip in it, but it's fully under the owner's control, e.g. disabled by default, and you can completely clear the contents of the chip by merely going to the BIOS settings and hitting the right button. All it's used for is to enhance encryption (things such as virtual disks).

Re:Right but...Change is good

[Anonymous Coward]

TiVo has been doing this for years. You can't boot your own Linux kernel on them now.

The original series 1 TiVo boxes didn't check whether the OS kernel and software were signed. They were easily hackable and made TiVo's reputation as an extendable platform.

Early series 2 boxes did check for a TiVo-signed kernel that then checked all the software it ran. Hackers found security holes in the kernel that allowed them to load their own code, so customizing your own machine was still possible.

In current series 2 boxes TiVo has fixed all known security holes. The only way to modify your own system now is to replace the tiny soldered-on boot PROM to avoid the security checks. Good luck if you don't have microsoldering equipment and a PROM burner. And TiVo could change their software to look for modified PROMs since boxes rely on daily updates from the TiVo service.

TiVo still lets you replace your hard drive with a larger one for now.

Re:Right but...Change is good

[Alsee]

If the security is beefed up

I am all in support of "beefed up security". However denying people control over THEIR OWN COMPUTER is not security. That is DRM. DRm and security are two entirely different things. One is securing a computer FOR its owner, the other is attempting to secure a computer AGAINST its owner.

less reason to worry if the laptop that your company gave you got stolen

That is a legitimate security task. And it in no way justifies this Trusted Compting system.

If you dissagree, please exapling to me why THE COMPANY should be FORBIDDEN to know their own master key to their own laptop in they want to.

Ooops, you can't answer that because there is no reason to forbid the company to know its own key if they want it.

the recent rash of Credit card data that went missing

Again, another example of security. Another example that has absolutely nothing to do with DRM. Another example which has absolutely nothing to do with denying the company control over their own computer systems. Another example which in no way supports this new trusted Computing system.

determine that its you that is accessing their account from your pc

And I can store the master key to my own computer in my safety deposite box at the bank and get the same level of security that no one can tamper with my computer and that no one can impersonate me.

And before you try to criticize that security - such critism is invalid. Any threat model there is LESS than the threat model of someone simply watching or videotaping me when I type my passord into my computer to access the bank account. (Or lifting and cloning my fingerprint from a mug.) Any objection you might have is absolutely meaningless in comparison to someone simple sitting down at my computer and logging on as me like that, or stealling my computer and logging on as me like that.

How about that pesky tax information that most of us have on them as well ?

Ahain, legitimate security FOR me on my own computer. You have absolutely no justification to FORBID me to know my own master key, if I want to know it.

if hollywood wants that too for you to play thier movie on your laptop, then thats the way it goes

And why should I be forbidden to buy a computer that comes with a printed copy of my master key?

And even if I do buy the computer hollywood wants me to buy, are you suggesting that for some reason that I no longer own my own property? That you somehow want to deny my my basic property rights to my own property? That for some reason I should not place my computer under a microscope and read out my master key? That I should not be able to send my computer to a professional and hire them to read out my key for me?

I say hollywood is perfectly free to use any and all the DRM they like. I am merely saying that I have the right to look at my own computer under a microsocope and read out my own key. That I should be able to use that key to bypass or remove any and all DRM for perfectly legal noninfringing purposes. That I should be able to buy a computer that comes with a printed copy of my own master key. That computers should be abailble like this in the first place, and that if no such machines are manufactured that people should go into business buying the machines and reading out the keys and reselling them along with the printed copy of the key.

Some games want you tto have the cd in when yu play them.

Fine. And I load software into my computer that gets the game to work wothout the CD in the drive. If I have a laptop and I'm running off the battery, there is no reason I shouldn't install the entire CD that I legitimately bought onto the laptop and install software that tells the computer to treat the harddrive as a CD drive and thereby tell the software that the CD is in the CD drive... absolutely NO REASON that I shouldn't do this in order to aviod buring down the battery runnign a CD drive and shortening my playtime

Re:Right but...Change is good

[Alsee]

Bingo, TC includes a feature known as Owner Override

No it doesn't. Owner Override is something that was PROPOSED by the EFF. The Trusted Computing Group has refused to permit any Owner Override into the system.

If there were an Owner Override then the owner would have the power to control his system and to control and modify the securioty settings at will and he's have the power to unlock his own files at will. In short the owner would have the ability to beat DRM systems. He'd be able to use his Owner Override to unlock and read a DRMed music file.

it's fully under the owner's control

That's like saying that a pair of handcuffs are "fully under your control" while you are wearing them. The handcuffs move wherever your hands carry them, but they are still designed and they still operate to cuff your hands together and deny you any freedom of motion that they do not permit.

you can completely clear the contents of the chip by merely going to the BIOS settings and hitting the right button

Sure. That is the only way to change certain security settings.

And if you do that then chip is EXPLICITLY REQUIRED TO DESTORY CERTAIN KINDS OF FILES SECURED UNDER THAT CHIP!!!! Designed and required to make it impossible for you to backup or recover that data.

You haven't run into any problems because no one is using the Remote Attestation system yet, and therefore the anti-owner features of the chip are not being used. None of the data is being locked against you... YET. But the chip is explicitly designed to be able to lock your files against you. Explicitly designed to spy on you, and to securely transmit those spy reports.

Just because no software is yet using the anti-owner features does not change the fact that it was explicitly designed to secure the computer against the owner.

You could get all of the same benefits you cite from an otherwise identical system where the owner had the option of receiving a printed copy of his master key. There is no legitimate reason that you should be forbidden to know or control your own Root Storage Key or your PrivEKey.

Tthe current system is like an apple with a poison pill in it. You are citing the wonderful nutricious vitamins and minerals in the apple. However that does not explain why you should be forbidden for getting an identical apple without the poison pill. Does not justfy why you should be forbidden to get an identical system where you *can* know your master keys and here you CAN chose to change the security settings on your computer without the chip doing a MANDATORY DESTRUCTION of certain catagories of files secured under that chip. Does not change the fact that some of those security settings are to secure your files against you.

-

Re:Right but...Change is good

[MrShaggy]

Maybe what I was talking about was the use of the fingerprint method of identification.

Yours was the longest so I will reply.
In my haze in the morning before i headed out to work. I had just quickly sped it out.. before i could even begin to format it. Sometimes my brain goes faster then my hands.

What i was saying was that that when laptops get stolen from the company, such as verizon or whoever, they tend to have that data on them. Why not have a drm-styled system that reports back to the head-office when the files or pc is accessed ? I know there are phone-home systems, but having this on top of that would help. I am not an expert by any means. But if the laptop reports back to the server everytime its accessed, regardless of how, then I think that its a good thing. DRM is at its early stage. I think that as it progresses this might be part of the trend. But as long as its not the only point of security. The thiefs ip is quickly identified, and the cops are called. (as long as they attempt to access the net).

The hollywood thing,

'And even if I do buy the computer hollywood wants me to buy, are you suggesting that for some reason that I no longer own my own property? That you somehow want to deny my my basic property rights to my own property? That for some reason I should not place my computer under a microscope and read out my master key? That I should not be able to send my computer to a professional and hire them to read out my key for me?'

Ok, last I look, when you buy the movie, your not actually buying a copy of the movie. Your buying a liscence to watch it. The DVD is what you pay for. YOu can grind the dvd, and put holes in it, however, the movie itself isnt yours. Thats why it tells you about the copyright. Its copyrighted. Just like a book. If there is room to make a back-up copy that is fine. However that doesn't mean that you are allowed to share it. Or remove the copy-protection. The industry has a problem in that it understands that people want to watch it on their computer, however that means more people can pirate it as well,

The case in point is DVDJon, I understand his status of going up against the big guys and winning.
But my question is, why did he have to share the information to other people ? Couldnt he have just kept quiet? I dont understand why it's their fault that they didn't produce a linux version? A lot of companies don't. Just pressure them untill they do.

You also talk about the company that sends you their secret and trusts you not to release it. You would expect that coke would come after you if you gave away a formula right? Why cant the movie industry go after you for giving away theirs?

I had said nothing about the fact that you are secured from your own personal computer. I don't see this being used unless its a companies system. Its theirs they can do with it what ever they want.

I didnt read through to the end suggesting that a third party hold your keys.

Thats silly. I agree with you all there. I seem to think that should be able to be shifted to whomever owns the system.

Re:Right but...Change is good

[Alsee]

overall my point is that TCPA is a tool and like any other tool it should not be rejected just because it can be used for evil.

That's like saying an apple with a cyanide pill in it is food like any other food.

Sure Trusted Computing (TCPA) is a tool that can be used for good things. However just like the vitamins and minerals in an apple, you can get ALL of thuse good things from an identical system that doesn't have a cyanide pill in it.

Citing the vitamins and minerals in a poised apple is not an argument in support of poising apples. It is an argument fort NON-posion apples.

I have a question for you. Do you have any objection to me unscrewing MY computer and using a college laboratory to mirco-examine MY microchip and read out MY key? Sure it can be a pain in the ass to actually manage to read out my key, but assuming I put in the effort and do it, is there anything wrong with that?

Basic property rights here. Can I or can I not examine my own property? Can I or can I not then assist my closest 10,000 friends to read out THEIR master key to THEIR own computers?

If so then there is no reaonable or legitimate basis to expect people's computers can, would, or should enforce anything AGAINST their owners.

The current system is explictly designed with a poison pill, explicitly designed to be secure AGAINST their owners, explicily desiged to deny people control over their own computers, explicitly designed to deny people their master keys to their own computer.

Owners can get ALL of the benefits - I repeat ALL of the benefits - from an identical system where they have the option of getting a printed copy of their own master key to their own computer. There is no way that the option of knowing your own master key can diminish your computers ability to provide security and other protections for you. The option of knowing your own master key preseves all of the benefits for the owner and eliminates ALL of the potential for abuses against the owner.

Yes poison apples have vitamins and minerals. However it still makes them absolutely 100% evil to try to forbid non-poison apples and to try to force poison apples onto everyone. You cannot defend exclusively poisoned apples as being neutral. Exclusively poisoned apples are evil, period.

It would be neutral if people at least had the OPTION of buying poison-free apples. It would be neutral if people at least had the OPTION of buying otherwise identical systems where they could get their master keys. Then it would be a neutral tool.

As for trying to enforce the GPL through Trusted Computing, it is impossible. And even if it were possible, it would still be a wrong and stupid scheme prohibiting perfectly legal and legitimate things.

-

Re:Right but...Change is good

[Alsee]

No, you're wrong. Your argument does not defend this system.

You can get all of the security benefits and none of the DRM abuses simply from identical hardware here the owner may (if he wants it) have a printed copy of his master keys.

This system is explitly designed to be an anti-owner DRM enforcment system. The fact that it also happens to be usesable to secure things for the owner is merely a side effect of the fact that the system is designed to be secure against the owner.

If you want to defend this system then please explain why owners should be forbidden to ever know or control their own master key? Why should the specification explicitly require the system to treat the owner as an "attacker" and to secure it against the owner? Why should the specification make it MANDATORY that it be impossible for the owner to ever backup or recover his own data in a variety of circumstances? Why should the specification make it MANDATORY that the owner have his data IRRETRIVEABLY DESTROYED in certian circumstances?

All of those are purely DRM enforcment specifications. DRM files may not be backed up. DRM files are required to be irretrievably destroyed before you change certain security settings on the system. Virtually every single part of the specification is specifically targeted and crafted against the legitmate owner rather than against unauthorized attackers because the system is not designed for the owners security. It is designed against the owner.

You could get ALL of these security benefits from a non-DRM system. They are simply forbidding you to buy an otherwise identical non-DRM system.

This is not a legitimate system.
This is not a defensable system.

This is an attempt to deny people the option of buying legitimate security systems. An attempt to take a DRM system and dress it up in the costume of a real security system. Attempting to spin and advertize it as that legitimate security system. Attempting to deny us the real security system and to force this DRM systenm onto us instead.

Unless you can explain why people should be FORBIDDEN to know the master key to their own computers, even if they want it.

-

Re:Right but...Change is good

[jrockway]

> That's like saying an apple with a cyanide pill in it is food like any other food.

Keep in mind that apple seeds contain cyanide.

Re:Right but...Change is good

[Zeinfeld]

You're missing a lot of details about this software. It's closed source, and a violation of the DMCA to reverse engineer it. That means writing an open source version of the encryption/decryption tools is going to be a nightmare.

The security of this system does not depend on secrecy of the design. It is the trusted hardware that is the critical point in the system.

This is actually a lousy copyright enforcement scheme. The number of equiped machines and hence the market for protected content is tiny. The chips in the machines only provide a limited degree of security against hardware attack. You cannot extract keys using power analysis or snoop on the buses but the chip can be cracked using destructive techniques.

Copyright enforcement is break once, run anywhere. Content rights management is much more feasible since you only provision a few tens or perhaps a hundred machines with the keys you care about.

The TCB drivers were ported to Linux by IBM. This is a good thing because keeping server signing keys in protected storage is going to be considered essential for SSL security at some point. For details see my blog essay

Re:Right but...Change is good

[Anonymous Coward]

The concept of you not being able to watch the movie you purchased as PROPERTY how YOU see fit is a new concept....one that the greedy bastards in Hollywood want you to believe. Looks like you bought it hook, line, and sink'er. Congrats, you're a fool.

Re:Right but...Change is good

[tricorn]

DMCA wouldn't prevent reverse-engineering this. The hardware might make it difficult, but there's no copyright being violated by figuring out how to load your own operating system. DMCA doesn't say you can't analyze or reverse engineer such a system, especially if it isn't being used to protect copyright!

Re:Right but...Change is good

[tricorn]

I think you overestimate the size of source code. I just looked at the NeoOffice package (Open Office for Native OSX); the binary install package is about 122.8MB, the source code is about 2.2MB. Barely a drop in the bucket. The disk image file is 123.9MB.

Re:Right but...Change is good

[Antique Geekmeister]

I think you've missed something: the existing software to write and read the Trusted Computing keys is copyrighted. That brings it under DMCA protection, making reverse engineering that software illegal.

Loading your own operating system, once you have the technology to read and write the Trusted Computing keys, is a separate issue. The motherboard technology to handle boot loaders is fascinating (and often very badly written) stuff: it's at that interface between hardware and software where the hardware can be patented, and the software can be both patented and copyrighted. Sorting out the legal issues of that is pretty painful: Look at the history of the LinuxBIOS project and if you have the skills, get involved with them to try and clean up both the code and the legal issues.

But protecting boot loaders is a big issue for Trusted Computing: it's one of the places where it can be used to do a lot of good, and to do a lot of bad.

Re:Right but...Change is good

[Lehk228]

according to the download page Here the source tarball for OOo itself is 230 megabytes, the windows binary is 82 megabytes. i suppose it all depends n the nature of the program.

Re:Right but...Change is good

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you've missed something: the existing software to write and read the Trusted Computing keys is copyrighted. That brings it under DMCA protection, making reverse engineering that software illegal.

So - lets say I have this open-source program that extracts trusted keys. I claim I didn't reverse engineer - nobody can prove otherwise. We don't have to prove innocence - it is the others who have to prove guilt. :-)

Oh, maybe I didn't write that progam anyway - perhaps I found it on the net! DeCSS may be outlawed some places, but it surely isn't going away. . .

Re:Right but...Change is good

[Alsee]

You also talk about the company that sends you their secret and trusts you not to release it. You would expect that coke would come after you if you gave away a formula right? Why cant the movie industry go after you for giving away theirs?

You apparently missunderstood what I wrote. I never suggested that they can't or shouldn't be able to do that. I was talking about innocent people. My whole post was talking about people who do not commit copyright infringment and who do not leak corporate secrets.

No where in my post did I defende ciopyright infringment, no where did I suggest that infringement should not be illegal, and no where did I suggest that infringers should not be prosecuted.

This is the reason that there is so much argument and confusion on this issue. One side wants to prevent copyright infringment, and they only see and only think about infringers. Well ok. No argument there. No opposition there. Copyright, A-OK! The other side of the argument is looking at and talking about and defending the innocent noninfringing people. The second side is saying ok, protect copyright, fine. However they are saying wait-a-minute, you can't do it THAT way, that you cannot criminalize and imprison innocent noninfringing people to do it.

If you read all this and you think it's all about "the bad guys" then you you are not reading what was actually written and it is impossible to understand the actual issue.

If you thought anything I wrote was in defence of copyright infringment or in support of "the bad guys" then it means you missread it.

What i was saying was that that when laptops get stolen from the company, such as verizon or whoever, they tend to have that data on them. Why not have a drm-styled system

You are confusing security and DRM. They are two completely different things. I directly addressed this in my last post.

Security is securing a system FOR the owner.
DRM is the attempt to secure a system AGAINST the owner.

Version is the owner of the computers. It it no way involves DRM for Verizon to secure the data on their computers against other people. It in no way involves DRM for Verizion to secure their computers to "phone home" in the case of theft.

DRM is being deliberately confused with security, and it is being falsely advertized for security. You can get all of the advertized security benefits from a completely non-DRM system.

I have no objection to or argument against security. If you think I opposed security then you did not understand what I was saying.

Ok, last I look, when you buy the movie, your not actually buying a copy of the movie.

US law Title 17 says that yes, you in fact are buying that particular copy of that movie. That you are in fact the legal owner of that particular compy of that movie. The only thing you don't buy/own along with that movie are the copyrights.

In a nutshell the copyrights are: the reproduction and distribution of those reproductions (including modified versions), and public performance rights. Period. This is defined in Title 17 section 106 of US copyright law. The copyright holder has no other exclusive rights. Those are the only rights available for a copyright holder to licence to anyone. If a copyright holder is not licencing you the right to create and distribute new copies and if he is not licencing you the right to public performance, then the copyright holder is not licencing you anything, and no licence exists at all. And those exclusive rights are subject to a variety of exemptions and limitations. For example it is not copyright infringment for a student to copy a portion of a work into a classroom multimedia project and it is not copyright infringment for you to VCR a TV show.

When you buy a book you are the owner of that particular copy. You receive no licence with that book because you need no licence. There is no exclusive "right to read" or "right to use" in copyright law. You own the book and you have every right to read

Re:Right but...Change is good

[tricorn]

Is the software that you're reverse engineering protected (e.g. by encryption) to prevent you from making unauthorized copies? That's the only thing the DMCA protects against.

Doing something like running the software in an emulator in order to trace the hardware access it makes (and then playing man-in-the-middle to the real hardware) is not prohibited by the DMCA. You are not doing it to copy the software, the tools don't enable you to copy the software without authorization. Now, properly done, the real hardware is going to make it real difficult to do this, but doing it isn't a violation of anything in the copyright law.

Using what you find out to build a tool that allows you to make unauthorized copies of the operating system, or modify the operating system to allow you to make unauthorized copies of other things, is of course still not allowed. Using what you find out to build your own bootloader to load Linux is perfectly fine.

