Slashdot Mirror
Trusted Or Treacherous Computing?
theodp writes "Just because Richard Stallman is paranoid doesn't mean Microsoft's not out to get you. For a hint about the possible end-game of Microsoft's Trusted Computing Initiative, check out the patent application published Thanksgiving Day for Trusted License Removal, in which Microsoft describes how to revoke rights to render based on 'who the user is, where the user is located, what type of computing device or other playback device the user is using, what rendering application is calling the copy protection system, the date, the time, etc.' So much for Microsoft's you-should-have-control assurances."
Anyone who has ever believed that Microsoft is genuinely on the consumer's side in any kind of licensing question is so naive they shouldn't be allowed out of the house without a minder.
-- Old Man Kensey
Since my laptop was stolen about five months ago I can appreciate the qualities of a system which could be used to at least cripple hardware which was stolen or otherwise suspect.
As a realist, though, I cannot possibly trust that a large organization could implement this properly without willingly abusing it or unwillingly fscking it up.
the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
...who the users father is, and what he does.
I think that, like many things, the reasons behind these ideas are well intentioned, but can be used for evil if not policed.
There are a lot of good reasons to do the things Microsoft proposes. Stolen laptops, Malware, Leaked confidential information (think patient records, social security numbers, etc..). The problem is, of course, that most such technologies cut both ways.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
I saw it comming more than two years ago ...
What DRM is REALLY REALLY REALLY about
Or maybe it's just a way for them to manage licenses? Like you purchase a license to view a movie. They send you the .WMV and the license to view the file. You upgrade your computer and want to migrate all your purchases to the new machine. So you request to remove the license from the current system.
Maybe someone should read the patent in question?
If you believe your password has been compromised, or your PIN had become known to someone else, then for 'high-value' systems you need to be able to administratively indicate that any 'authority to behave as you' is not to be believed any more.
The 'personal' computing market is splitting.
If you inflict this kind of feature on a lawyer, doctor, or engineer, who is trying to go about their professional work, you cause loss and damage and you get your product thrown out post-haste as unfit for purpose. Lawyer, doctor, and engineer have plenty of money and need the top-grade service.
If you give someone a cheap deal on a Star Wars DVD because of them being willing to accept the possibility that their permission to view it might disappear unexpectedly, then that's rather like having a 'standby list' of people who might or might not be able to get on a plane at cheap prices according as whether the plane fills up with full-price passengers.
Why do the claims detail the server request but leave out all technical details? All looks obvious in any sense of the word, what is patentable here? The only reason nobody did this before was because they didn't have, need or want a TPM.
Or most any other corporation.
Greed and control isnt monopolized by microsoft. Though they are one of the biggest holders by default due to their impact on most every part of society at this point.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
It stops anyone else from trying it.
If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
Sorry, but I happen to think that's crap. Much like the government, whenever a controversial law/license is proposed, and its supporters, when confronted with an egregious abuse it would permit, use a phrase along the lines of 'Perhaps in theory, but the law would never be applied in that way' - they're LYING. They intend to use the law that way as early and as often as possible.
Those situations would fall under the jurisdiction of law enforcement, not Microsoft.
...Rob
The American Dream isn't an SUV and a house in the suburbs; it's Don't Tread On Me.
Since when is Richard Stallman paranoid?
I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
If you want to protect the user, you give the keys to the user (or let him chose them). No encription that hides the keys from you is there for your benefit.
Rethinking email
Those situations would fall under the jurisdiction of law enforcement, not Microsoft.
Once Billy Boy is President, they will be one and the same....
"Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
This just Microsoft preparing for there next phase in Windows. Next Windows and problay upgrade of Windows Vista are going to be subscribed to the user on montly basis (Note: This is just my guess!). If you don't pay up, you can kiss your computer and your data goodby.
For games I will stick with Windows XP, for everthing else, there is (insert distro of chose here) Linux.