So far, however, all that the TPC seems to be doing is allowing the owner of the computer to secure content on it from users of the computer - owner being a business, user being an employee. While there are grave implications for third parties (e.g. Microsoft, RIAA) being able to lock out the owner of the computer from being able to do certain things, that can only happen if you let it - don't buy computers that only allow you to boot Microsoft-signed operating systems, don't buy content that doesn't let you use it the way you want to. Resist at all costs any attempts to allow Internet access only to "trusted" operating systems running on "trusted" hardware.

Amazingly shortsighted

[briancnorton]

It never ceases to amaze me how slashdotters can't see pas their own noses on things like DRM. There are people with legitimate security needs that don't give a rat's ass about your pirated copy of Brittany Spears. Keeping corporate proprietary info secure is a MUCH bigger deal than preventing you from watching pirated movies.

Re:Amazingly shortsighted

[Phil John]

Keeping corporate proprietary info secure

Or, keeping an internal memo that reveals the company has broken laws etc. secret. DRM of this kind (and on emails, something else they want to implement) makes it very difficult for whistleblowers to collect evidence and expose a company that should rightly be exposed.

The effects of DRM are certainly chilling. Also, as far as trade secrets go, there are laws designed to protect those. DRM will only ever be (ab)used to hide things that shouldn't be hidden and to strip away fair use rights. The media companies weren't able to do it through the law courts, so they sneak in fair-use crippling measures by the back door.

Re:Amazingly shortsighted

[makomk]

It never ceases to amaze me how slashdotters can't see pas their own noses on things like DRM. There are people with legitimate security needs that don't give a rat's ass about your pirated copy of Brittany Spears. Keeping corporate proprietary info secure is a MUCH bigger deal than preventing you from watching pirated movies.

If I *did* have a legitimate security need, I wouldn't trust this; it's almost certainly backdoored (because I can imagine certain law enforcement agencies could be quite pissed if it wasn't - imagine some criminal using TPM hardware to encrypt their data such that it's password-protected, can only be accessed on that computer with an untampered OS, and erases itself after three consecutive wrong passwords). And if it is, there's no guarantee that someone won't get access to the backdoor who you don't trust with your data (criminals, one of your competitors, ...).

Re:Amazingly shortsighted

[Ullteppe]

Legitimate security needs my ass. The possible ways this can be misused is astronomical. Really draconican things like taking down whistleblowers, looking over every employee's shoulder etc. Actually, I think that DRM is more dangerous in the corporate world than in the personal sphere. Think about Enron with access to DRM...

Re:Amazingly shortsighted

[AndyKron]

More information, and less ranting please. Otherwise your efforts here are moot.

Re:Amazingly shortsighted

[the eric conspiracy]

Also, as far as trade secrets go, there are laws designed to protect those.

These laws are a joke in the face of international organized crime. I did some work for a company looking to protect the processes it used to manufacture authenticity seals - i.e. holographic foils etc.

The security measures needed were mind boggling, and would have been unneeded if DRM had been available.

DRM is a huge benefit in many areas, not just copyright protection.

Re:Amazingly shortsighted

[VENONA]

There is no reason for parent to be modded to troll. DRM does, in fact, have valid corporate uses, such as basic defense in depth.

Suppose you have an R&D group doing work that's important to the future of your company. You can sequester the workers on their own subnet, then firewall that subnet. There are many other precautions you can take, as well. But they aren't foolproof, even in aggregate. This is simply one more layer. It's still not foolproof. But more layers can be a Good Thing until you hit a usability problem, or otherwise climb too far up the curve of diminishing returns.

The location of that point is determined by your threat model, the value of your data, etc.

First sentence in parent post was dead-on. Message to (apparently many) Slashdotters (at least one of whom had mod points): the way you use computers *does not* constitute the whole of computing.

DRM is just a technology. I personally believe that some companies, particularly Microsoft, Adobe, and Sony, will use it to line their coporate pockets. That doesn't make the technology evil.

Bad corporate behavior, to my mind, can only be curbed in the marketplace. As that relates to consumer issues, the place to start is the mainstream press. Whoever modded parent to troll should have spent the time looking for an organization that
fights DRM from a consumer's perspective, getting a message to an editor of the local paper, etc.

Slashdotters are mostly technologists. Well, this is just a technology. Use it where you can do good things with it in technological systems. Corporate misuse is a social problem. Address it in a social context.

Re:Amazingly shortsighted

[davecb]

... and formally insufficient.

This system is far below the standards I had to meet for an orange-book system fifteen years ago, when B1 was about the minimum standard you needed to keep confidential data confidential and be able to have an audit trail that tracked access.

It's a lock on a glass door. Worse, it's one with an alarm that dispatches a trigger-happy security guard, who will shoot anyone, including the owner, if they happen to be around when he arrives.

--dave

Re:Amazingly shortsighted

[AK Marc]

Keeping corporate proprietary info secure is a MUCH bigger deal than preventing you from watching pirated movies.

Which is why Trusted Computing should fail. Prove to me that they aren't violating HIPAA sending back confidential information to some 3rd party. Prove to me that they aren't sending information back to some 3rd party that is then being sold to my competitors. You can't because Trusted Computing means that the user is untrusted, but the maker of all the computers, software, and such must be completely trusted by the users. My computer has software from over 30 makers on it, and hardware from many unknown makers. Can I trust them all? How do I know I can trust them? It is like the spammer with the valid SSL? If you have an SSL, you are trusted, right? That's trusted surfing...

Re:Amazingly shortsighted

[Alsee]

It never ceases to amaze me how slashdotters can't see pas their own noses on things like DRM.

It never ceases to amaze me how slashdotters can't tell the difference between DRM and security.

There are people with legitimate security needs

Yes there are. And none of them have anything to do with DRM.

Simple simple rule:
Trying to secure a computer FOR the owner is security.
Trying to secure a computer AGAINST the owner is DRM.

Keeping corporate proprietary info secure is a MUCH bigger deal than preventing you from watching pirated movies.

yes. And Keeping corporate proprietary info secure is a legitimate security problem, not DRM. Preventing you from watching pirated movies is a DRM problem, not security.

Trusted Computing is a DRM system. It is designed to be secure against the owner. The specification says that the owner is forbidden to know or control the master key to his own computer. If you read the engineering specification (and I have), pratically every other sentence is directed at prohibiting or forbidding the owner to do one thing or another and to deny him control or access to or knowledge of one thing ort another.

Oh sure, as a side effect of securing the computer so thoroughly AGAINST THE OWNER, you also happen to be able to use it for certain security tasks FOR the owner as well.

However you can get ALL of the benefits for the owner... you can get ALL of the security functionality of the system... while eliminiating ALL of the anti-owner abuse potential of the system. All you have to do is make idenitial hardware with identical capabilites, and simply give the owner the option of getting a printed copy of his master keys.

In a corporate envirnment the owner would be the corpration. The corporation would then have the option of getting the master keys to control their own computers. You would still get the exact same security. Notice that since the employees are NOT THE OWNER, it is a perfectly legitimate security task (not a DRM task) to secure the corporate PCs for the copropration and to secure them against the employees. The employees are not the owner, and they are not given the master keys to the machines.

Do not confuse security and DRM. They are two completely different things. You cannot justify DRM by citing NON-DRM security tasks.

Trusted Computing is malicious because it is an explicit attempt to (and explicitly required to) deny people the master keys to their own computers. To deny people comtrol over their own computers. To secure computers AGAINST their owners.

If you dissagree, then please explain to me why people should be FORBIDDEN to get a printed copy of their master key to THEIR OWN COMPUTER, if they want it? Please explain to me why people should be DENIED that option. Explain to me why a Fortune 500 company should be forbidden to place an order and receive 25,000 of these PCs WITH a disk inventorying the master keys for their new computers. Explain to me why a PC manufacturer should be forbidden to deliver those 25,000 PCs along with the desired disk inventorying the 25,000 master keys? Explain to me why the manufaturers should be forbidden to provide kind of product that the market actually demands?

-

My suggestion...

[hummassa]

(it's what I'm doing)
start sticking with free software and hardware that supports and preferably sponsors free software. change vendors if your vendor goes treacherous-computing direction. import/smuggle hardware is tcpa is mandated by legislation, while writing a letter to your legislator saying that tcpa is a restriction on free trade and outright nazism. because it is.

I truly hate this crap, the companies will pay!

[MindPrison]

I really hate the way DRM and hardware DRM now gets fully integrated into our own lawfully purchased computers.

I have the right to use my computer to whatever I feel like and it is of no concern to anyone but me. If the companies disagrees with this they can take a hike for all that I care.

All this will contribute to - is to further alienate Linux and users of alternate operating systems and demean our hard efforts to get legal DVD-playback software etc. for our chosen platforms. I am so put down by this Ill probably never run anything with DRM on it again just for the opposition of it. I will not purchase DRM enabled mp3-players, I will NOT purchase DRM harddisks or any hardware with DRM on it.

If I am forced to do it because of the fact that every hardware producer is forced by Microsoft to do so... I will do anything I can in my power to make sure that my system will be rid of such hardware, modding, jacking, compiling - I really dont care. Its my hardware and NO one shall take that right away from me! No one shall control my software or my computers or what I will be doing with them.

I fully and completely agree with the companies about piracy, I dont support piracy in any way. That said - I also support my own freedom to chose, and past experience shows us that businesses will always do whats best for them FIRST before the customers, the customers are just milking-cows to them - which is fair enough if you give us what we pay for. When you decide to mess with our hardware and deprecate our already paid for services and hardware - then I am putting my foot down and say - Enough already!

All this will probably further feed a grassroot "linux-like" organization that will form an alternate OS that will NOT conform to DRM - even if by law (god forbid it goes that far). DRM and control of customers hardware is a CRIME against the public!

Re:I truly hate this crap, the companies will pay!

[roman_mir]

But there is nothing UNlawful about putting DRM into every product.

I have the right to use my computer to whatever I feel like and it is of no concern to anyone but me. - I beg to differ. There are plenty of things that you are not allowed to do with your computer by the law. You are not allowed to crack into other computers (either with intent to steal or for learning something new.) You are not allowed to say, download child-porn, etc. We know that people cannot be trusted. If people could be trusted, DRM wouldn't have appeared, because then noone would infringe on copyrights, noone would set viruses free into the wild, noone would steal money from the banks etc.

You think you have some kind of a natural right, to be sold computer hardware without built in DRM? Nope, you do not. All hardware/sofware is just a bunch of products, and if you don't like this, buid your own hardware/software. This is what Free Software is about, it can be done about hardware too, but it is way more difficult of-course.

You are going to spend all of your time cracking your hardware and software? It is going to be very time consuming, if at all possible.

Companies are going to pay? No. Companies are going to get paid better now.

You think I am trolling? No. It is frustration over the fact that other peoples' actions (pirating content and software, etc.) will force me to live in a DRM'd world when in fact I, myself do not pirate software and/or content. I just don't, but because of most of the people (who in fact do,) I am also going to get hurt by this in some ways (for example forced upgrades of my legitimately bought software, or even inability to use/create my own, none DRM'd software for DRM'd hardware.)

Re:I truly hate this crap, the companies will pay!

[Anonymous Coward]

couldn't have said it better!

Re:I truly hate this crap, the companies will pay!

[MindPrison]

But there is nothing UNlawful about putting DRM into every product.

You couldnt be more wrong even if you intended to (no offence). If the products are capable of putting outside powers to control your own purchased product - then that in itself is wrong. We create the law, if we find something sinister to what corporate does to us - we protest, such is the way of democracy.

Take the Recent Sony battle as an example on how good
intentions (for themselves) could go horribly wrong.

There are plenty of things that you are not allowed to do with your computer by the law. You are not allowed to crack into other computers (either with intent to steal or for learning something new.) You are not allowed to say, download child-porn, etc.

I think that kind of goes without saying, I assumed that you - the reader - know how to follow the law. You have knifes to cut your food but you could potentially KILL someone with it, but of course most of us will never do that. So your point falls to the ground with a boom. I do however believe that in order to fight cybercrimes - better investigation software, filters etc. are better tools for protecting each other, and not the very least...better education rather than enforcement.

You think you have some kind of a natural right, to be sold computer hardware without built in DRM? Nope, you do not.

Im starting to believe that Im falling victim to a TROLL here...Of course we all have a NATURAL right to be sold any products without whatever we dont want - we are the customers - we have the money. Duh!

You are going to spend all of your time cracking your hardware and software? It is going to be very time consuming, if at all possible.

*cough* Linux *cough* GPL...hello, where have you been the last 10 years? Under a rock? We have plenty of free alternatives programmed by ourselves and our GPL friends in our spare time. This is all about the freedom of controlling our own hardware / software. No need for cracking of any kind.

Companies are going to pay? No. Companies are going to get paid better now.
How can you be so sure? You are assuming everyone is a pirate. Guess what? There are thousands, if not - millions of alternatives to everything you can buy - largely thanks to the effective communication of the internet. Do I need to buy the latest hit from Madonna? Do I need the collective hits of Michael Jackson? No - At least not me.... I do just fine with thousands of remakes and independent music made by independent artists who have placed their music in the open and free for everyone (LEGALLY mind you) from their own bedroom or garage band, there are more quality alternatives than you might think.

Same goes for software really... I have made a living out of using Blender 3D software, the Gimp and much more to produce high end advertising, packaging art etc. All free - legal - alternatives. No use being blinded by what someone WANTS you to do, there are other ways.

And as for Companies getting better paid after DRM? I dont think so. here is why: Remember the radio days? People used to exchange tunes they listen to on the radio on tapes etc. and finally sales boomed because people wanted the real thing on vinyl (or later ...cds). The music industry have NO clue if they could earn less or more with less exchange of MP3s on the net, they just think they could - but there are countless articles FOR and AGAINST this all over - in an endless debate.

To cut it out in carboard paper why I think Hardware DRM is wrong:

- The ability of any corporate to control your computer are borderline dictatorship. No corporate in a democracy are allowed to breach your privacy - for ANY reason - period!

- No company with money as the no.1 priority have the rights
to decide what you shall read, use, develop, sell, give, share unless its their own product. Initially DRM is made to protect their property which in itself is fair enough - until YOU the CUSTOMER are made to pay for the chip or FORCED to have such a chip installed in YOUR paid for computer, then it all goes wrong!

Re:I truly hate this crap, the companies will pay!

[The_DoubleU]

There are plenty of things that you are not allowed to do with your computer by the law. You are not allowed to crack into other computers (either with intent to steal or for learning something new.) You are not allowed to say, download child-porn, etc. We know that people cannot be trusted. If people could be trusted, DRM wouldn't have appeared, because then noone would infringe on copyrights, noone would set viruses free into the wild, noone would steal money from the banks etc.

But we have laws for that. There is no need to enforce it via a system that can't tell right from wrong.
There are e-books of works that are in the public domain, great that means I can make a copy and do with it what ever I want. However the DRM in the e-book prevent me from that.
I make a nice holiday/home movie and want to add a little soundtrack to spice it up. This movie is for personal/familie use. Can I rip a song from a CD with DRM? No! Am I allowed to do this? Yes!
You see the hardware/software don't know what my intent is and can't make a descision if what I want to do is legal or illegal.
And that is the problem with these systems, they don't allow a certain action although it might be perfectly legal.

Re:I truly hate this crap, the companies will pay!

[Anonymous Coward]

MindPrison wrote:
>
> All this will probably further feed a grassroot "linux-like" organization
> that will form an alternate OS that will NOT conform to DRM - even if by law
> (god forbid it goes that far).

As some people have noted long ago, when DRM was just an Intel and MS wet dream, the problem with hoping that some sort of independent underground free from DRM will survive is that most likely at some point ISPs will require DRM in order to connect to the internet.

When that happens most everyone will effectively be forced to use DRM.

Re:I truly hate this crap, the companies will pay!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Of course we all have a NATURAL right to be sold any products without whatever we dont want -"

Sorry, that's completely incorrect. You have the right to negotiate to buy such a product. But if noone will sell it to you you do not have the right to buy it. You do, however, have a right to refuse to buy a product with things in it you do not like.

Re:I truly hate this crap, the companies will pay!

[MindPrison]

most likely at some point ISPs will require DRM in order to connect to the internet.

Interesting, and scary! I hope youre not right about that, ever.

If that happens - maybe some other ISPs will compete at being DRM free? Or maybe some ISPs will be driven by organizations. Of course one could forsee a coming "war" against the rebels (OS, GPL, Freedom-of-speech) etc. and the Corporates - which is a pity really, because I have absolutely NOTHING against corporates, and I doubth that other GPL supporters have anything against them either, its usually the other way around and its that we must protect ourselves from. Freedom is important. In the old days freedom where a simple definition, you fought for the rights to vote and educate yourself to anything you wanted, owning the rights to your country to do so.

Today we still fight this battle, but it has become more high-tech - and has a different shape, same battle though.

Re:I truly hate this crap, the companies will pay!

[roman_mir]

Interesting that your post is moded insightful, when it is factually wrong.

Of course we all have a NATURAL right to be sold any products without whatever we dont want - where did this come from, where did you read such a thing? Either you just don't know what you are talking about (no offense) or this is just a blatant lie. You have no NATURAL rights to be sold ANYTHING. If a company decides to sell you something, you have a NATURAL right NOT to buy it.

I think that kind of goes without saying, I assumed that you - the reader - know how to follow the law - oh, I know how to follow the law, allright, but people around me do not. These crimes do happen all the time. But forget about really disgusting crimes, let's talk about copyright infringement. I know just way too many people who do not give two shits about downloading/uploading copyrighted materials. Do they know that it is wrong to do so? Hell yes! I talked to plenty of them, they know. Do they still do it even though it is wrong? Hell YES. And they won't stop either.

So that sums that up - people cannot be trusted, they brought DRM upon themselves.

Re:I truly hate this crap, the companies will pay!

[roman_mir]

But we have laws for that. There is no need to enforce it via a system that can't tell right from wrong. - it is almost impossible to enforce, say, copyright laws in this world nowadays. I, as a copyright holder, want those specific laws to be upheld, but I can't rely on the justice system to do this. So, if DRM offers me a way to uphold my copyrights via technological means, I am definitely all for it.

You assume that the rights of the consumer are more important than the rights of the producer. You won't be able to rip a DRMed CD to make your own track. But what about all the copyright holders, that get screwed about 100,000,000 times a day every day, when their songs/books/movies/software/other data is being 'shared' (copied to be precise,) without their consent? Ha, you think you have the right to rip that CD/DVD? Well, I am sure the corporation behind it begs to differ.

And if the corporation needs to do something about your fair use rights, well, it will happen as well - a strategically placed law-suite may do just that.

Re:I truly hate this crap, the companies will pay!

[Alsee]

But forget about really disgusting crimes

No, let's NOT forget about really disgusting crimes. Lets demonstrate the absurity of your position exactly by addressing disgusting crimes. Child molstation.

people cannot be trusted, they brought DRM upon themselves.

People cannot be trusted, they brought surgically implanted GPS tracking chips upon themselves.

Yes the purpose of placing surgically implanted GPS tracking chips into evryone is to help Protect The Children. However that does not make it a legitimate means. It does not make it acceptable to put people in PRISON for refusing to be surgically implanted.

How about you recognize basic property rights? The right to look at my own porperty under a microscope? This entire Trusted Computing DRM scheme falls apart completely if I micro-examine MY chip inside MY computer to read out MY key. Then the DRM becomes completely worthless.

Do I or do I not have the right to LOOK at my own property? To read out MY own key? And then to have my 10,000 closest friends each come over to my house and borrow my garage lab to read out their own keys from their own property?

The conflict here is very simple. I am simply arguing that it is unject and unacceptable for INNOCENT NONINFRINGING PEOPLE to be put in prison. Do you disagree with me? Are you seriously going to argue that innocent noninfringing people SHOULD be put in prison? Are you ceriously going to argue that the law SHOULD say innocent noninfringing people go to prison?

Because that is what this all boils down to. It boils down to the DMCA vs the DMCRA. The DMCA says that NONINFRINGING people go to prison for engaging in perfectly legitimate perfectly legal Fair Use. The DMCA says that anyone who provides a serice or product or even bloody INSTRUCTIONS to assist in that perfectly legitimate perfectly legal use, that they go to prison as well.

The DMCRA would simply amend the DMCA to say that noninfringing people do not go to prison under the DMCA. Simple simple simple. And I defy you to argue against it. I defy you to argue that innocent noninfringing people SHOULD go to prison.

Of course the unaviodable fact is that that would make DRM worthless. If noninfringing people can bypass or remove DRM for legitimate and noninfringing uses, then the DRM is worthless. If the free market it set free, if the free market is allowed to provide perfectly legitimate products and services and instructions to enable perfectly legal uses, then DRM becomes worthless.

I am not suggesting that anyone MUST sell me DRM free hardware. I am not suggesting anyone be prohibited from using any and all the DRM they like.

I simply say is it intolerable for the law to say innocent noninfringing people go to prison. And once we fix that law, well then the FREE MARKET will properly operate. Natural market forces will properly operate. Then companies will be perfectly free to manufacture or modify DVD players to be able to play international DVDs. Then companies will manufacture or modify DVDs to *not* lock out the fast forward button during the ten-minutes of commercials at the beginning of some DVDs. Then companies will provied products and software for moving your legitimately purchaced music files off one one brand of MP3 player and onto your new different brand of MP3 player. And of cousre all of that means all of the DRM becomes worthless. It means the market is free to offer a product to bypass or remove the DRM on your legitimately purchaced iTunes music in order to move it onto your shiny new Microsoft-style MP3 player with their different "Plays For Sure" DRM scheme.

Go ahead. Explain to me how it is just to impsison innocent noninfringing people. Excplain to my how it is acceptable to imprison innocent noninfringing people. Explain to me why we SHOULD imprison innocent noninfringing people. Explain to me why I should be prut in prison for telling someone how to move their legitimately purchaced Microsoft-format music onto an iPod. Explain to me why I should be imprisoned for looking at my own computer, my own property, under a microscope and reading out my own key.

-

Re:I truly hate this crap, the companies will pay!

[roman_mir]

It does not make it acceptable to put people in PRISON for refusing to be surgically implanted. - this is ridiculous, only a few people are perverts that molest children. On the other hand hundreds of millions steal copyrighted materials. Besides, noone is suggesting that you should be FORCED to buy hardware, but in your example you are talking about forcing people to implant whatever tracking devices.

How about you recognize basic property rights? The right to look at my own porperty under a microscope? This entire Trusted Computing DRM scheme falls apart completely if I micro-examine MY chip inside MY computer to read out MY key. Then the DRM becomes completely worthless. - you don't have to buy these products, do you? There are a whole bunch of things that work like this in the real world: catalitic converters don't personally profit me in any way, but I am forced to pay for them when I buy a car. So once again, how about those property rights?

Do I or do I not have the right to LOOK at my own property? To read out MY own key? And then to have my 10,000 closest friends each come over to my house and borrow my garage lab to read out their own keys from their own property? - ha, not if that means copyright infringement, which is a crime. 10k friends, ha? Maybe those p2p connections are all your friends too?


The conflict here is very simple. I am simply arguing that it is unject and unacceptable for INNOCENT NONINFRINGING PEOPLE to be put in prison. Do you disagree with me? Are you seriously going to argue that innocent noninfringing people SHOULD be put in prison? Are you ceriously going to argue that the law SHOULD say innocent noninfringing people go to prison? - your logic is flawed, you are comparing two things that are different. Putting DRM into proprietory hardware is one thing. You don't have to buy those chips, do you? Talking about some crazy idea that innocent people should go to prison is totally out of whack, take a logic course or something.


Of course the unaviodable fact is that that would make DRM worthless. If noninfringing people can bypass or remove DRM for legitimate and noninfringing uses, then the DRM is worthless. If the free market it set free, if the free market is allowed to provide perfectly legitimate products and services and instructions to enable perfectly legal uses, then DRM becomes worthless. - yeah, well, sais who that the market is free? Aren't there unions? Aren't there various restrictions on purchasing power? Aren't there protection agreements? Isn't there price discrimination? What free market are you talking about? There is no free market. But if youo believe that there is, then by all means, go ahead, buy DRM free hardware from those sources. Good luck.

Go ahead, explain to me where there is a connect in your head between DRM in microchips and imprisonning people?

Anyhow, good night.

Re:I truly hate this crap, the companies will pay!

[Danse]

Besides, noone is suggesting that you should be FORCED to buy hardware, but in your example you are talking about forcing people to implant whatever tracking devices.

So basically you're saying that if I choose to work in a field that requires me to use a computer (which is just about any decent paying occupation these days), then I must submit to having my privacy invaded on a constant basis in order to pursue my career. Yeah, I'm not liking the sound of that. I give a rats ass if the entertainment industry thinks they have problems. They don't run the country, and I think that once the implications of their schemes sink in with the rest of the populace, the shit will truly hit the fan. Hollywood an the record industry get themselves on a lot of people's shit lists for one reason or another on a regular basis. They've gotten called before congress on more than a couple of occaisions because of that. I wonder what will happen when they're suddenly on everyone's shit list all at once. I'm thinking a rather severe congressional bitchslap. Sony may have screwed things up for them pretty good by getting caught hacking people's computers and invading their privacy, and thus providing precedent so that they can't claim that it won't happen. It already has. Once the DRM crap is in full swing, we won't even be able to know exactly what's happening. We won't have control over our own computers. I think there are enough people in this country that value their privacy (especially those with wealth and power), that they won't accept such a situation. I only hope I'm not being too optimistic here.

Re:I truly hate this crap, the companies will pay!

[roman_mir]

I understand you, I even agree with you, but you have to admit that most people (exclude me, please,) infringe on copyrights. Most people use cracked software, download/upload mp3s, movies, books that they did not buy a license for. My problem with this is simple: I release some software as Free but some software/music/writing I don't want to release as Free. And I just don't release it at this moment in time for this reason: I want to have complete control over distribution of these materials but I can't have this control and people cannot be trusted to care about my rights.

What am I saying? People brought DRM upon themselves by acting like a bunch of thieves - they have proven time and again that they can't be trusted. Can you trust most people you know not to infringe on copyrights? Do you know many people who actually give a rat's ass about someone elses rights to distribution of materials? What are most people using their computers for today? email, IMs and chatting and downloading and uploading materials that they did not buy licenses for. That is probably 99% of personal computer usage right there. Certainly it sucks for many of us who do not steal/pirate whatever this stuff, but there are so many, that I actually concur that it warrants some sort of an action. And you can't jail everyone (unfortunately,) so here is a partial solution: DRM.

It sucks for me to pay taxes on CDs that 'go towards artists', because I never listen to other people's music (unles it's a party or radio, or plaid in a movie,) but there you go, in Canada we pay taxes on blank CDs, DVDs, HDs, tapes even, on everything. I only use these things for data and I pay these taxes. So it sucks totally, but here it is. How is this DRM different? It's not but it also promises me something that I want: control over distribution rights of my content.

Re:I truly hate this crap, the companies will pay!

[Danse]

What am I saying? People brought DRM upon themselves by acting like a bunch of thieves - they have proven time and again that they can't be trusted.

But we're now supposed to trust the music industry? Which has been convicted of robbing its customers (price-fixing) twice now? We're supposed to trust Sony, who was hacking people's computers? We're supposed to trust Microsoft, who produces software that is not what I, or any sane person, would consider secure.

That is probably 99% of personal computer usage right there.

I think that's pretty ridiculous. Most people I know use their computers mostly for work, web-browsing, games, email, and finances. Yes, I know people that download music. Yes, it's copyright infringement. But I have a hard time seeing it as being all that wrong considering the kinds of practices that the entertainment industry engages in at the expense of their customers. People may not be able to explain it in 200 words or less, but they generally know when they're getting screwed. They've done it overtly through price-fixing and other such shenannigans, and covertly through lobbying for copyright extensions (read: government handouts at the expense of consumers). Nobody really punishes them, so I don't see why copyright infringers should be punished either. I consider it something like the invisible hand creating balance. :)

Re:I truly hate this crap, the companies will pay!

[roman_mir]

Again, I agree that many content providers are not fair, but I don't see this the way you do. I don't buy things, with which I disagree but I also don't steal them or download them illegaly. I guess it is easy for me, because I don't actually care about this content, I don't use it. Besides, DRM is not a perfect solution anyway, but it probably will lock out a great number of people, who otherwise infringe on copyrights freely.

Most people I know also use computers for work and browsing, games, email and finances, but I am software developer, the people I know are also software developers, thus this is not a good sample of actual computer users. Besides, I think pretty much everyone I know illegaly downloads/uploads copyrighted materials. Heck, the room I sit in is full of people, who are constantly 'sharing' this music, some of them have thousands of GBs of music, videos, books etc., it's ridiculous, I sometimes talk to one or another about it and they don't care. If it wasn't for their job description, I am certain that downloading mp3s and movies is the thing that takes most of their time in front of a computer.

I don't understand people who justify their behavior by telling me how wrong the music or movie industries are behaving. Since when do two wrongs make a right?

Re:I truly hate this crap, the companies will pay!

[Anonymous Coward]

You may not support piracy but i do. Here's why. When legislation is open to the highest bidder, and not the public, as far as i am concerned "legal" and "illegal" become null and void as i see things. There is such a thing as civil disobedience. I pirate music and movies en masse, not because i particularly like these forms of media, but because it hurts the music and movie industries that have subverted our first amendment freedoms. Why the hell should i play by rules in a game skewed against the underdog. Things have moved far past the point of petitioning or public advocacy. Whatever i can say gets drowned out by a corporate "petition" in the form of brown bag from K street. It is too late to play by the rules. Fight hard, fight dirty, and kick these industries down until alternatives take hold. Online file sharing has forced the music industry to reconsider how they distrobute music. It's not necessarily a victory, but illustrates the effect massive civil disobedience can have. Although few people realise their part they play when they "pirate" music and movies they are essentially demanding an alternative to buying a 16 dollar CD with one good song on it. Now, with iTunes and other online retailers, they have an alternative. When the record industry is annihilated and music is sold directly from the artist online i will be content. Yes i am willing to accept the consequences for my actions if i get caught; however i am not the average kazaa using moron and take considerably paranoid precautions.

Re:I truly hate this crap, the companies will pay!

[arevos]

I feel I must jump in here. Copyright is a temporary monopoly granted by the government, that allows authors to make money off their work before it enters the public domain. Patents are another such device which temporarily grants the inventor a monopoly over their design.

It's important to distinguish between the illegal, the immoral, and the economic costs. If I copy a Britney Spears album without paying for it, then this is very likely illegal. But if I had no intention of buying the album, then the economic costs to the author are zero. The morality of copying is more complicated, and I'd hesitate to make a firm judgement.

How long copyrights should exist is a further problem. Copyrights should promote the maximum amount of creative endevours, without constraining future artists. The ideal copyright will allow an author to recoup his development costs, if without copyrights he would not.

I can't quite see the benefit of having copyrights lasting 70 years after an author's death. Once the author is dead, what money he makes is of little issue, and thus this extra 70 years adds no extra content and deprives the public domain of 70 years of creativity. Copyrights are clearly longer than it would make sense for them to be.

Is it immoral to illegally copy a dead artist's work? Is it immoral to illegally copy an out-of-print work? Is it immoral to illegally copy a piece of work you would not have bought at full price? Where is the line drawn?

Re:I truly hate this crap, the companies will pay!

[roman_mir]

Most of the music and movies etc., that are copied today are not of the dead artists and other content creators, but of quite alive ones.

Re:I truly hate this crap, the companies will pay!

[arevos]

Most of the music and movies etc., that are copied today are not of the dead artists and other content creators, but of quite alive ones.

Even if we restrict the argument to recent creations, the issue is still muddied. For instance, Hollywood spends millions promoting a movie in the weeks up until its release, the goal being to ensure people will really, really want to see the movie. Hollywood then delays the release of the movie outside the US, and is somehow surprised that people, eager to see the film, resort to illegal distribution channels. What did they think would happen?

And then we have the cost of music and MP3s. The record industry releases WMAs and AACs for the same price as songs on a CD, at a lower, lossy bitrate, with DRM that prevents them from playing their music on their MP3 player. With such an offering what did they expect people would do?

These large content holders have consistantly taken decisions that, economically, encourage copyright infringement. Psychologically, the RIAA and MPAA's immoral behaviour means that they find it difficult to then appeal to people's sense of morality.

I'm not saying that copyright infringement is right, of course, just that it comes as no particular surprise given the actions of the major content holders. Traditionally, one solves these problems by adapting to the market and giving consumers what they want. The RIAA/MPAA are instead taking the Knut approach of trying to turn back the tide.

Further, it's debatable whether this mass copyright infringement is actually harming the content industry by any significant amount. In a recent interview by the BBC, a representative from the British Video Association was asked the question "Why have the anti-piracy trailers at the beginning of DVDs?". Their reply:

"UK research shows that, on average, downloaders are film fans who view the same number of legitimate films (cinema, rented and bought DVDs) as the average active DVD consumer (24)."

A rather suggestive quote, wouldn't you say?

Re:I truly hate this crap, the companies will pay!

[roman_mir]

Hollywood spends millions promoting a movie in the weeks up until its release, the goal being to ensure people will really, really want to see the movie. Hollywood then delays the release of the movie outside the US, and is somehow surprised that people, eager to see the film, resort to illegal distribution channels. - I don't understand, are you telling me that the company, hyping up its product, but releasing in stages is a good enough reason for people to steal? Well, see, this is why I am for DRM. People can't be trusted. It is totally up to the company to hype up anything they want (it's their money) and even not to release it at all, and none of it gives anyone a moral right to engage into any criminal activity.

And then we have the cost of music and MP3s. The record industry releases WM
As and AACs for the same price as songs on a CD, at a lower, lossy bitrate, with DRM that prevents them from playing their music on their MP3 player. With such an offering what did they expect people would do? - this is business and the companies are in it not from the goodnes of their hearts. They spend time promoting these bands, out of 10 bands one makes it big, certainly the band becomes the product and certainly the corporation has a monopoly on this product. Your option is not to buy, but when you chose to steal (writing out copyright infringement takes too long, I prefer the short form: steal,) in mass, when hundreds of millions decide to steal, don't act surprised when the corporations start fighting back politically and technologically. Again, you don't have to buy their products. I don't buy almost any music, because I don't listen to it. But I do buy DVDs rather than copy them from illegal sources (i consider copying from anyone over P2P or other internet mechanisms to be illegal, since these people have no copyrights to these materials.)

Psychologically, the RIAA and MPAA's immoral behaviour means that they find it difficult to then appeal to people's sense of morality. - I don't see their actions as immoral, they are in their right to distribute their own product in any way they see fit. I agree with THEM on this, not with people who justify their stealing by the 'immorality' of the business.

Further, it's debatable whether this mass copyright infringement is actually harming the content industry by any significant amount. - If I release something, I don't even necessarily would do it for money, I could release stuff for free, provided that I alone will have the distribution rights. To me the issue is this simple: it doesn't matter what your actions really mean to thea actual business, you have no right to those actions.

Re:I truly hate this crap, the companies will pay!

[arevos]

I don't understand, are you telling me that the company, hyping up its product, but releasing in stages is a good enough reason for people to steal?

No, I'm saying that releasing a movie in stages whilst simultaneously trying to convince people they should have it as soon as possible encourages copyright infringement. I said nothing about this being right or not.

Well, see, this is why I am for DRM. People can't be trusted.

This is a ridiculous statement. Any group of entities has to have a trustworthy majority, otherwise group cohesion breaks down. Prisoner's dilemma, tragedy of the commons, etc. etc. A society wouldn't be able to function without the majority being honest the majority of the time.

This is business and the companies are in it not from the goodnes of their hearts.

Of course. And they'll fight to preserve their business. But this will come at the expense of consumers. Being a consumer myself, I'd rather see organisations like the RIAA adapt or die, rather than try and erode my legal rights in an attempt to prop up their outdated business model. Let's be honest, a sufficiently large relational database could do a far better job at selling music to consumers.

Your option is not to buy, but when you chose to steal (writing out copyright infringement takes too long, I prefer the short form: steal,) in mass, when hundreds of millions decide to steal, don't act surprised when the corporations start fighting back politically and technologically.

Why stop at "steal"? Why not "terrorism"? It's an equally inaccurate word to use, but rather more forceful. Copyright infringement isn't stealing, because it doesn't deprive the author of their content.

Nor am I surprised that these corporations are fighting back, but they're protecting their bottom line by trying to remove our digital rights, both through laws like the DMCA, EUCD, and through technology, such as Trusted Computing. Personally, I rather like the rights I have, and I'll vote accordingly.

If I release something, I don't even necessarily would do it for money, I could release stuff for free, provided that I alone will have the distribution rights. To me the issue is this simple: it doesn't matter what your actions really mean to thea actual business, you have no right to those actions.

Only because it was agreed that, by law, authors should have a temporary monopoly over their work. You have these rights not because they are natural and self-evident, but because they are granted to encourage creativity and reward artists.

Re:I truly hate this crap, the companies will pay!

[Danse]

They spend time promoting these bands, out of 10 bands one makes it big

Yep, usually the one that can come up with enough payola money. They hedge and squirm and don't use that word anymore, but that's what they still do. There was an interesting thing on ABC a few nights ago about it. Yet another reason that the industry is beneath contempt. Maybe consider that and other of their illegal practices when you deliberate on the morality of the people running that industry. These are the same people that scream about the immorality of copyright infringment, or piracy if you're given to hyperbole. Kind of reminds me of the theif that gets injured breaking into someone's home, and then sues them for it. Really hate to see such people win.

Re:I truly hate this crap, the companies will pay!