Well intentioned my ass. I think ./ should have a few new classes for moderation: blue eyed idiot, stupidicus infinentum, well intentioned and stupid looking troll etc.
Law enforcement? How? What law might you be considering?
"Malware" isn't illegal. I know of no reasonable law that defines what this might be. Certainly lots of people are inconvenienced by it, but that is hardly justification for making writing software some kind of criminal offence. And any law that purports to make "malware" illegal is utterly unenforcable - do you really believe that some teenager in Romainia is going to be dragged into court in California for a single offence of this type?
Leaking confidential information has some laws surrounding it, but again the application is unlikely to really occur. If we were serious about this kind of thing it would be a criminal act to use an outsourcing company to process medical records outside of the jurisdiction where disclosing those records is a crime. You see, every day medical records are processed in third-world countries where there are no laws about privacy of those records.
While it might be nice if the FBI investigated every malware incident, it doesn't happen. Nor would you really want it to. And while "malware" isn't really illegal, by the time the FBI gets involved, the will find some law that has been broken if they can arrest someone.
If Microsoft can provide tools to resolve the situation faster and more effectively than law enforcement, what's wrong with that?
Of course it's "treacherous", not "trusted". It's about taking control away from the owner, the user; and giving it to a remote entity. Hasn't it always been?
Clear evidence of this comes to light when you think closely about the proposed "Owner Override" feature that would effectively disable an onboard TPM chip...or maybe not, depending on whether or not we're being lied to about that.
First off, if this feature is really everything we're told it is -- that it really disables the TPM chip -- then what is the entire point of this? To have software, music and video vendors build their content around a supposedly "unbreakable" remote control scheme in their power...only to be broken by a built-in flick-of-a-switch feature?
And if we are being lied to about "owner override", then it's clear there is something they want to maintain hidden from us.
Either way, it won't work. Somewhere on the motherboard, between the keyboard and the hard drive, if you will, data must be unencrypted. You just can't keep something that is exclusively mine and in my possession, a secret from me!
I am serious, but then I do not use Windows.
microsoft aren't a public institution subject to control by the people, thats what.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Stallman is not a paranoid. He is a cynic, and an accurate one. He merely rips away all the happytalk and states the problem in stark terms. That's not paranoia, which is a loaded term come to be used by PR masters to smear opponents. That and "conspiracy theorist".
Stallman and I are old enough to remember how Microsoft has comported itself for a quarter century. They are consistent liars and cheats, and pointing this out is just a service to the yunguns who don't even remember MS criminally falsifying video evidence -- and getting caught red-handed, too -- at the monopoly trial. IF you or I had done that, we'd still be in federal prison. MS just had a president dump their criminality into the shredder, and then made even more monopoly money.
They perform no action idly. They've a plan, and it involves killing competition and keeping all the money in the world for themselves. It's a mission statement.
trusted computing means media giants and software vendors don't need to trust you, thats the whole point of it. you can provide all the security they are proposing without any lock in. MS is chosing to make this user unfriendly, it's not needed to design a secure terminal at all.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
I had a dream that Microsoft consorted with Cisco, Sun, Comcast and Intel to REQUIRE a trusted computer to access Internet2. It was billed as the only way to bring "law and order" to the wild west of the 'net.
Silly dream? *shrugs*
Those situations would fall under the jurisdiction of law enforcement, not Microsoft.
Law Enforcement almost never solves them.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
Looks like DRM was made for you, to prevent the unauthorized copying of other people's work!
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
So the main idea is to have a way that the client software (such as WMP) can notify the license server that the license (i.e. decryption keys, etc) is being deleted from a particular machine. This is so they can support letting people move content from one machine to another without automatically authorizing unlimited copying. It's a normal and reasonable part of an overall DRM system. I'm sure Apple's iTunes does something similar when you authorize and de-authorize machines.