[roman_mir]

This is a ridiculous statement. Any group of entities has to have a trustworthy majority, otherwise group cohesion breaks down. Prisoner's dilemma, tragedy of the commons, etc. etc. A society wouldn't be able to function without the majority being honest the majority of the time. - I'll rephrase. Majority of people cannot be trusted to abide by the terms of the license on easily copiable materials, because they consider these materials worthless, since it doesn't take any effort or money to download/upload these materials without any legal consequences. Wha this tells me is that if given an opportunity, these people would do anything to their advantage, if they were certain of no consequences. If I left my appartment open for the day, those same people would see this as an invitation to help themselves to the 'free' stuff inside.

I don't have any illusions about the honesty of most people, it exists as long, as there are witnesses and consequences are severe.

Being a consumer myself, I'd rather see organisations like the RIAA adapt or die, rather than try and erode my legal rights in an attempt to prop up their outdated business model. Let's be honest, a sufficiently large relational database could do a far better job at selling music to consumers. - being a producer, I'd rather see people not infringe on my copyrights, but they will do so if given any chance at all, so if I was in a position to actually affect the laws or better yet, the technology to prevent this from happening, I would.



Why stop at "steal"? Why not "terrorism"? - because 'steal' is shorter and I already talked about convenience.

Nor am I surprised that these corporations are fighting back, but they're protecting their bottom line by trying to remove our digital rights, both through laws like the DMCA, EUCD, and through technology, such as Trusted Computing. Personally, I rather like the rights I have, and I'll vote accordingly. - well, obviously you have to do what you have to do, but I don't believe you actually had any rights to be sold hardware that did not contain such mechanisms as DRM in the first place. You (all of us) are at the mercy of hardware manufacturers. Tomorrow they could all stop producing CPUs that work on electrical principal, and start producing photon based microchips, and if you didn't like it you could either not buy the product, or go manufacture your own microchips. I would like to see how long YOU would last manufacturing microchips without the DRM built in, when all other devices would have DRM and you would have pressure coming at you from politicians, content and other technology manufacturers to put DRM into your products as well.

Only because it was agreed that, by law, authors should have a temporary monopoly over their work. You have these rights not because they are natural and self-evident, but because they are granted to encourage creativity and reward artists. - and this changes what? I am basing my argument on that premise, I am not coming up with anything radical here, I only want my rights to be upheld. Technology and content users should have cared more about rights of individual and corporate content (and software) producers and shouldn't have stolen, DRM wouldn't have appeared on the radar screen then. Now they have conclusively proven: they cannot be trusted.

Re:I truly hate this crap, the companies will pay!

[arevos]

Majority of people cannot be trusted to abide by the terms of the license on easily copiable materials, because they consider these materials worthless, since it doesn't take any effort or money to download/upload these materials without any legal consequences.

Maybe it's time to re-evaluate the worth of these materials, then. The recording industry claims that online music is no cheaper than CDs because the distribution cost is small in comparison to the total cost. The majority of the cost of music, apparently, goes toward promoting it. According to the executive chairman of the British Phonographic Industry (BPI):

"The costs you lose in manufacturing, packaging and distribution are insignificant in comparison to the major costs in bringing an album to market - namely A&R, business affairs, recording, touring support, radio & TV plugging, marketing, promotion, taxes and all the other business overheads."

It's common knowledge that the music publishers get the lion's share of the revenue. If they're removed from the distribution chain, and I think it's really only a matter of time before they are, I suspect music will get a lot cheaper. It's artificially high priced right now, and the recording industry want to keep it high priced.

I don't have any illusions about the honesty of most people, it exists as long, as there are witnesses and consequences are severe.

And why do those laws exist? Because politicians, representing a majority, put them in place.

being a producer, I'd rather see people not infringe on my copyrights, but they will do so if given any chance at all, so if I was in a position to actually affect the laws or better yet, the technology to prevent this from happening, I would.

I'm a professional content producer myself. I make my living off copyrighted material I produce. But that doesn't change the fact that Trusted Computing and DRM is the worst idea ever to crawl out of the depths of the tech industry. There needs to be a balance between the needs of content producers, and the public at large. DRM and Trusted Computing short-circuit the normal legal proceedings. They prevent copyrighted material from falling into the public domain, turning a temporary lease into a permanent one.

DRM can ensure that a piece of data is forever kept from the public domain. The public are lending their metaphorical lawnmower to these large corporations, and these same corporations are planning never to return it. Copyright infringement may not satify the definition of theft, but Trusted Computing certainly does.

I would like to see how long YOU would last manufacturing microchips without the DRM built in, when all other devices would have DRM and you would have pressure coming at you from politicians, content and other technology manufacturers to put DRM into your products as well.

This is why monopolies are bad. Ordinarily, DRM and Trusted Computing would be a non-issue. These are devices that remove economic value, after all. Thus, a Trusted Computer is inherently less valuable than one without. In a market devoid of monopolies, with educated consumers, the idea of Trusted Computing would never get off the ground. Why would anyone buy a computer that does less than those of its competitor?

But, alas, consumers are often lacking in knowledge about technology, and the hardware, software and publishing monopolies seek to expand their own wealth at the expense of society. The only thing for me to do is to vote with my feet, and encourage others to do the same. In the end, it's in society's best interests to stop this Trusted Computing scam before it gets off the ground, so I remain hopeful.

Re:I truly hate this crap, the companies will pay!

[Alsee]

this is ridiculous, only a few people are perverts that molest children

And the point being that you cannot simply say that some law is acceptable simply because it is intended to prevent crime.

I am objecting to a specific law and stating that it is an unjust and intolerable law. The fact that the law is intended to prevent copyright infringment does not change the fact that the law is unjust and intolerable.

noone is suggesting that you should be FORCED to buy hardware

I did not object to DRM hardware and I did not object to the use of DRM on products and I did not say I was being force to buy DRM hardware.

I am objected to a specific law and stated that it is an unjust and intolerable law.

I objected that it is criminal for noninfringing people to offer vital noninfringing products to the market for noninfringing uses.

>Do I or do I not have the right to LOOK at my own property? To read out MY own key? And then to have my 10,000 closest friends each come over to my house and borrow my garage lab to read out their own keys from their own property?

- ha, not if that means copyright infringement, which is a crime.

BINGO!
Infringment --> crime, no infringment --> not a crime.

I never once suggested or defended copyright infringment. I never once objected to the prosecution of infringers. I never once objected to laws against infringers. The ISSUE is that that DMCA says NONINFRINGING PEOPLE go to prison.

Moving my legitimately purchaced music from an old broken music player to a new different brand music player is not copyright infringment. A girl in 8th grade extracting 15 seconds of video from a DVD to include in her classroom multimedia project is not copyright infringment. Someone who provides a product or a service or mere instructions for moving those music files or to assist that school girl in creating her class project is not copyright infringment.

As I said my argument is that innocent noninfringing people should not face prison.

The problem is that under the DMCA, all of the people listed above face prison.

Do you or do you not agree that the above listed innocent noninfringing people should not face prison? That the schoolgirl should not be imprisoned for making that class project? That it would be unjust and intolerable to imprison those people? That any law that says those people goes to prison is an unjust and intolerable law?

There is currently a bill floating around congress to fix this problem. A bill that says infringing people still go to prison, but that the above listed noninfringing people shall not go to prison. Simple simple simple, infringers are guilty and they face prison, noninfringers are innocent and shall not go to prison.

The dilemma here for you is that if we do pass that law, if we do fix the law so innocent people do not face prison, then DRM becomes worthless. If it is not criminal for me to move my music from the old broken plaer to the new player, if it is not criminal for someone to provide me the product or service or instructions to be able to to it, then someone else would be able to use those same means to remove DRM and commit infringment. If it is not criminal for our 8th grade girl to extract video from a DVD for her classroom mulitimedia project, if it is not criminal for someone to provide her the product or service or instructions to be able to to it, then someone else would be able to use those same means to remove DRM and commit infringment.

My side of the argument is that noninfringing people should not face prison, and that infringers shoulld face prison or lawsuits for commiting infringment.

The opposing side of the argument is that any and all ability to commit infringment should be criminal in an attempt to deny people the ability to commit infringment, and that innocent noninfringing people MUST face prison if they use or provide the ability

Re:I truly hate this crap, the companies will pay!

[roman_mir]

Maybe it's time to re-evaluate the worth of these materials, then. - you mean it is now time for the music industry to reevaluate the prices, now that p2p exists and there is no technology that really stops copying copyrighted stuff? That is one way to look at it, but another, and certainly also a valid way to look at it is from point of view of DRM and total lock down.

And why do those laws exist? Because politicians, representing a majority, put them in place. - personally, I am not certain that all laws appear at the wish of a majority. I too often see a politician trying to gain something (to prove him/herself maybe) by coming up with political solutions to non-problems. But at the end some laws exist and some do not.

I'm a professional content producer myself. I make my living off copyrighted material I produce. But that doesn't change the fact that Trusted Computing and DRM is the worst idea ever to crawl out of the depths of the tech industry. - No, I don't think it is the worst idea. It is an allright idea if it doesn't get abused - what you said about perpetual copyrights is true. There must be mechanisms in place that allow public access to materials that are no-longer under the copyright protection. Perhaps there must be a copy of the materials in some government regulated place, like a secured library, where these materials are stored with a (software?) timelock built in place that will open after a certain date.

This could also be built into the DRM schemes themselves - timelock mechanisms that will shade the DRM inhibitors after the copyright expires. This is a minor detail from my point of view.

This is why monopolies are bad. - oh really? But we are talking about a government monopoly on the laws. You are not in a position to change the laws at your will, you can do it in mass, if you get together a few millions of people with the same views. Monopolies in themselves are not necessarily bad, it depends on the point of view.

For example, Apple has a monopoly on iPods and their computers. All it means is that noone else sees a business case to get into the same product niche as Apple. Expensive but trendy mp3 players? More expensive hardware with no x86 compatibility for personal computing?

If there wasn't for Apple, it could be noone, or it could be some other smaller firm. There is no place for 2 such companies in the market, so they are a monopoly.

You are saying you are a content producer? Well, if you create content, you have a monopoly on that content. Is that bad? Or do you prefer everyone on the web 'share' your content as they see fit without involving you at all (most people wouldn't even know who you are.)

DRM is bad you say, I say it has its uses.

Re:I truly hate this crap, the companies will pay!

[arevos]

you mean it is now time for the music industry to reevaluate the prices, now that p2p exists and there is no technology that really stops copying copyrighted stuff?

I don't mean that at all. The members of an RIAA buy music rights off musicians, spend a lot of money marketing these pieces of music, the reap the revenues that the music brings in. They're publishers and promoters; they'll get your music onto CD and into the shops, and onto the radio and onto the TV.

But the business of publishing and promoting music is in danger of becoming obsolete. The first of these, publishing, is the most easy trend to spot, as it's happening right now. More and more music is being sold over the net, distributing music over the net, at least compared to traditional CD mass manufacture, costs virtually nothing.

Okay, so publishing doesn't matter. The next part, promoting, is slightly more complex. With products such as cars, houses or computers, the buyer can't experience every feature of the product before buying it, so salemen have an opportunity to selectively summarise for the customer. With music, there's no need; you can listen to the entire song on the radio, on a friend's CD, online, or using those headphones at highstreet music stores. When people buy music, they already pretty much know whether they'll like it or not. You can't convince a person to buy music that he thinks sounds awful, no matter how much you promote it.

Thus, the job of the RIAA is not to selectively summarise the good points of their artist's albums, but to tell people about them, to put the music on the radio, in stores, etc. etc. The more people they expose the music to, the more people they'll find who like the music, and the more people will buy the music. So the RIAA's job boils down to matching up music with people, finding out what music people like, and then giving it to them.

Whilst that may have been a big help in the past, now we have relational databases and bayesian algorithms that can do a far better job. A user tells his player what tracks he likes, and the player works out from what everyone else likes, what music he is most likely to buy. Combine that with word-of-mouth, and you get a far more efficient distribution channel. Hence, the RIAA's days are numbered.

But we are talking about a government monopoly on the laws. You are not in a position to change the laws at your will, you can do it in mass, if you get together a few millions of people with the same views.

To quote Churchill: "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

Governments are always monopolies - unless you put up no barriers to (im)migration, which has it's own problems. Monopolies are always bad, but sometimes the alternative is worse. I don't believe that's the case with DRM.

For example, Apple has a monopoly on iPods and their computers. All it means is that noone else sees a business case to get into the same product niche as Apple. Expensive but trendy mp3 players? More expensive hardware with no x86 compatibility for personal computing?

Apple are a niche player; whilst you could make an argument that they have a monopoly over iPods, because this is a relatively small proportion of the industry as a whole, their monopoly is only going to affect this small proportion. A large player, such as Microsoft, has the capability to do far more damage, and has done so, in terms of interoperability, web standards, and IM protocol dispersion.

You are saying you are a content producer? Well, if you create content, you have a monopoly on that content. Is that bad?

My most of my content is bespoke, custom made for the customer, and thus my monopoly isn't vital to my existance. But even on the content which benefits from a monopoly, I can't see myself needing that monopoly for

Re:I truly hate this crap, the companies will pay!

[roman_mir]

Let's drop the entire RIAA thing, they will take care of themselves, maybe they will disappear, but I don't really believe that. They are the big fish, my interests lie in the realm of small producers.

As a small producer, I have some things that I can offer the public. I have some software, I write some texts, I write and record some music, build some electronics. All of this is for my own benefit, this is just what I like to do (don't have a TV and that frees plenty of time.) I would like to be able to timeshare some of my work with people, but I cannot rely on people's good will in the existing culture of entitlement. It would be beneficial for me, personally, if I could take a text I wrote, a music file I created, a circuit diagram I designed and share all or some of it with certain people, maybe they have common interests, maybe they are just looking for new ideas, whatever. If it was possible to give them some of my content and be certain that they could not violate my rights to distribute this content without any DRM, I would whole-heartedely do so. But in today's reality this is not an option. My content would immediately be available as worthless download on every file-sharing network. This is why I believe DRM would be profitable to me, you can share my sentiment maybe, maybe not. You are not really producing content that could be useful for everyone, you produce specifically requested content for your employer and you get paid for it, it is different.

Why do I want the ability to control distribution like this? Well, there are many reasons. I could profit from this ability in different ways. I could sell some content, I could involve some advertising money. Some of it is vanity, maybe I want to know exactly how many people are using my stuff. At the end it doesn't matter why I want this control. What matters is that desire it. Maybe I would find out that I am not good and I would stop producing stuff, maybe I could actually making a living by just producing this content and not having to search for software contracts now and then.

Those are my personal reasons and they are at least just as valid as someone elses reasons not to want DRM. I personally think DRM is coming, slowly but surely. Certainly the new MS Office will have this ability built in, so that documents could be restricted in usage. Obviously with MS monopoly on desktop OS, the appearence of the DRMed documents will dictate the necessity to upgrade business Office Suites, how else would businesses communicate among each other, if some documents are DRMed then the software reading these documents will support the DRM and slowly but surely this will progress into the other media as well (WMA already supports DRM for example, so do many other formats.)

--

Certainly people will continue 'sharing' copyrighted materials, even if all hardware supported DRM, it will be still possible to adopt Linux and other OSes to work with the hardware, but most people don't use GNU/Linux, and in this case stopping 90% of the 'sharing' will mean the victory.

Re:I truly hate this crap, the companies will pay!

[arevos]

Even moving away from the RIAA and other similar organisations, doesn't allow one to escape their shadow. DRM is useless without Trusted Computing, as without Trusted Computer the key is hidden in software, and relatively trivial to discover. Likewise, Trusted Computing will only be effective if the majority of users have Trusted hardware; only then does it become profitable to exclude those who don't/refuse to have it.

And here the problem arises. With Trusted Computing, the control is taken away from the user and placed in the hands of the company that produced the hardware. This eliminates free market economies in the tech sector, effectively preventing any real competition. If, say, Microsoft controls the hardware of your computer, they're only going to allow Microsoft vetoed hardware to run on it - for 'security reasons' of course. Anyone wanting to run software on such a machine would have to get it digitally signed by Microsoft. Economically, that's the most profitable option for them to pursue, and historically, companies like Microsoft have aggressively tried to crush competition using any means necessary. No wonder Trusted Computing is so attractive an idea to such people!

Trusted Computing means no less than the gradual, but eventually complete, removal of competition in the software industry. In my opinion, this is the worst possible scenario for digital rights, and far worse than having the occassional piece of software or music illegally downloaded.

And as I've also pointed out, just because a person illegally downloads files, doesn't make him less likely to purchase content. As the BVI found out, people who download movies illegally buy just as many DVDs as the average person. Copyright infringement doesn't mean the end of paid-for content, but Trusted Computing does spell the end for a free software industry. I'll take the lesser of the two evils, myself.

Re:I truly hate this crap, the companies will pay!

[roman_mir]

DRM is useless without Trusted Computing - but of-course, this is why MS, Apple, Intel, AMD, IBM, Sun, HP, Infenion etc are groupping together for this.

And here the problem arises. With Trusted Computing, the control is taken away from the user and placed in the hands of the company that produced the hardware. - no, you see noone can take away your right to build your own software. I contribute to Free Source for example. All that trusted computing does, is allowing the OS to protect memory, protect hd space, protect network connecitivity, printer connectivity, monitor, usb devices, basically all input and output devices. But the hardware work is minimal, it exchanges the keys with the OS and continues from there. The hardware manufacturers are not stupid to lock themselves into a specific propriatory OS, especially now, with IBM and Novell pushing GNU/Linux, with Google running on GNU/Linux. No, the job of the hardware manufacturers would be to ensure that the OS has full control over all resource permissions. That's it.

And as I've also pointed out, just because a person illegally downloads files, doesn't make him less likely to purchase content. - and as a content provider I am telling you that this does not actually matter. From my personal point of view this is the matter of a principle. I don't want my content to be 'shared' so I will welcome the DRM on the most used home OS that there is.

Re:I truly hate this crap, the companies will pay!

[arevos]

All that trusted computing does, is allowing the OS to protect memory, protect hd space, protect network connecitivity, printer connectivity, monitor, usb devices, basically all input and output devices.

And what's to stop certain companies extending this by making sure that only signed software can be run? Nothing, technically speaking, and economically speaking, if a company wishes to retain dominance over the market, this would be a very profitable thing to do. I work by the mantra: if a technology can be abused, it will be abused.

The hardware manufacturers are not stupid to lock themselves into a specific propriatory OS

Because no-one's ever locked themselves into a specific proprietary system, before. It's happened in the past; it'll happen in the future.

No, the job of the hardware manufacturers would be to ensure that the OS has full control over all resource permissions. That's it.

The sole job of hardware manufacturers, as with any corporation, is to make money at the cost of the competition. And Trusted Computing is a marvellous opportunity for them to do that at the cost of the consumer.

and as a content provider I am telling you that this does not actually matter. From my personal point of view this is the matter of a principle.

I'm not sure that's a point of view I understand. If content holders aren't losing money through copyright infringement, then what's the point of creating restrictive technologies that have a huge potential for abuse, to control a problem that has no economic cost?

Trusted Computing

[Anonymous Coward]

The issue shouldn't be about trusted computing.... try "trusted humanity..."

Deja vu

[Anonymous Coward]

This reminds me of RMS's paper on The Right to Read.

I don't trust my computer

[Opportunist]

I konw, I'm a bad citizen, and I certainly don't smile now.

It's nice to know that the content industry now trusts my computer and lets it play its crappy movies. The problem is, I don't trust it anymore. I won't trust it with my data, I won't trust it with my files, I won't trust it with my time.

At least until I find a way to make MY computer MINE again.

Until now, I was a good citizen. I bought my music. I bought my movies. I bought my games. My reward was a rootkit, DVDs that don't play on my equipment and software that crippled my system.

Sorry, but I don't trust your computers. And I will do whatever it takes to make my computers mine again!

Re:I don't trust my computer

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't bought a single DVD because I know I can't watch it on my laptop, which is my only computer, without locking the drive to a single area code.

I haven't downloaded DVDs either. I don't care about it. To me, they don't exist. I still watch tv and go to movies.

Nor have I bought a single copy protected music CD. I'm perfectly happy without lock-ins and limitations of any kind. Maybe the industry gets this when their sales figures decline despite cracking down on pirates. People don't NEED them to exist or even have a good time.

Re:I don't trust my computer

[WolfWithoutAClause]

Actually, there is an upside to this technology- DRM hardware also permits ensuring that third parties can't modify Microsoft operating system (or Linux for that matter).

So your system can be more secure.

That's not otherwise possible right now, because the software to check it can be changed (if there is a security hole to allow it to be, but there nearly always is one).

But hardware is unchangeable.

At the end of the day, DRM is a technology, and technologies are amoral. It's the possible uses it can be put to that are inherently evil or helpful.

Re:I don't trust my computer

[Anonymous Coward]

In my professional capacity as a computer scientist I have to agree, anybody who uses DRM and "trusted computing"
technology needs their head examining. Unfortunately very few ordinary people understand what this dangerous technology is.

Re:I don't trust my computer

[mrchaotica]

But the user can keep third parties from modifying the software just fine with existing technology. If you're using an operating system that isn't made of Swiss cheese, pretty much the only way for an attacker to violate your system is if you let them. And you know what? That's the way it should be, because the user should always have the right to do whatever he wants to his own system, even if that includes installing malware.

Treacherous Computing only takes away that control, and hands it to the second parties (i.e. Microsoft et al.), which is almost certainly not in the best interest of the user.

If Treacherous Computing can make your system more secure, it's only because it's more secure against you.

Re:I don't trust my computer

[WolfWithoutAClause]

If you're using an operating system that isn't made of Swiss cheese, pretty much the only way for an attacker to violate your system is if you let them.

As far as I can tell, essentially all major operating systems are made of swiss cheese.

Re:I don't trust my computer

[labratuk]

My reward was a rootkit, DVDs that don't play on my equipment and software that crippled my system.

That's your own fault for running proprietary software that you have no control over.

Re:I don't trust my computer

[Danse]

That's your own fault for running proprietary software that you have no control over.

Sad thing is, most people didn't think they were running anything. They thought they were just playing a CD in their computer. Not everyone understands what all is going on in their computer. Hackers will take advantage of that, even corporate hackers.

There is much truth in what you say

[lokedhs]

I know it was a joke, but if had had mod points I'd given you +1 insightful on that one.

The problem with fingerprints is that it's inherently a very insecure way of authentication for two reasons:

Firstly, you can't change it if it leaks out. A password or a credit card number can be easily changed and the damage minimised in case of an information leak. Doing this with a fingerprint is much harder.

Secondly, the fingerprint is very hard to keep secret. Your body has this annoying ability to leave copies of your identification token all over the place, very easy for anyone to pick up. If you were worried about the ability to scan proximity tags (RFID), then you should be really scared about the use of fingerprints as authentication tokens.

If you don't believe me how easy it is to pick up, read this about how to make a copy of ones fingerprint using common household items.

Re:There is much truth in what you say

[CaptnMArk]

It's also dangerous carrying them around, 'cause some might try to steal them.

(same goes for eye scans, ...)

Re:There is much truth in what you say

[lokedhs]

No need to. Just wait around for it to be left at the nearest object.

Re:There is much truth in what you say

[TractorBarry]

And then there's the number one reason for not using fingerprint recognition:

If I want your data that badly I'll simply cut your finger off.

Let's not forget the recent case of the Malaysian businessman who had his finger cut off by car thieves.

Biometric ID is a very, very bad, very, very stupid idea.

Re:Ah! I see a new profitable market! Fake Thumbs!

[Sepodati]

HA! That's awesome. ThinkGeek should market something like this to use for all of the parnoid people out there. Make and sell it cheap and it's throw all kinds of wrenches into this plan... I'm sure the ones that already exist aren't at a very affordable price level.

---John Holmes...

Re:Right but...Change is good -- bullshit

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

The moving can be done now. Take a course in algebra and a simple one in encryption. There are multiple ways to achieve this, given communication with the server.

Move some file from A to B :

A -> Server : I give up on accessing encrypted file x, but I copy the encrypted data to B
Server -> A : noted, I will no longer send you the decryption key when you ask for it
Server -> B : you have data from A ?
B -> Server : Yes, can I have the transformation ? here is my machine ID
Server -> B : I am not giving you the key, however here is the transformation needed to bind it to your machine ID

B -> Server : I need the key, my machine ID is
Server -> B : here it is, you have access

A system like this is extremely hard to hack, given basic precautions in the decryption routines (for example, you do "live decryption", at NO point in the program more than, say 5%, is decrypted in memory, and the routines to decrypt are themselves encrypted, which is quite possible to do)

Not quite sure what all the fuss is about?

[Arcturax]

First off, it's already "illegal" to hack current DRM, at least in the US (and about 50 other countries) and the hackers do it anyway. I don't see how TPM makes this any more complicated. You've seen how well it's worked for Apple so far, which isn't very well. Now while it may be used say by the government to tag files used in office, or buisinesses on sensitive documents, I don't see how it will be of any use on DRM items, any more than current code is.

There will always be cracks, there will always be copies of stuff made available online with no protection. All it takes is one guy to break it and it's out to the world in a heart beat via bittorrent. This will have about as much effect as HDCP on piracy, zero. Sure it will make like hell for the honest user, DRM almost always does, but piracy? The more restrictive DRM gets, the more honest users will turn to the black market to get what they want in a reasonable manner.

Other and better ways to protect your stuff exist

[Opportunist]

With DRM comes one problem for you as a company: You have to trust the DRM manufacturer completely. And I mean completely. They will not allow you to snoop into their protection mechanism. Trust it or get lost.

So would you, if you were a software company, trust Microsoft? Would you, if you were a mainboard manufacturer, trust Intel? Would you, if you were a chip producer, trust Infinion?

There are other ways to protect your intellectual property. Open Source encryption mechanisms, the source code of which you can read, audit and evaluate, and even adjust to your security needs.

Who do you trust?

[jamesl]

But if you're an organization seeking to protect sensitive data, the users are your own employees and business partners. Are they really less trustworthy than Microsoft, its employees and its business partners?

Spend a week in HR and you'll find out how trustworthy your employees are. The stuff that walks out the door or flies out attached to an e-mail, from office supplies to sales data and product plans is astounding.

Let's call it "Cold War"?

[Opportunist]

Nobody trusts anyone in this game. Content providers don't trust their customers, since they could (Turing forbid!) copy their stuff. Customers don't trust their Hardware, since it doesn't belong to them anymore and doesn't do what they want anymore. And neither side will let its guard down for the other side would certainly use that edge immediately.

It's just Cold War again all over. The fun part is, that neither can exist without the other. The content manufacturers can't exist without their customers, because otherwise nobody will buy their stuff. The customer can't...

erh...

Wait a moment, there's a slight mistake in the equation.

I guess I know who'll win. :)

A license to fingerprint money

[FishandChips]

DRM does have legitimate uses - would you like to get on a plane or use a bank whose computer systems had been raked over by HaX0r O'Wally and his pals? But it's hard not to have a gloomy sense of deja vu. The problem with DRM is that it can be used to destroy competition (competitors are literally locked out of the market), fix prices, invade privacy and withold legal entitlements such as fair use or in some cases any use of an encrypted document that just might happen to be your own. Overall, this adds up to a great way to build or reinforce monopolies. It's even worse when in practice these opportunities will be handed to an IT world where desktop PCs are already monopoly-controlled.

You'd have to be a hyper-optimist to think that IT corporations won't promptly try to take advantage of the situation. The deja vu is that we've been here before with things like Internet Explorer vs Netscape. By the time government or judiciary gets around to cleaning up abuses some years later, the losers have been left for dead and the "punishment" for the winner is a bargain - the fine is merely the cost of acquiring a licence to print money.

So I'm not really looking forward to DRM. Yes it's here and it's probably going to become darn near ubiquitous. For those with really sensitive information to protect it may well be a boon. But before the authorities wake up to the full implications of DRM and regulate it properly, a great deal of damage will be done.

Re:A license to fingerprint money

[symbolic]

Remember DivX? Consumers recognized the plague that it was and dumped it. DRM and "Trusted Computing" are just two more DivX-esque plagues with some shiny new enhancements (none of which are consumer-friendly). The landscape will be littered with something for sure- if consumers wise up, it will be the quarterly earnings statements that belong to the big players, showing massive declines in revenue.

Re:A license to fingerprint money

[elgaard]

> DRM does have legitimate uses -

Yes.

>would you like to get on a plane or use a bank whose computer systems had been
>raked over by HaX0r O'Wally and his pals?

And this is not one of them. DRM or TPM cannot do anythink for planes or bank servers that a bootable CD cannot already do.

TPM gives you no more control over computers that you already physically controls.

Thank Sarbanes-Oxley for this one..

[kmeister62]

Sarbox has had a very bad impact on businesses. Aside from the billions its drained out of the economy, it also places regulartory requirements to track data within a business and ensure proper controls are in place. This DRM is a way of accomplishing this. It helps with the audit trails of who accessed and modified the data in a way that non-repudiatable. CEO's, when they sign the financial statments, put their job and freedom on the line that the numbers are correct and traceable. Failure to do that ends them up in prison. Even if there is no wrongdoing. Sarbox assumes everyone is a crook and you have to prove you're not. Thanks Congress...

They're war was lost a while ago.

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact is: no matter what they try to do to "protect" their content we will break it*. They write DRM code for money, we write the cracks for the challenge (and dopamine). They'll never win and will just keep fighting in utter futility. They need to accept the fact that DRM is doomed.

* Except http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_time_pad but it's highly unlikely it would be used for wide spread DRM.

I wouldn't mind so much but....

[KayosIII]

I understand that some companies could have legitimate uses for this technology. If thats what these companies had in mind why is this technology being pushed onto all PCs. I don't mind these features but it looks as if the consumer is not going to have the right to choose whether they want these features or not. Like most people here I can see much potential for abuse by hardware and software companies. The two most ugly forms of abuse potentially are using a persons documents as ransom to make sure they buy subscriptions to the software they use and deliberately making documents uninteroperable between different tools.

Finger print reader is an INPUT device

[Anonymous Coward]

The finger print reader is an input device.
Use something other than your finger that the device can match.
Maybe print one out.

bullshit indeed

[n3k5]

The moving can be done now. Take a course in algebra and a simple one in encryption.

So you think knowledge of elementary algebra and the very basics of encryption enables you to design secure systems. Your are wrong, it does not. Your childish scheme opens up more questions than it answers: How do A and B know that they are communicating with the correct server, how does the server know it is communicating with the true A and B? If all they have to do to get a decryption key is ask the server, how does the server know that they aren't storing the decrypted data forever, how does the server know they stop using it after the data has officially moved on to another 'place'? Of course these issues can be fixed, but you didn't even mention them in passing. It doesn't seem that you're really in a position to say

A system like this is extremely hard to hack

Now for the best part:

and the routines to decrypt are themselves encrypted

Any secret data you need for decryption is just (part of) the key. Designing your system so sloppily that executable code is part of the key is bad practice. I'm not implying you're so stupid to suggest that the actual algorithm used for decryption should be secret; as an amateur cryptologer you know of course that this is way insecure and makes you prone to be hacked in no time. But still, executing any code that is input by users is a rather bad idea.

We can't say that RMS didn't see them coming

[theguyfromsaturn]

The Road to Tycho

Locking software to a person

[HangingChad]

That's the ultimate end result. Adobe and friends will trumpet that you can install it on as many computers as you wish because only one person can make it work. They started long ago by attacking your right of first sale. If you don't own software, you can't sell it to someone else.

You don't need this to secure documents. There are already nice products like TrueCrypt available that let you encrypt a volume and even create hidden volumes within. If someone steals your PC or laptop, they get nothing but the hardware.

It's not entirely about DRM, though. I'd bet there are still more "features" we haven't been told about. If that system can track who reads a document, it can also be used to figure out who visited a web page or who originated an email. Count on it, that's what this is really about. Taking away the remaining shreds of anonimity that's left on the internet. There will likely be some upside to that. Stolen hardware will be easier to locate, as will trojaned spam bots. You'll be able to access software online with reasonable assurance that no one else can get to your stuff. But, overall, we're all going to get dicked.

And it will keep happening until those companies implement something like this and experience a giant decrease in sales. Like Sony and rootkit follies.

Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

Because this stuff won't work on FreeBSD 'till they port it, I can tell the people who use things like this that I can't read their document.

Woooohoo!!!

(The only way they win is if you use and BUY thier products. Stop using their products, stop buying their products.)

Security?

[Chowderbags]

And can Microsoft be trusted to develop a system that isn't full of security holes?

If the drm is as bad as this article makes it seem, I sure hope not, at least for the sake of workarounds.

Empower yourself by not using it

[cyberworm]

For the most part, as large a community as Slashdot is, the number of people around here that don't like where all this stuff is going (myself included), and the positions most of us are in to influence tech decisions of those around us, my suggestion to defeat this, is simply to not use it. Keep copies of your older software. Keep that old machine in decent shape and on a shelf somewhere. Keep some spare parts around.
Pretty much anything you can do to create a hardware/software version freeze, so that when the shit really hits the fan on all of this, all you have to do is say "no thanks, I already have 'xyz' and it's working fine for me and i've made assurances that it will continue to work fine for me."
  If you have a job at the moment, are you actually working or are they paying you to sit there and wait for the next round of upgrades?

In my mind, that's going to be the best way to defeat all of this stuff they are forcing on us. We need to take away their ability to force it on us.

I know wanting a faster processor is something we all want, but when I think about it, it hasn't really gotten all that much faster when you consider the OS's portion and how with almost every new speed bump, something is there to utilize that speed basically nullifying the benefeit it would have on your apps.
So, why upgrade at all? If windows 3.11 had thte ability to deal with large amounts of RAM and large HDD's think of just how fast it would run on our modern processors.

Basically what I'm getting at, is, empower ourselves to take the upgrade cycle out of their hands, because when everyone says "i'm happy with what i've got" then they have no market. Same for the **AA's as someone mentioned. Take away their audience. Since we are pretty sure they are making a killing from digital music and video, just don't watch it on your computer or device etc. Get a DVD player now. Keep it and use it. When nobody is buying their newer crippled stuff, they are going to start whining that nobody uses their computers for media and it's hurting their wallets, and we can just point and say "you said the opposite of that 'x' years ago."
It's definately not impossible to make these things happen on our terms. It's not even that hard. We just have to say we're not going to buy it or just be content working with what we have now.

Re:Empower yourself by not using it

[Zobeid]

One problem is, it's not always easy to figure out which hardware has DRM support built into it. Computer makers have been sneaky about this. I'm sure I'd like to get the latest and most advanced kit that came out before they started embedding Trusted Computing into it. But I don't even know if my current computer has it. I suspect it doesn't, but I don't know where to look for that information.

Re:Empower yourself by not using it

[lip_spork]

Totally agree. I remember shopping for an MP3 player and finding it very difficult to identify which had "protection" built in and to what degree. Lord knows the kid at the Circuit City didn't have a clue.

It would be great if there were a web page devoted to this kind of information. A kind of hardware/software review utility where people could go to find out how likely they would have unrestricted use of what they paid for. It could apply an overall "intrusiveness rating" to products, giving consumers an easy at-a-glance overview, and manufacturers an incentive to decide which side of the fence to be on.

I'd even pay a subscription fee for this kind of information, but I probably wouldn't have to because retail advertising would be a logical tie-in.

Does something like this exist already?

Re:Empower yourself by not using it

[cyberworm]

This is meant as somewhat tounge in cheek, but I've got some space and bandwidth to donate if other like minded people have the time, because I think that is a GREAT idea.

Re:Empower yourself by not using it

[Anonymous Coward]

I totally agree that this is the way around the problem.

Can anybody tell me how covered I would be if I bought a Non-Intel Mac tomorrow?

Re:Empower yourself by not using it

[cyberworm]

I appreciate what you are saying. But ask this... Can you do it now? If so, freeze where you are. Keep it and don't change a thing. If they want your money (which they do) they will make it backwards compatible. If not, they will continue forward. If it dosen't work now, ask yourself why... Then ask them why. If you're funding them, they should cater to you. You are paying them. You know, in a lot of ways it's comparable to how our government in the United States has evolved. At first (and should still) was meant to work for us, as employees of ours to ensure our continued freedoms and allowances of expression. The difference here my friend, is that we can choose to buy our computers. Unfortunately we were born into our leaders (for the most part). Since we can choose to use a computer or not, choose to use one that still does what it's original intent was. To do good work with a minimal effort. To communicate easily without tolls or restriction. The fact that "they" want to put TPM and DRM on hardware we are paying for basically says to me "This isn't for business, this is a toy." Which, since the lions share of the market is BUSINESS, only goes to show that someone has missed the boat, and instead of waiting for the next one they want to make the one they missed turn around and come back for them 2 metres from the pier. Sure, that's good for those that missed the boat, but what about those already on the boat (like us?). If your computer works now with the software that you have now, and you can make money (honestly) with it now, why upgrade? The only thing making you get rid of what works and go for what's new, is the market that tries to entice you with boobies and flash, which won't help you get htings done any faster. *note, I like boobies and flash... but on the internet I will not pay for them....

They're just weird

[yoprst]

How far can they go pushing people to open software ( and, possibly, open hardware )?

It's perfect

[roman_mir]

finally people won't be able to infringe on copyrights.

Re:It's perfect

[Alsee]

You're right. It's good because it removes the ABILITY to commit copyright infringment.

And while we're at it lets surgically remove everyone's hands. that way we remove people's ABILITY to shoplift.

And lets have cranial implants in people to remove their ABILITY to commit other crimes.

The fact that it denies people the ABILITY to do perfectly legitimate and lerfectly legal things is irrelevant.