It doesn't really have anything to do with Trusted Computing Group (aka TCPA) style Trusted Computing, rather they mean that the server trusts the client (just as Apple trusts iTunes).
Yes, since the user having the keys solves the problem. Not.
Surveys have shown that users are willing to give out their passwords for a piece of chocolate. Cars are Hijacked every day, and the user just gets out of the car leaving the keys to the attacker. I'm not saying that a TPM chip is the best way to solve the problem, but merely putting it in the users hands doesn't solve much of anything.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
Locking your car is the equivalent of encrypting your data. This DRM crap is the equivalent of me selling you a car, but keeping the keys and making you ask permission and state your intended route every time you drive.
We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
Not only are they not under control of the public, they are also not subject to any form of auditing. If MS wants to play policeman, they will need an Internal Affairs Department that can bust them for pulling stupid shite like this. "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."
~Lord Acton
I may be redundant here, but the EFF article looks great. It is long though, but I just want to post this to encourage you reading it all. It may prevent a couple of misconceptions. (it did for me)
And for the record, Richard Stallman is very good at foreseeing problems way before other people, but that does not make him paranoid, just foresightful.
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
Some of the mods lately match your description, only they are called Interesting or Insightful and have positive integers. How do we fix a blue-eyed idiot's up-mod of a well-intentioned stupid ramble?
But back to topic: I trust MS to separate me from my money at every turn, and to pull every legal low-down weaseling to advantage itself. That's their business. If we still use their stuff, we don't need to pretend they're being friendly...
The TCPA and TCG technical specifications define what it means to be an "owner" of a device, to "take ownership" of a device. The ability to revoke features on device like this if you, the consumer who purchased the device (the "owner" in the legal sense) is not really problematic. It's a useful feature, in case, eg, your device is stolen.
The problem , of course, comes when you buy or rent a Trusted Computing device from a vendor who has previously "taken ownership" of the device before your purchase, in the technical sense put forth in the spec. If you're renting it, then it's legally the property of the vendor, and they have every right to control of their property. But if you purchase a device outright, there's no excuse for a vendor to retain ownership in the technical sense if they have ceded it to you in the legal one. This is the Crux of all the "evil" potential that Trusted Computing has. If the consumer is the owner, there's not much vendors can do to be evil with it.
The features of Trusted Computing devices work, and they are genuinely useful - but they only serve the "owner" of the device. It is our responsibility to demand full ownership of our devices (and not to settle for "rented" equipment, in the technical sense or the legal one).
Sorry, but I happen to think that's crap. Much like the government, whenever a controversial law/license is proposed, and its supporters, when confronted with an egregious abuse it would permit, use a phrase along the lines of 'Perhaps in theory, but the law would never be applied in that way' - they're LYING. They intend to use the law that way as early and as often as possible.
If you're going to quote another user's post verbatim, it's generally considered polite to include attribution.
In all honesty, this dude might be a professional paranoiac with an easily google-able catchphrase, but you are a fool, a knave, a liar, and an enemy of liberty everywhere.\
Anyone who knows jack or shit about law enforcement knows that they can, do, and will use every law and tactic available to prosecute whoever they think are the "bad guys".
And that's not a slag on law enforcement - that's called "doing their jobs". Obviously, they can get overzealous. And do. And will.
The point is that you give people power, and they will abuse it to the degree they are permitted . That's why Arlo Guthrie got busted for littering (when his real crime was being a dirty hippy), that's why Al Capone got nailed for tax evasion, that's why the Patriot act leads to waitresses on a plane thinking they can kick off breast-feeding mothers just because they feel like it, that's why we've got another 20 years of releasing the falsely convicted based on DNA evidence (too late for the wrongly executed), and it's why your flip attitude is functionally equivalent to saying "exterminate the jews? go ahead - if the authorities are against them, they must have done something!".
And so anything - a new law, a new technical system - that isn't done with an eye to how it could be abused, well, it's foolish and ignorant and entirely predictable, and predictably the people who mean to fuck over everyone ignore these things as plainly as can be.