The fact that it requires IMPRISONING innocent noninfringing people in order to get it to work, well that's irrelevant. If we need an unjust law sending innocent noninfringing people to prison in order to fight copyright infringment, well that's just a price we must pay in order to get it to work. Here in America one of our founding principles is that it is acceptable to imprison innocent people if that is EASIER than going after people who actually break the law.

Anyone who supports the DMCRA, anyone who supports amending the DMCA to say that noninfringing people do not go to prison, well that person is evil. That person would allow people the ABILITY to commit copyright infringment. Therefore that person is defending copyright infringement.

-

Re:It's perfect

[roman_mir]

you again? Probably talking about imprisonning people for ability to commit crime?

I know you have that weird idea in your head that these things are connected, but that's not how normal people see this. Out of 1000,000,000 people, how many commit murder? How many molest children? How many infringe on copyrights? In programming if you need to optimize your software, you go for the biggest performance hogs, not for the smallest ones. So if out of 1000,000,000 people 10,000 commit murders/molest children etc., but 900,000,000 infringe on copyrights, it makes sense to create technological barriers to commit these crimes and then you don't have to put people to prison for this behaviour.

No, no... security management is simple after all.

[MickLinux]

All a reasonable person needs to do is carve a single finger shape out of wood, complete with finger prints, and then cast rubber in the shape. Then, label it "Anonymous Password".

Then, tie one to every computer in the building.

Now, make up another finger, with a different design, and label it "Admin". Distribute it only to admins (note that changing fingers will be required as you hire and fire).

Then, for each specific user group, manufacture a set of rubber fingers, and label them accordingly. Now distribute the fingers on a keychain...

A chance for congress to prove fiber

[mattr]

Seems like this is just in time. This is perfect timing for people who are starting to smell smoke to respond.. whether it is a New York Times article or the man who asked if Google was ashamed. It seems clear that this kind of a chip, built by Lenovo and sold in China, could if used intelligently by the government, be FAR MORE DANGEROUS than whatever Google is doing. Just put a phone home to Beijing into Microsoft Office Chinese edition and force an upgrade to that functionality along with fingertip swiping. Add a camera like the Sony Vaio has which faces you, and you get a match of face to fingerprint to email address, from there a match to your home address if the ISP cooperates (they do), and all your correspondence and business documents forwarded to the government's petabyte storage which any number of U.S. companies will sell them in a heartbeat if they can't roll their own.

The point is that U.S. media companies and the terrorized U.S. have allowed breathtakingly broad rules and now technologies to be put in place, putatively for safety, and the U.S. government and corporations have worked heart to promulgate this around the world.

However, these rules and technologies are in fact so far from what was general thinking in the U.S. say 20 years ago that the Chinese government can now smirkingly say a week or so ago that their censorship and disclosure practices are in line with those of the rest of the world. And the surveillance tools being inserted into consumer items at the behest of the U.S. government and corporations are in fact tools that reduce freedom of everyone and can indeed be used even more effectively and chillingly in nations that started out with less freedom in the first place.

As it happens, timing has worked out so marvelously one might wonder if there is an unseen law of sociology at work. Incidents like the Sony rootkit and Homeland security being sent home by a librarian are coming up at approximately the same time that the most venerable U.S. computer firm sold its computer manufacturing to a Chinese firm and a U.S. congressman and Holocaust survivor is demanding black and white ethics from the Yahoo and Google.

Timing is perfect to wash away the bullshit and leave in razor-etched glory the facts, the players, and the route that must be taken by western civilization.

Thought Police Monitor

[cyberbian]

They should just change the meaning of the acronym now... it will save plenty of confusion in the near future.

Double Plus Ungood!

Re:Other and better ways to protect your stuff exi

[the eric conspiracy]

They will not allow you to snoop into their protection mechanism.

Ultimately this will not work - the only way security implementations become accepted as effective is through open review.

Nope, because PHBs will say...

[MickLinux]

... I don't care what you recommend, I want MS Windows on this computer because the Government, with whom I have too many contracts, uses Windows/MS Office.

And MS will do whatever is necessary to see that the governments use their product, including giving it away free or less than free.

Re:Nope, because PHBs will say...

[mrchaotica]

And that's why we need to get other states to follow in the footsteps of Massachusetts (along with a whole bunch of foreign governments, by the way).

Re:Nope, because PHBs will say...

[jafac]

Oh the guy who was heading up the open document format requirement in Massachusetts got forced out, by the way. Just a couple of weeks ago. I'm suprised Slashdot didn't pick up on that one.

Re:Nope, because PHBs will say...

[mrchaotica]

Got a link?

Re:Nope, because PHBs will say...

[Anonymous Coward]

You are talking about Peter Quinn. Yes, political thugs likely connected to Microsoft compelled him to leave. No, the initiative is not dead. His replacement, Louis Gutierrez, is equally committed to the cause, and has the explicit support of our Governor, Mitt Romney. I have never voted for a Republican (except to vote McCain over Bush in the primary), but if Mitt is an old guard Republican who supports limited government, fiscal responsibility, and knows what freedom really means; as opposed the Republicans we've seen lately: a bunch of fiscally irresponsible Leninists and right wing demagogues; he'll have my vote.

Mitt Romney will likely run for President. We could really actually have a President of the United States who understands the importance of open access. Really. Even though we live in a dark age, things really could change.

It is an overriding imperative of the American democratic system that we cannot have our public documents locked up in some kind of proprietary format, perhaps unreadable in the future, or subject to a proprietary system license that restricts access.

--Eric Kriss, Secretary of Administration and Finance, Massachusetts

the right to read

[zacronos]

Wow, and I thought The Right to Read was a little too tinfoil-hat for me with the tracking who reads a document part.

Guess that shows how naive I am. This is really scary.

I have mod points, but...

[selfdiscipline]

There's no ironic mod, I'm sorry.

DRM taught me how to "Pirate"

[AlphaLop]

Over the last 2 years I have purchased 6 pieces of software for PC (All games) that refused to work on my computer because of DRM

I started researching on the newsgroups and learned that this can be caused by programs that create "Virtual Drives" and whatnot, none of which were installed on my computer at the time.

I had heard of them but never had the need to learn about them prior to this. Well, to make a long story short all I had to do was install Daemon and mount a fixed image in order to play my legally purchased software.

I don't have a problem with artists/publishers wanting to protect their intellectual property, but when it gets to the point that it is a burden for their lawful purchasers they really need to reevaluate what they are doing. I guess we will have to wait for the "Tech Savy" Generations to age enough to fill the political offices so they can enact legislation to fix all the damage done to the historical definition of "Fair Use".

Or maybe I am borderline retarded

Re:DRM taught me how to "Pirate"

[jcuervo]

Or maybe I am borderline retarded

No, something is definitely borderline retarded, but it ain't you.

let them do

[mennucc1]

I say: let them do. Truth is, piracy is illegal. Truth is, a lot of people use pirated sw ; even though Windows XP is harder to pirate (since you need an original code to download updates), still people pirate a lot of software (and music, and videos). But nowadays, there is also Open Source. What is stopping people from adopting OSS? The balance between the risk of use pirated sw, the cost of buying it, and the stress of learning to use different OSS sw. If (when) the former will become unfeasible (since pirated sw will be too dangerous, or it will not work), then OSS will become more attractive.
When DRM/TCPA will take away freedom from the people, the people my realize the importance of freedom, and of free sw.

Re:Other and better ways to protect your stuff exi

[msormune]

I'm not sure if "your stuff" is really protected if anyone can "adjust" the security protecting it. Besides, you can always look into the copyright protection mechanism under DMCA, you are just not allowed to circumvent it. So you can read, audit and evaluate it, you just cannot adjust it. Happy now?

And what's worse.

[frogstar_robot]

So, while the current incarnation may seem ok, things are only a few steps from being really bad and invasive. Couple this with the DMCA, and half the things we take for granted with computers now could be taken away, and it will be illegal to 'break' things to get those abilities back.

Self-appointed self-righteous shills will come crawling out of the woodwork when getting around those restrictions is discussed. They'll castigate us most severely for having the temerity to tinker with our own property. When they use the phrase "business model", light will burst forth from the heavens and a chorus of angels will sing "aaaaaaaaaaaaah! AAAAAAAH! AHHHHHHHHHH! AHHHHHHHHH! AHHHHHHHHHH!" Even though there won't be any real choice at that point we'll hear things like, "If you didn't like the terms then you shouldn't have bought the device/software/widget."

I will use my own property in any way I see fit. I don't care how many politicians have been bought. I don't care how many times the phrase "business model" is dropped as though that is a definitive clincher. I most certainly am not going to argue about it.

How much do we pay for this "privilege?"

[artifex2004]

I have yet to see a price tag on what TPM modules cost the end user.

Since I don't want one, I feel this is an unwelcome tax on consumers that benefits the *AAs and the BSA directly.

Not the artists or engineers, mind you. Just the *AAs and BSA.

Re:How much do we pay for this "privilege?"

[Reziac]

According to a post Alsee made the other day, the cost of the physicial TC chip itself is about $5.

The REAL cost cannot be measured, since it will be effectively infinite -- it can be incurred afresh every time we run afoul of something being dictated by the TC chip. :(

Shortsighted.

[Spy der Mann]

When DRM/TCPA will take away freedom from the people, the people my realize the importance of freedom

Yeah, when it's too late to change things. You say piracy is illegal, but it all depends on what some bribed legislators state.

What will happen when it's used for censorship, i.e. a video of some military men beating up some guy? Oh, turns out that watching that video is illegal because some patriot act or something... and with Trusted computing, they can go and arrest you for treason.

Surely we don't think the US can become a totalitarian government, but that's what happens, people don't think somebody is possible, and they let it pass. Then they cry raising their hands to the sky, saying: "Why, what have we done to deserve this?".

TCP encryption

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't have the time to read me all through, but may be you all are missing out one point!!! May be i'm wrong, but i think i have read in the past 3 months that the encryption and decryption algo is alreadyx broken, or basically broken (only matter of months), isnt't it?!

GIMP, the DRM circumvention tool

[usurper_ii]

Actually, since GIMP, on a Linux system, will bypass the DRM, GIMP and Linux will be considered circumvention tools, and as such, illegal to use.

Maybe it won't be that extreme, but it will taint Linux in the corporate world, where the failed attempts to regulate DRM into Linux will get the OS associated with piracy and other bad stuff.

Either that will happen, or so many people switch to open operating systems that it forces the other side to back off and slow it down for a while.

Unfortunately, the latter option is the one least likely to happen.

Usurper_ii

Re:GIMP, the DRM circumvention tool

[swilver]

I wouldn't be so sure, cause once Mom & Pop find out they can't rip their CD's anymore and play them on their computer (or some such) they'll come to me, and I'll explain why this problem suddenly exists. They'll then ask me if I can fix it so they can still play their music, browse the internet and read their mail.

If Linux comes just a tad farther than it currently is on the Desktop (I'm looking at most recent Ubuntu for the current "state" of the linux desktop) I probably will be able to get away with installing it on my parents computer -- I'm sure they'll thank me for all those cool "card" and mayong style games they'll suddenly have at their fingertips...

I suppose it could swing both ways, unless at some point the government interferes, which I'm sure won't be in favor of Open Source (well, not in the US anyway).

Also remember

[eMbry00s]

If your beloved fingerprint-hash-storing Big-Brother company goes bankrupt, you will never, ever, again have access to the files you so dearly needed to protect using their nice proprietary technologies.

yes, let them take control..

[js_sebastian]

..we can always run our free OS of choice, which leaves us in control.

Then websites will start requiring TC based remote attestation to work (which totally breaks any expectation of anonymity you may have had, and won't work unless you are using their closed OS of choice). And then one day the BIOS will decide that your free OS is not allowed to load anymore, and you'll be screwed.

Give us a brake..

[giorgosts]

Piracy is good for the software manufacturers as long as they can keep it under control, because it makes their product establish itself. But when you use sth for profesional purposes, i.e. to make money, of course you must pay for it. So it's not a clear-cut choise. As far as businesses are concerned, we would expect a more strict control over their installed software, (provided the technology can achieve this) but I don't think that you'll only use Windows or Office or Photoshop after you bought it.

Employees V. Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine a company whose choice is to trust its emplyees or Microsoft. (insert picture of Ballmer here). Thats like swimming in a lake of shit to avoid an unpleasant odor.

I cant wait for the first Trusted Virus!

[Kilz]

The one thats signed by the creator , that cant be removed, deleted or changed without the fingerprint of the creator. All its going to take is a a hundred or so companies having to buy 50 or so new thinkpads because they cant remove the trusted virus to cause a real big stink and forever doom trusted computing

Re:I cant wait for the first Trusted Virus!

[archen]

Don't worry, I'm sure all of this has a back door. So not only does it lock you out of shit, SOMEONE (big brother) can still unlock all of your stuff in case you're a terrorist tring to hide things.

Re:I cant wait for the first Trusted Virus!

[sniepre]

Unfortunately though, don't you realize when this happens all it will mean is corporations screaming for Trusted Computing 2.0 - Extra Secure!

It wouldn't be a problem of the platform, it never is! It's a security problem, the virus shouldn't have got in! Thus it would need to be even more tightened down.

(cynical perhaps)

Re:I cant wait for the first Trusted Virus!

[mwvdlee]

Agreed.

If the current phase is "not being able to change anything yourself", the next will be "not being able to install anything yourself".

devil's advocate time...

[sevinkey]

Was the dark red sheet of paper with black print that came with the original Simcity a crime against the public?

If not, how do they differ?

joking ?!?!

[korgull]

"But DRM goes beyond encryption. In the system that Lenovo demonstrated, the decision about who can do what with the file is made by whoever generates the PDF, not by the person or organization that owns the laptop."

It's a joke, right ?
Tell me it's a joke !!!!

Re:joking ?!?!

[Anonymous Coward]

why is it a joke? what if you intercepted a transmission and you are not the intended recepient. yes there are other means to accomplish the same but I would totally agree with the concept that the access rights should be associated with users instead of computers. or even a user account for that matter. if you are the admin on that computer, you have the privileges to delete or move the file around but you do not have right to invade into someone else's private data.

I question the usability

[Frankenbuffer]

As an avid rock-climber and someone who often works with my hands (machining parts, cutting glass), my fingertips are masses of cuts and abrasions. Fingerprint just sensors don't work with me. I'll really be out of luck for mass-market laptops if there's a broad industry trend towards this type of DRM. What a stupid idea, IMO.

What about me?

[Inda]

I find all this 'Trusted Computing' a bit too much to take in. Trust the computer but don't trust me? That sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.

1) So I create a Word document at work. I use my fingerprint to lock it down so no other can read it (I'll unlock it after the draft stage). My company moves me to another project just before it's finished and I die in a freak car accident the same afternoon.

What now? It's not like you can brute force the password as you can do now with Word documents. Thousands and thousands of pounds were spent on the document. More than all the chips inside the grey box are worth.

So what now? Someone please tell me.

2) I refuse to give my fingerprints over to my employer.

"Look boss, you can have 40 hours of my time a week at 100% effort but you're not having anything more from me. No blood, no sweat and no tears. That includes my fingerprints."

Will my employer sack me?

What about if I want my fingerprints back when I leave the company? Track down every document I've ever written to undo the fingerprint locks? I can imagine a phone call 6 months down the line asking me to pop-in for 5 minutes ($1m an hour for my fingerprint service btw boss).

3) We currently send documents over the internet that are worth hundreds of thousands of pounds to possible future tenderers. We use email. We might use PDF but there will be no security on it.

Are we going to change the way we work? No, no way. We don't even use Track Changes or Version Control on SharePoint.

Someone highup expects people to understand this Trusted Computer lark? It's not going to happen at my company (10,000 employees).

I see no benefit in any of this.

Re:What about me?

[Anonymous Coward]

>> I die in a freak car accident the same afternoon.
they will create a die out of your dead finger
OR
grant access rights to two or more users to begin with

>> What about if I want my fingerprints back when I leave the company?
total fucking crap. when you are about to leave you track down all documents that you have access to, change the privileges appropriately and off you go. you know that 2 wk or 4 wk notification period that most employers have?

>> I see no benefit in any of this.
that i have to agree with.

Re:What about me?

[killjoe]

Easy, just like now somebody will have authority over you. That person will be able to open up documents you locked with your fingerprints. You will get fired, you will told to fuck off when you ask for your fingerprints.

This isn't about you, this is about marginalizing you even more.

"I see no benefit in any of this."

Not for you, you are just a domesticated animal. You exist to be milked, they will feed you and take care of you as long as you continue to produce milk and let them extract it from you. Once that is no longer happening off you go to the glue factory.

Re:What about me?

[Alsee]

So I create a Word document at work. I use my fingerprint to lock it down... and I die in a freak car accident the same afternoon.

What now?

Well that depends... how bad was the accident? Did the car burst into flames? Can your company still recover your finger from the wreck?

-

Surely..

[Anonymous Coward]

there will be an option to disable this 'feature' in the BIOS?

Re:No, no... security management is simple after a

[Anonymous Coward]

New meaning to "giving your boss the finger" eh?

I am sooo sorry.

OR ....

[Anonymous Coward]

I can give the computer manufacturers the finger.

Trusted Computing Rootkit - Cryptoviral Extortion

[NZheretic]

Trusted Computing DRM is the perfect plaform for Cryptoviral extortion : What is cryptoviral extortion?

4. What is cryptoviral extortion?

Cryptoviral extortion, which uses public key cryptography, is a denial of resources attack that was introduced in [YY96a]. It is a three-round protocol that is carried out by an attacker against a victim. The attack is carried out via a cryptovirus that uses a hybrid cryptosystem to encrypt host data while deleting or overwriting the original data in the process. The protocol is as follows:

(protocol setup phase) An asymmetric key pair is generated by the virus author on a smartcard and the public key is placed within the virus. The private key is designated as "non-exportable" so that even the virus author cannot obtain it's bit representation. Thus, the private key is generated, stored, and used on the smartcard. Ideally, the smartcard will implement two-factor security: something the virus author knows (a PIN number) and something the virus writer has (the smartcard that contains the private key). Also, the card will ideally be immune to differential power analysis, timing attacks, etc. to prevent the virus author from ever learning the bits of the private key. A standards-based approach can be used, e.g., the use of an approved FIPS 140-2 level 2 or higher device (e.g., when it is level 4 the private key will be destroyed if the casing is breached). In the U.S. the virus author cannot be forced to bear witness against himself or herself (Fifth Amendment) and so the PIN can remain confidential. The purpose of this setup phase is to limit the effectiveness of seizing and analyzing the smartcard under subpoena or warrant (competent evidence).