You really need to study American history again if you don't get this shit by now. Our founding fathers understood this stuff, and that's why "checks and balances" are a part of our government (2000-2006 excepted). You know that scence in Pulp Fiction with the multi-way Mexican Standoff? That's how the US government is supposed to work; go too far, and you'll get blown away, because you can't take out all the other dudes.
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
Surveys have shown that users are willing to give out their passwords for a piece of chocolate. Cars are Hijacked every day, and the user just gets out of the car leaving the keys to the attacker. I'm not saying that a TPM chip is the best way to solve the problem, but merely putting it in the users hands doesn't solve much of anything.
I think the real problem here is the lengthening of the digital divide. The people who would benefit from these features are the people who would hand out their password for a chocolate crisp. These people might have some to lose from Treacherous Computing, but not as much as those who are smart enough to know better.
I wonder if Microsoft is aware that they are driving away the technically savvy? Most of us who use Windows and have some tech savvy are the gamer audience and even though making the move back to running a Unix-derived OS of some sort will impact my primary use for my home computer, I am still starting to seriously plan for it. I wonder how many other gamers are thinking the same thing? I wonder if Microsoft has considered how much losing a big share of the gamer market will hurt them? It is my opinion that a significant chunk of the home market is Windows because that's what the games run on, and if game developers suddenly find it economical or desirable to port their games to different platforms, that could have a pretty significant impact on Microsoft's stranglehold on PC gaming.
Of course, I'm probably just a statistical anomaly, but I like to hope I'm not... heheheheh
It's worse than you imagine. There is no clear policy on who will obtain the master keys for Palladium or Trusted Computing signature authorities: as things stand, Microsoft will own and sell such authorities. New software signatures must be purchased. This effectively grants Microsoft tremendous access to other company's, or person's trusted keys, and makes installing your own personally created keys prohibitively difficult.
This also provides BIOS and booatable hardware DRM, in order to control over booting systems. While such is good from a security standpoint, it means that with very trivial changes in hardware such as DRM-managed CD and DVD and USB devices, nothing other than a host-designated, signed Windows operating system will be able to boot the machine enough to install new keys and install a new OS. While the designer of such technologies may not envision such abuse, it's certainly within Microsoft's history of anti-competitive behavior to do this.
I can see this also being used to force 'updated' software on users who are unwilling to upgrade -to a newer version of WMP for instance. Even to the point of browser access to an IIS site.
and I can see this scenario playing out constantly as hobbysists and hackers alike start hacking the new generation of DRM enabled Vista, office, WMP etc.
as soon as someone posts an exploit to say -allow running VMs on a home version of vista microsoft or to bypass dosument security they can threaten to revoke licenses on compromised versions of the software to force an upgrade to an 'improved' version of the software.
although I can see the uses against data and device theft as other posters have pointed out -but You'll probably need to have Vista DataGuard(tm) version to be able to do this....if they would even allow users that much control over their own data.
What's the speed of Dark?
Anyone who has ever believed any of Slashdot's many conspiracy theories about Microsoft is so naive they shouldn't be allowed out of the house without a minder.
P.S. Lojack probably has a patent on this sort of thing so if MS wants to use it for good, they'll be paying.
It is illegal for Americans to write strong encryption software (it is considered a munition). The DMCA also makes writing certain software illegal (but then again, it technically makes letter openers illegal). I can see classifying certain types of malware as "munitions".
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Isn't this the very definition of "corporation"? The head of every single company in the world would probably sell his or her mother for dog food if it meant an uptick in their stock price.
Microsoft's ultimate goal is to have code in their products that allows it to intelligently deal with anything Microsoft might see as a threat. For example, if it saw evidence that it was in a virtual machine (ex The Matrix) it could freak out and retaliate. Retaliation could be anything from an error dialog to a grind-to-a-halt command that can only be undone if the user upgrades.