1) (virus author -> victim) The virus author deploys the cryptovirus. At a later time the virus activates on what could be tens or even hundreds of thousands of machines. The remainder of this description will cover the protocol for just one such machine. When the virus activates, it uses a true random bit generator (TRBG) to generate a symmetric key and initialization vector (IV) uniformly at random. It is essential that the TRBG produce truly random bits to prevent the symmetric key and IV from being guessed or otherwise determined by the victim at a later date. The virus then encrypts host data with this random symmetric key and IV (e.g., using cipher-block chaining (CBC) mode). The virus concatenates the IV with the symmetric key and then encrypts the resulting string using the public key of the virus author (e.g., using RSA-OAEP). The encrypted plaintext is then held ransom. The virus notifies the victim that the attack has occured (e.g., via a dialog box on the victim's screen) and states that the asymmetric ciphertext will be needed to restore the data. The virus author states his or her demands in return for the data. The virus author and victim can send asymmetrically encrypted messages to each other via a public bulletin board to try to preserve the attacker's anonymity. Alternatively, digital pseudonyms and mix-networks can be used.

2) (victim -> virus author) If the victim complies by paying the ransom and transmitting the asymmetric ciphertext to the virus author then the virus author decrypts the ciphertext using the private key that only the virus author has access to (the one on his or her smartcard). This reveals the symmetric key and IV that was used in the attack.

3) (virus author -> victim) The virus author sends the symmetric key and IV to the victim. These are then used to decrypt the data that was held ransom.

(security) The attack is ineffective if the data can be recovered from backups. Antiviral experts cannot retrieve the private decryption key by analyzing the virus since only the public key will be found. The importance of using hybrid encryption can be seen from the followi

A two edged sword?

[bburdette]

I'm curious about some of the implications here - in a trusted computing world, would it be possible to turn the tables and make my data trackable? Could I make my email address a trusted document and track who uses it? Keep an eye on where all my data goes, have my credit card info and paypal id as trusted docs? In a way this sound appealing, I'd get to spy on corporate use of my data. But naturally, if this is the case then government/BigCo would want a back door for 'protecting' our safety through anonymous surveillance. And if such a back door exists, how long before it is revealed to the world by hackers? Can such a secret really be kept forever?

Fine

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll just not bother buying that new Thinkpad then.

A conundrum...

[ursabear]

I think the usefulness of DRM-on-a-chip is basically a conundrum. I can see ultra-secret or ultra-important data that is digitally marked in some way to prove how/when/where/who modified, created, or opened a given bit of data. This would be a good thing for trade secrets or government secrets.

I don't see the applications of this at home, save for managing what software manufacturers want to track or tie down. I realize that business seems to drive how personal computing is moving forward, but I don't think system manufacturers really have a grip on what makes a computer satisfying for a government agency and for Joe/Jane consumer.

Perhaps there should be a choice - a choice concerning the installation of hardware DRM in home or small business computers. Perhaps consumers can purchase hardware that "opts out" of these types of schemes.

Personally, I don't have an issue with hardware DRM for organizations or individuals who want this type of technology in their machines. I believe it crosses the line when the consumer or business who does not want this type of technology is/are forced to accept it. Software piracy measures are becoming more and more draconian, it seems - and what scares me the most is that the people who develop the DRM technologies are just as likely to write/introduce errors and bugs as any other developer. To me, this means that a DRM technology might make my data unusable or inaccessible in some way.

Now what we should really do is...

[RoffleTheWaffle]

Okay. So every new computer has this bullshit pre-loaded. Everyone and their mother's cousin's dog knows about the TCPA/TCG, the TPM, the chips, what they do, and how their sole purpose is to implant DRM on a hardware level on every computer bought from now until doomsday. Presumably, even Apple computers have them - our lovable, do-no-evil Apple, screwing us too? For shame. Everyone's going to do it, though, and sadly, FOSS isn't the answer.

FOSS will in all likelihood only work on computers made by vendors that choose to support it. Sounds like FUD, and it should, it's very possible and very likely. IBM has been working to make TCG-ready versions of Linux and whatnot, but that doesn't mean that you'll be able to read proprietary format documents and other such lovely things without at least a (expensive) proprietary dongle for your PC or your software. Even if FOSS applications and OSes work on TCG computers, that doesn't mean they'll still be useful. It's not only the perfect way to shaft the consumer into paying constantly for software and hardware they've already bought, and the perfect way to make piracy hellish enough to convince all but the hardcore bootleggers to stop. It's the perfect way to create an enourmous chasm between competing vendors and FOSS communities. It's like stepping back through time. Non-universal PCs and applications will become the norm, and it's almost certain that unless companies like Google and IBM step in to put a stop to the bullshit, FOSS and independent software studios alike will vanish.

This makes our options for action very limited. You would essentially have to start bringing FOSS down to the hardware level. Open Source Software? Open Schematic Hardware. FOSH. To create anything useful, however, it would require stupid-huge amounts of time, money, and collaboration, which means that only companies like Google and IBM would foot the bill. (And like they do with FOSS, they'd use FOSH as just another selling point for their services.) One technology could make all the difference though... A printer-like board fabricator, perhaps? I remember reading about machines like those. Who feels like trying to tack a microscopic soldering iron onto their inkjet? I'm not being sarcastic, I really mean this. The biggest threat to FOSS and universal computing is that hobbyists have been essentially taken out of the loop. We don't know very much about what our hardware does and how, so how are we going to escape the clutches of the TCG if we can't even make and (lawfully) analyze our own computers? Used to be that you'd -BUILD- your own computer. Not just snapping parts together, no. You'd put it together from scratch. A tabletop or desktop fabricating tool that's cheap to purchase, operate, and maintain would be the ultimate weapon in the FOSS/FOSH community's arsenal, and it would enable hobbyists and ordinary folk alike to begin experimenting with circuitry of their own.

Sounds stupid? Probably. FOSS won't stand a chance without corporate stewardship unless FOSH becomes a reality, though. Not just any FOSH, good useful FOSH. So... calling all engineers?

There is no DRM chip!

[Anthony Liguori]

The chip present in the Thinkpads is a TPM. This chip is basically just a tamper-resistent crypto engine. One of the uses of this is attestation. You can crypto graphically sign your kernel, and the system will make sure to only run a properly signed kernel.

This is hugely useful from a security perspective. Imagine you're machine gets broken into. Any admin knows the only proper thing to do is completely reimage the machine right (there's no guarentee that they didn't install a root kit even if you remove the piece of software that led to the breakin). Well, with attestation, you do now know that the kernel is okay. This lets you start building up trust. If the kernel only loads signed modules, then you know all modules are okay. If the kernel goes further and only lets root run signed software...

This is why the TPMs exist. The entertain industry isn't all that big. There is a *huge* market for security though. Can you use a TPM to enforce DRM? Sure. Honestly though, this is only a problem if you're using DRM crippled media on a closed-source platform. Why the hell are you doing that in the first place?

Who owns your fingerprints ?

[elmo1618]

Do you own the copyright(implied) to your own fingerprints? Does someone making a digital copy of your fingerprints violate the DMCA?

There will be such a thing as a company ID

[bburdette]

I think the system would have to work that way. So when you create the doc, you create it with your own and the company ID as authorized users. Then anyone who is on the company ID list can access it. If you are fired and are off the list, no documents for you! Aren't you relieved that this won't inconvenience your employer?

Vindication

[nurb432]

See, we wernt just paranoid freaks..

its great to be right yet again.... yippe?

Dead Tree Books

[nurb432]

This is why E-Books are so wrong, and we should be fighting to retain dead tree verisons..

Yes, i know they can still find ways to track what you read, ( rfid, cameras ) but at least they have to work at it.

Who does this stuff get reported to? Who gets to find out you read a 'bad ebook' and sick the HSD ( or other 3 lettered agency ) on you for 'restricted knowledge'?

Let's look at this as an opportunity...

[PipeIsArt]

If this truly is the direction the hardware industry is going, then this seems to me to be a market opportunity. Starting small, of course, if we want to shut DRM use out of the market then those wiht the resources should create competition. Gain financial backing, gather up some EE majors, dedicate time and hard work and start a new hardware company that provides a rally point to oppose DRM use. It seems once again to be the cycle where one side wants to close its market and the other wants to open it. The open market strategy, as has been said already concerning Microsoft and Apple, is the one that turned out victorious, only this time those who chose to take the initiative have a chance to do it better than Microsoft did. I am not saying its an easy task, but a way to fight back.

So exactly how does this work?

[jc42]

As a programmer, I'm curious about how much of this they can really enforce. Does it mean that all "independent" software development will cease, because after every compile, I'll have to apply to Microsoft for a license to run the test version of my program? This would make testing several orders of magnitude slower than now, and effectively stop software development on such machines.

Does it mean that you can't install an OS without Microsoft permission? If so, it would end the recycling of old hardware that's no longer supported, radically raising the price of computers for non-profits and most of the world's poorer people.

Maybe the computing future for all but the wealthy really does lie with Negroponte's $100 laptop (and whatever its clones are called). You can bet it won't have a DRM chip, and emphasis will be on making it programmable by its users.

Anyway, I'm curious about the details of how this "DRM chip" works. All I have to go on now are vaguely-worded scare stories like this one. But, as a programmer, I can't tell anything at all about what it really does. Is there a spec somewhere, so I can learn to program the thing?

Possibly not, because if I had that info, the first thing I'd do would be to program my own authenticator so I could test my own software. They obviously don't want me to do this, so I'd predict that a full spec isn't going to be available to people like me.

+1, Funny

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish I had mod points so I could mod this up.

Re:+1, Funny

[name773]

more like insightful. i was looking at laptops a bit back, and there was a nice cheap one, but it had a built in webcam. how dumb...

Can you make a computer without DRM?

[marcybots]

Is it possible to make a computer without and Chipset "trusted computer" DRM in its chipset? If so what chipset would I have to use and what company makes it? Can I just buy a mac preconfigured without it or do even Macs come with this DRM now, in case one of my non-technical friends wants a new computer without DRM.

Re:Can you make a computer without DRM?

[daverabbitz]

>Is it possible to make a computer without and Chipset "trusted computer" DRM in its chipset?

You don't need to. You can still run whatever you want on "trusted computers", just avoid application's that make use of it.

Trusted Computing isn't the same as Content Protection on Game Consoles. It's just a hardware crypto engine, designed to prevent you from moving your music and video's to another machine. In short, if you don't want to have to re-purchase your music every time you change machines, don't buy digitally restricted media, and don't use programs that make use of TCPA.

This is true of current TCPA implementations, if it detects you aren't running a "trusted" platform, it refuses to decrypt content.

Hence, running a non-trusted OS is the same as running that OS on a non-TCPA machine, since non-TCPA machines won't be able to play content anyway, as they won't have a valid key to get stuff encrypted to them. Of course you could always get a Scanning Electron Microscope, and read the keys out of a DRM chip, and use those with an emulator, but that's about the only way 'round it.

treacherous computing, a dangerous milestone

[chris_7d0h]

Yes, treacherous computing will keep the digital roads safe and locked down. Pay or we exclude you from using your own computer.

All information will be "pay-per-view". Step one is to ensure nothing ever again sips out into the public domain. Step two is to protect the concept of every idea and make people pay per use for each. Instead of "thoughts are free" the saying will be "thoughts might be available for a pre-negotiated price". Without enough money, your child won't be implanted with the genes required for a concious mind. You'll get a vegetable.

We're heading straight towards this future. I really do hope people remember why the right to keep and bear arms was so important... Someone better come up with a good alternative idea (and fast!) to change the current horrid path.

Re:treacherous computing, a dangerous milestone

[Lehk228]

as long as the right to bear glass bottles gasoline and chlorine bleach is upheld i do not really worry about DRM.

Just Refuse

[inverselimit]

I will never use such a thing. Use free software, and if we have to, build our own computers.

and they called me paranoid...

[wookie geek]

...back when Paladium was first mentioned by M$. I said then that we only had to wait and eventually our computers would no longer be ours. Then Paladium became TCPA and it looked even worse. Now it's TCG. After 9/11 I knew what was to follow. In the name of security we would no longer be in control of our own PCs. Yes I know that corporate inertia will resist the changeover but remember that M$ changed the terms of it's volume license agreement so that not migrating would be extremely expensive. For all the already stated reasons that have been posted we all know that corporate America is not going to embrace open source any time soon. With the release of Vista and all the incorporated DRM etc. the situation just becomes worse. Does anyone think that for one minute Dell, HP, Gateway or any other OEM is not going to follow along with all of this and refuse to incorporate all this crap on their systems? Let's be realistic, the sheeple will buy what the OEMs sell. The average American computer owner doesn't care what is happening inside the box. At this point I imagine 85% of the average users have been "bit" by some sort of virus, malware or crapware and learned an expensive lesson (maybe). The selling point that they won't ever have to worry about some "evil thingie" gumming up their PC will appeal to their narrow little minds. They don't stop to think through all the possibilities of what this technology can be used to prevent. I am certainly not an engineer or developer but I don't think it's a big step to have the "trust chip" verify virtually everything that you want to do before you are allowed to do it. Hmmm want to visit a website? Wait while the digital verification is checked. Nope that site expresses views contrary to what we want you to hear. Want to open that email? Nope, it's been generated by a non compliant PC. Now of course this is all being done for the users own good and the security of our nation. Want to access your documments? Gee we're sorry but because your subscription to M$ Office Live ran out we can't allow that. Users don't care whats going on in the box, they just want someone to tell them they'll be protected from all those nasties out there. If you build it, hype it, and sell it, the sheeple will buy it.

Good for the US Government

[jhines]

The ability to tell who accessed a document and when would be good for hi security government documents, to tell who did what when to them.

Maybe for some industries with real sensitive data as well, but of little use to the average person, except to please the *AA's.

Already Happening!!

[the_ridd1er]

This is already being done on some level with our game Consoles. XBOX/XBOX 360 anyone!? DRM is utilized in these machines to only allow signed/approved applications to run on the hardware supplied. (Including size/structure of Hard Drive, Video Card, NIC etc) Verry much like the licensing of Windows based on Hardware Serialization. These Issues are alive today..

But lets focus more on the consoles as their closer to the new problem. What has been the workarround? Out of the box an xbox cannot use anything but Microsoft Content, Games, Downloads from Xbox Live! etc. So Chips have been created to sidestep this detection. So other apps and uses can be done.. Linux may be installed, different boot loaders, Media Check is taken out of the loop etc. The result allowing us to use the hardware we purchased for what we want too.

Now I know this isn't exactly the same, but it is Similar. Lets be honest, with the reply that we see from all these techies on this one topic from slashdot about the new DRM implimentation. How long do you think it would be until we came out with some bandaid for this new problem. I do know that reverse engineering these chips would be hard, but not impossible.

I, by all means am NOT saying we shouldn't fight this. However I do believe there are other ways than just vocalizing our concerns. For every attempt like this there has been an overwhelming response to counteract it. I have faith in the crackers/Hackers. Just remember, something this big will not only attract action from all the existing Crackers/Hackers, but most likely with make many legitimate Engineers/Technicians cross that line to solve this problem (many are balancing on the edge as it is).

To paraphrase the Fight Club quote:
Look, the people you are after are the people you depend on. We code your apps, we build your machines. We connect your networks, we keep your systems up. Do not... MESS with us.

What about "mod chips"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Some people were talking about how this would kill FOSS and about alternative architectures we could use, etc.
Would it be possible to make mod chips to circumvent the DRM like on game consoles?

So what is safe to buy?

[peter1]

I am actually looking to buy a new PC sometime in the next month or so... I've always purchases systems from local shops, either in parts for self-assembly or if I did not have enough time for them to assemble it, so at least I do not have to worry about what the big guys will put into their systems.

Therefore leaving out the Dell's and HP's of the world, what generic components are safe to purchase which are (for now) DRM free? Asus boards, MSI boards, etc?

One way we could all fight back would be to compile and keep a list of non-DRM'd hardware and only purchase from those companies...

Peter

use it as a password cracker

[Anonymous Coward]

Those TPM chips have a (hardware) random number generator and hash accelerator...

Maybe speed up your encrypted volumes ?
Faster WEP/WPA cracking for the wardrivers ?

If you have the lib and the driver and your OS is free, you could use it for *your* purposes

Linux driver for the Infineon TPM: http://www.prosec.rub.de/tpm/index.html

EFF

[PacketScan]

"Even worse: 'The system is also aimed at tracking who reads a document and when, because the chip can report back every access attempt. If you access the file, your fingerprint is recorded.'"

I'm sure we will hear the EFF chime in soon.

Dumb. So far.

[Anonymous Coward]

We already have hardware keyloggers.

Wait until someone comes up with a hardware fingerprint logger.

Not quite as simple as plug-it-in-and-own, but pretty close.

Then they'll start making tamper-resistant laptops.

Soon, the only thing you'll be able to do with a computer is "DIR"[0]. When there is only one command, the operating system will be perfect; there will be no concept of a revolution, because there will be no programming language with which to express it...

[0] Good luck running Linux. The DRM chip will refuse to boot, fry your hardware and disks, report you to MiniRights, and possibly put a bullet through your brain.

PS: I used to think tinfoil hats were silly.

DRM for internal use only (or should be)

[Anonymous Coward]

DRM should only be utilized by individual companies and/or persons. A DRM used by someone (a person or company) should not be forced onto anyone else.

DRM is good for helping prevent others from opening documents, but taking that same DRM and forcing someone else to use it should be deemed illegal.

If I purchase data (and this can be text, music, or video data; it shouldn't matter the type of data) I should have the right to use that data in whatever matter I choose as long as it is for my personal use.

I can see not using that data the way I choose in one of three ways.
        1) I'm renting the data and not buying it.
        2) I'm an employee of the company.
        3) I've been convicted of pirateing sometime in the past.

If I'm only renting, I can understand the use of specified DRM on the data.

If I'm an employee, I can again understand the use of DRM. I would also be getting a paycheck from them too.

If I was convicted of pirating digital data, the law would be making me follow DRM guidlines if allowing me use of a computer at all.

But if I don't fall within one of these three areas, I don't see how someone else can force me to use their DRM. I think it should be fought out within the courts.

How to fight it

[Anonymous Coward]

I am very much interested in stopping this. But how can I fight it. I know FOSS is the solution software side, and I contribute when I have the chance. But what can be done hardware side? How do we fight this thing?

Re:How to fight it

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as the fingerprints collected stay within a specified network within the company/business/personal computer then I don't see anything wrong with collecting fingerprints because it would be a way to track down individuals trying to illegally get to private files.

As long as the hardware features keep security features in house then there isn't a problem. The problem would be if those fingerprints or any other information were sent to third partys. The hardware and programs should be setup of in house DRM systems without third party DRM being forced onto others outside your specific network.

M$ shouldn't make it where a Word doc can only be opened by Word, but the individual company or person should have the ability for the file to be opened within the application of their choice as long as they are not selling the data and they only want certain people to have access to the file.

StarForce

[tepples]

if consumers see a real performance hit, they will avoid the DRM controlled media or software.

When a game takes 30 seconds extra to start because it has to check the CD drive, the majority of people don't necessarily avoid that.

Re:StarForce

[Antique Geekmeister]

You're right that a game taking 30 seconds to start is not such a performance hit that people will submit to built-in, Windows based Trusted Computing rather than use an open source version if one ever exists. But I see little evidence that a Linux version of the tools does or will exist. Remember that the Trusted Computing can be built into the DVD and mapped into the vendor's specific game or DVD player. Unless you can successfully use the vendor's application in your open source world, and make Trusted Computing work inside that open source basis, you're screwed.

And if opening and saving encrypted documents takes 10 seconds rather than 2, and if playing the authorized content of a DVD cannot be done in real time or in real-time and high resolution with open source tools because they don't have the built-in decryption available, we'll see quite a lot of pressure to use the closed source tools.

Dear Sen. Lantos

[Anonymous Coward]

Google has taken it's search technology to allow users in China to search more quickly and reveal when information has been censored. You compared their presidents to Hitler because of the information that has been censored as a result of their decision. So to whom do you compare Lenovo, a Chinese company that has introduced technology into laptops that allows any document to keep track of everyone who has viewed it? Stalin?

Maybe we should stop companies from censoring our own citizens before we worry about what we're doing in other countries.

Re:Ah! I see a new profitable market! Fake Thumbs!

[dasdrewid]

http://www.ccc.de/biometrie/fingerabdruck_kopieren .xml?language=en Can you say "home business"?

Bullshit, mod down, not insightful

[geekee]

"I don't believe that for a second. They are responding to arm-twisting by Microsoft and Adobe (,etc.) and working *against* customer interests. Consumers have no interest in DRM at all. "

Companies who use Microsoft and Adobe software often have data under NDA and would love to use this technology to help secure their data.

mod down this ignorant post

[geekee]

"You won't even be able to use your OSS tools on a "trusted computing" platform. That's the whole point."

So explain to me why Linux runs on systems with trusted computing now if your statement is true.

Who will supply your components?

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't want to use products from any vendors who support the "Trusted Computing Initiative"? Then you're going to be in a world of hurt. Here are just some of their members (listed on the Trusted Computing Group's home page here: http://www.trustedcomputinggroup.org/about/members /:

CPU vendors: AMD, Intel

BIOS vendors: American Megatrends, Inc. (AMI), Phoenix (who bought Award a few years ago)

Hard drive vendors: Fujitsu, Hitachi, Maxtor, Seagate, Western Digital

Flash drive vendors: Lexar, M-Systems

Chipset and graphics vendors: ATI, Nvidia, Intel

Network card vendors: Broadcom, National Semiconductor, Marvell Semiconductor, Inc.

So you think you can build a system without parts from any of those vendors? It may be more difficult to avoid "Trusted Computign" than you think.

But do they trust your distro?

[tepples]

So explain to me why Linux runs on systems with trusted computing now if your statement is true.

But will your residential Internet access provider and your application service providers "trust" your Linux distribution, especially if you have modified it pursuant to a free software license?

huh?

[geekee]

"The problem is, I don't trust it anymore. I won't trust it with my data, I won't trust it with my files, I won't trust it with my time."

No what you mean is that you no longer trust the software you run on your computer. Have you ever? It's amazing how otherwise intelligent people turn into raving lunatics at the mention of trusted computing.

Re:huh?

[Travoltus]

It's amazing how people like you become sheep at the mention of "trusted computing".

"MicroSoft save us!"

Benjamin Franklin had something to say about people like you who trade away freedom for a sense of security...

We forget sometimes that we live in a democracy...

[Anonymous Coward]

Gentlemen please, such alarmist talk!

It does not matter what these companies may propose, we live in a democracy after all. If we do not like the DRM Act, we can repeal it, can we not? If we do not like the government snooping on us with our own hardware and software, we have the courts and Congress, and we can get laws passed to prevent it.

What? Do I hear you muttering cynically that our Congress is in the pay of the large corporates and there is nothing that can be done? For shame!

In fact, were we to organize and fund our urge to freedom as efficiently as the corporate world does its impulse to make slaves of us all, there would be nothing whatsoever to fear.

Instead of heading to the bunkers, making plans for living under ground in a world run by SkyNet, we need to get politically organized. Sorry, but that's the only solution.

Readers Break

[Ironsides]

I was talking to a guy that had one of these finger print readers on a fairly high end laptop of his. He said it worked great, for three weeks, until it broke and stoped recognizing him as the same person.

Then there is a matter of what would happen when the chip dies/fries and various other ways this can cause un recoverable loss of data. If there is a way to recover it with a bad reader or by directly accessing the chip to get the decryption key, then the system is inscure to people who have sufficient desire or resources to get access to it. Say, the MPAA/RIAA or governments.

Sorry, but either the system is inherently insecure in some way or if the computer breaks you have unrecoverable data.

Interesting question, wrong point:

[hummassa]

You don't want to use products from any vendors who support the "Trusted Computing Initiative"? Then you're going to be in a world of hurt. Here are just some of their members (listed on the Trusted Computing Group's home page here: http://www.trustedcomputinggroup.org/about/members /:

CPU vendors: AMD, Intel

BIOS vendors: American Megatrends, Inc. (AMI), Phoenix (who bought Award a few years ago)

Hard drive vendors: Fujitsu, Hitachi, Maxtor, Seagate, Western Digital

Flash drive vendors: Lexar, M-Systems

Chipset and graphics vendors: ATI, Nvidia, Intel

Network card vendors: Broadcom, National Semiconductor, Marvell Semiconductor, Inc.

So you think you can build a system without parts from any of those vendors? It may be more difficult to avoid "Trusted Computign" than you think.

The answer is simple: at the moment one starts to sell only TCPA/enabled or worse, TCPA/mandatory, products, you dump them -- if enough people does this, we will have sunk TCPA by beating where it hurts: $$$. If all of them go that direction, start building stuff from old stuff. We already have enough hardware to many of our processing needs, and we can always combine our garbage in interesting/creative new ways. Don't buy a new HDTV, and if you have enough leverage on your friends/family, don't let them buy it if it's TCPA-like controlled. Tell them it has the mark of the devil from Revelations if you need to (because, you know, in the broad sense it does).

I have today a Western Digital 120G drive. It has many of my TV shows recorded on it, and if TCPA is mandatory in the next 500G drive, guess what -- I'll shop around for 5 to 20 more 120G drives and a RAID controller.

Treacherous computing is evil

[squidsuk]

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html

'Nuff said

It goes deeper than that

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a third option:

(3) Replace VMware with special DRM-compliant virtualization software, aka Palladium. Microsoft once planned to include this with Vista, but (like WinFS and lots of other Longhorn stuff) it won't be ready in time.

When MS originally planned Palladium, it demanded that Intel and AMD include special CPU extensions ("ring -1") needed for it to work with existing Windows programs. These are ready now, so someone else could use them to attack MS's OS monopoly. This could be why Apple switched to x86.

Re:It goes deeper than that

[Alsee]

There's a third option:

(3) Replace VMware with special DRM-compliant virtualization software

Yes. I almost mentioned it in my post, but I decided that it was outside the intent of the original poster's question. He was basically asking about defeating trusted Computing and what effect it would have on normal virtualization software.

This third option would be a DRM-enforcing pseudo-virtualization software. It would create explicitly virtual DRM compliant machines. The software running in them would explicitly know that they were in a virtual machine.

-

Say goodbye to software innovation

[nurb432]

Its a bigger deal then that, when you consider that most everything in the civilized world is tied to 'software' either directly or indirectly..

It could cripple the worlds economy.

Take a stand against DRM and TC

[David Webb]

One way or another a we must band together to stand against DRM and TC. I have stated many times that WE are the paying customers. The arguments in support of these two initiatives are baseless. All we need do is look to companies like SONY to see an example of how DRM will continue to have a negative impact on people worldwide. TCM in computers and other devices are bad news. I encourage everyone to do what must be done in order to convince those in authority that these sort of measures be revoked. I, personally, stand against this.Also there is money and or prestige in defeating these measures as is evinced by groups like the OSX86 project. There will be software hacks, mod chips whatever countermeasure must be implemented to bypass this heinousness. Don't just take my word for it. wait and see!

DMCA on YOUR side for once?

[gnuASM]

The system is also aimed at tracking who reads a document and when, because the chip can report back every access attempt. If you access the file, your fingerprint is recorded.'"

If I'm not mistaken, this is exactly what USC 17 1201(i) is for. Not EVERYTHING in the DMCA is bad. Then again, it would have to be upheld by a court of law first. Knowing our legal system, the judge would somehow find this one provision unconstitutional and in violation of corporations' rights to profit.

Re:Uh...?

[arminw]

....it is the creator of the document (fx CFO) that decides who should have access to it, it is not up not anyone who receives it...

However the creator also has to decide whether that PERSON, not the person's computer is trustworthy to receive the information. No matter how trustworthy a computer is, if the person is not trustworthy, then that untrustworthy person will figure out a way to get that information to places the creator would not want it to be. It only takes one untrustworthy person to copy the decrypted bits, no matter what these bits represent, and those bits can be sent around the world to millions of places in seconds. All watermarking and other identifying techniques will fail, since there is no way to tell one bit from another. No trustworthy computer will ever make its users equally trustworthy.

RMS is chicken little

[Travoltus]

battling a whole army of ostriches.

How can he win?

Re:Trusted Computing Rootkit - Cryptoviral Extorti

[Reziac]

The concept isn't news to anyone who ever got nailed by a good old-fashioned encrypting virus... there were a few that offered to send you a decryption key, once you'd paid to ransom back your data.

Blacklisting

[visualight]

Is there already a list of mainboards that come with a tpm module? If anyone knows of one please post a link!

Stop worrying

[gauauu]

Yes, this is annoying. Yes, this means the average consumer PC will be filled with unwanted DRM crap.

But I don't believe for a second that the big companies will be able to fully lock down 3rd party or FOSS software. Why? There are a LOT of businesses out there using Linux and Apache and other things. The hardware industry cannot ignore these companies.

So while the machines targetted for a home market might end up being locked down nice and nastily, there is no way that they will make it impossible to get computers that don't have these restrictions.

Someone is going to get their finger cut off

[Anonymous Coward]

Somebody's going to get a finger chopped off to satisfy one of these sensors... also, one of the great things about physical access cards and secureKeys is that they can be reclaimed... so you as administrator *know* that physical access has been revoked. Try getting someone to turn in their finger at the helpdesk when they quit.

I'm sure it'll be the middle one. ;)

Remember-- there weren't carjackings before there were car alarms... back then it was easier to steal a car with nobody in it. I don't think anybody's given enough thought to the ramifications of this. I would never want one.

Re:No, no... security management is simple after a

[Alsee]

The general user "fingerprint" be a carved smiley face.
The administrator "fingerprint" will be a carved Goatse.

-

Alternatives

[stefanPryor]

Maby we will be able to run our free software on OpenSPARC machines.

Notice how no major american news source covers it

[plasmacutter]

The age of independent and free press is gone people. Not one american news source has ever covered this to my knowledge, and I get the feeling they never will come clean about the manipulations and outright lies perpetrated by those who control major interests in their networks until rioting or outright revolution breaks out.

Education through burgers

[woolio]

Well, Sonic (hamburger) commercials are now educating the public on the difference between "bits" and "bytes"...

In about 300 years, maybe they can take on DRM.

Problem not solved.

[woolio]

Even if you could see the light, react, and unplug the cable in 1ms, you would be way too late.

On a 10MB bit/s link, that would mean about 1000 bytes would have already gotten out (which would be a complete packet).

Unfortunately, human eyes don't see things last a little less than on the order of ~20ms. Which means either that LED on the router has to remain on for a long duration after a single packet, or it takes multiple packets to turn it on. Which means the *instant* the light appears to be on, it is too late.

And who says this stuff is only going to phone home the *instant* you open a document/program/etc... It could easily queue the packet and wait for the internet connection to come back up.. And given the nature of Trusted Computing, this may not be something than can easily be disabled.

I'm starting to wonder if the day will come when I pull the plug out of my computer -- PERMANENTLY!

AIM, ICQ, MSN, and YIM

[tepples]

They won't see the point of a second email program

Why not? People already juggle AIM, ICQ, MSN, and YIM clients. Anybody who can learn to install Trillian or Gaim can learn how to shut off encryption-by-default on the personal e-mail account.

Too complicated for the average customer...

[dusty123]

Products we buy get complicated more and more. Some years back, someone just bought a CD or a LP, simply put it into his player and listened to the music. That was something even my grandparents could do. Nowadays it's so complicated: There are "region-Codes" on the DVD, CD's cannot be played on various hardware (e.g. computers, car CD-players etc.). You see - one reason why people use P2P is simplicity: If you want a specific song, you simply search for it in Kazaa/eDonkey/whatever and download it. Paid services are complicated: You have to register somewhere, do a complicated (and possibly insecure) mondy transaction and then you have a file which will will be playable on a limited set of devices. It's not only that people are too lazy to handle things. I see people fiddling around with their hardware and not being able to use what they bought more and more. Therefore I don't think that this fingerprint scenario will every be reality - simply because people won't be able to use it.

This DRM is not enough

[hoskeri]

The only DRM that can actually work is one in which they insert TPM chips in between your eyes and your brain.

I'm stockpiling old computers!

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see...
Snes emulators and ROMs --- check.
Winamp --- check.
Backup of a Backup of Windows 98 --- check.
Office '97 and OpenOffice --- check.

Well, I'm set! I'll be buying all the Pentium II computers that I see at garage sales. I might have to move to a compound in Montana, but I'll never finger a computer to turn it on!

Consumers using TPM's.. hmmm not there yet !!!

[dinesh.kallath]

DRM, oh yes that is one of the use of TC. But it will be hard to target the consumers market. It will be a great hit on the enterprise level, not soo sure how far it could be feasible with general public. One good thing about TC's specification is that, it can not do any thing with out the users approval (in this case is the user authenticating). So if I think some application in my machine is trying to access the keys from TPM I could validate which application is trying to access the keys? Are they authentic applications? And above all is it M$ ;-)? I can approve the transaction only if I am satisfied. So I think itz great!!! only thing I am bothered is the rootkit, we are screwed if the hardware manufactures decided to be OVER smart !!! And the government is interested in achieving a back door to TC !! GOD SAVE US !!! I am happy to see the open source community working hard and producing some very gud sensible use of TC. Check for TrouSers project @ Sourceforge.net they are gud.

How long until...

[jonr]

How long until printers have DRM? How long until old-style printing press will be declared illegal? The Right to Read

it'll be law

[maxpublic]

Thinking that the free market (what's left of it) will solve this problem for Linux users is naive, at best. Congress will simply pass a DCMA version 2.0 making it *illegal* to connect to the internet with a computer that doesn't use so-called Trusted Computing. End of the revolution, you all get to bend over and grab your ankles unless you want to be labeled a "terrorist" and spend the rest of your days...bending over and grabbing your ankles.

In case some of you haven't noticed, Congress has shown a profound lack of interest in giving a shit about what the common Joe and Jane think. They sure as hell don't give a shit what a tiny minority of geeks think. To them you're all a bunch on awnry, libertarian ne'er-do-wells in need of a good bitch-slapping anyway.

Max

Re:Uh...?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a CUSTOMER prior to KA-CHING! sound. After the KA-CHING! sound, you are a SHEEP.

Great for Business, but we still need FREEDOM...

[dsmatthews]

Great for Business, but we still need FREEDOM of CHOICE.

If I am running a business which requires a high level of protection for it's intellectual property I am going to be very happy with such technology. It will stop my knowledge leaking out, or at the very least I will know who leaked it.

BUT! For the average consumer this technology is a clear threat to their right to have FREEDOM of CHOICE. The solution is to have MANDATORY DEACIVATABILITY to ensure that the owner of the hardware can install any operating system they choose.

The media copy protection issue is secondary, most content these days is crap and we can live without it, but we can't allow other people to lock us out of our own property and dictate to us what operating systems to use, that would be intellectual slavery.

"The Right to Read", by RMS

[Khelder]

If you've never read it, I recommend The Right to Read, written by RMS in 1997. I read it when it was published and thought he was being his usual extremist self, and that stuff like he describes would never happen. Unfortunately, it looks like he was being prophetic.

Patent Infringement?

[Anonymous Coward]

I could have sworn that some random hacker type patented any use of TCPA for DRM purposes, precisely to stop this sort of crap. He had some rather hippy name, too, that I can't remember right now. Lucky Green or something??

careful

[labomba]

you're talking to one of the GNAA guided perl scripts (the part where he mentions being black and gay is a dead giveaway). they try to spam this site by putting in a couple of personalized lines to bait people and add on a bunch of gereric unrelated spam. I mistakenly replied to a bunch of these and fell in their "bait" database. They started looking for all my posts and spamming them until i had to create a new user. and good luck emailing the admins - they do nothing about it.
the problem is with taco not fixing the slashcode. it mods down obvious trolls automatically, but if a post has replies it skips it. lately they have been replying to themselves to keep their karma up.

Re:careful

[ifuckyoutroll]

nice warning Frank, but you're too late. Anyone who bites more than once is whitelisted.
Hello Stan. Please keep replying.
.________________________________________________.
| ______________________________________._a,____ | Press contact:
| _______a_._______a_______aj#0s_____aWY!400.___ | Gary Niger
| __ad#7!!*P____a.d#0a____#!-_#0i___.#!__W#0#___ | gary_niger@gnaa.us
| _j#'_.00#,___4#dP_"#,__j#,__0#Wi___*00P!_"#L,_ | GNAA Corporate Headquarters
| _"#ga#9!01___"#01__40,_"4Lj#!_4#g_________"01_ | 143 Rolloffle Avenue
| ________"#,___*@`__-N#____`___-!^_____________ | Tarzana, California 91356
| _________#1__________?________________________ |
| _________j1___________________________________ | All other inquiries:
| ____a,___jk_GAY_NIGGER_ASSOCIATION_OF_AMERICA_ | Enid Indian
| ____!4yaa#l___________________________________ | enid_indian@gnaa.us
| ______-"!^____________________________________ | GNAA World Headquarters
` _______________________________________________' 160-0023 Japan Tokyo-to Shinjuku-ku Nishi-Shinjuku 3-20-2
-ku Nishi-Shinjuku

Re:careful

[Stan Vassilev]

"nice warning Frank, but you're too late. Anyone who bites more than once is whitelisted. Hello Stan. Please keep replying."

Dude you can't believe how much I don't care :) If you spam my posts I'll make a new user. I'm not here to build karma or try "to be famous ot teh Slashdot!!", I'm here to read interesting news, and contribute with comments I think add to the discussion. While you and your buddies are here to prove you're a bunch of worthless losers. So do as you wish, I can't STRESS enough how amazingly stupid and pointless this all is, I'm truly having fun right now :)

Re:careful

[Stan Vassilev]

"you're talking to one of the GNAA guided perl scripts (the part where he mentions being black and gay is a dead giveaway)."

haha, so they are saving time with by finishing their posts with PERL scripts, eh :) good good, hahahahahah. I honestly can't believe what pathetic losers exists in this world, thanks for the heads up, and don't worry, I can't care less (except for the excessive spamming of Slashdot, but CmdrTaco will have to care of this, its his site). They will be spamming my posts? Oh no my gawd! What a life threat! If they keep doing it I'll make a new user.

At least I had my fun :)