Think about it. It would be like having a Microsoft board member sitting inside of your computer! The best part is that he can phone home whenever he wishes, to be updated.
Windows 98 was easy to pirate and hack.
Windows XP was a little more difficult to pirate, but about the same to hack. The protections in place caused a large annoyance to those that bought the software legally. And that was BEFORE the WGA shit.
Windows Vista will be more difficult to pirate/hack, but I GUARANTEE that it will be. Of course, the legal end user will suffer the most damage, as usual.
I fucking loathe the day that mod chips become necessary to actually be in control of your own computer.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
With all of the lock down that they have?
*You can only use our phones
*You must pay for a data plan to the get discount on that phone
*You can only use apps that you buy at our store
*Our phones are locked to our network
*We force updates on to you
*We lock out things on your phone to force you to use our network to use them
aka get photos off of the phone
*We have a download limit on our unlimited data plan
and so on?
So it's nothing to worry about that MS is patenting the method of moving licenses from one trusted computer to another? If they wanted to just be able to do this, they could simply create the software, which is then 'prior art' preventing anyone in the future patenting the method and demanding royalties from MS. The only reason to patent something like this rather than simply create it is so they have the ability to lock others out of the market. I can see the ads now - buy your digital music from the official MS music website (or sites paying MS their 10%), not some skanky sideshow like itunes - or when you upgrade, you'll lose it all.
I think that's the point.
But there are countermeasures against locked phones, as there will be here. Either buy a phone direct from the manufacturer and insert your SIM (only a few hundred $), buy a used unlocked phone, or use a cell phone unlocking service.
-b.
about this issue eh ?
BEFORE you push such hardware/software out, its remedy will be already being downloaded for hundreds of thousands via p2p.
fucking morons. you still havent been able to understand it - you cant control INFORMATION.
Ill speak rather philosophically so that some clueless b.a. graduates at microsoft maybe might be able to understand what is going on :
By the esoteric nature of it, information/knowledge WANTS and NEEDS FREE flow, and it flourishes and grows in such an environment. If the environment is not as such, it CREATES it, choosing the vessels offering it. You cant build a business on profiting from information, yet still STUPIDLY try to control it - the more you control, it, being like a fluid, will find more complicated methods to travel/propagate, the more complicated measures you take, the more complicated and unmanageable your situation will become.
Check open source community. check HOW people that are thousands of kilometers apart, with totally different agendas, can work on the same thing, and work efficiently, and create top-notch stuff, and fluorish.
check the state of microsoft - with zillions of $ and representatives/branchesin almost EVERY country, you are still unable to cope with any situation rising in any front, trying to imitate other companies (google, yahoo, others), and trying to resort to medieval-like control schemes.
HEY GATES, BALMER !!!
This is what happens when geeks, who have invented and built this information/internet revolution leaves the running of their corporations to clueless, number-minded BA graduates. You have done a big mistake by hiring crapload of yuppies with the intent to do 'business' in a totally different area, even dimension, they do not have a clue about.
check google, check yourselves. youre taking a head dive. no need to even invent such control schemes on music, video and crap, probably 3-4 years later google and the like is going to start restoring and playing them for us wherever, however we want.
make your choice - you either get on the train, or get under it.
Read radical news here
Come on. At least *try* to read the thing.
This patent is NOT for a remote entity to revoke a license. It's for the *client* (the USER) to revoke a patent in such a way that the remote service is assured that the license really has been removed.
If you want to "return" content that you bought or you want to transfer content to another machine, this allows you to do that.
In addition, this is standard DRM stuff. People might not like DRM (I don't particularly like DRM), but this particular patent allows a user to prove something useful in a DRM system, and in no way gives Microsoft control over your system.
Oh - and it has zip to do with TPMs and "Trusted Computing" in the sense of the Trusted Computing Group, other than the fact that TPMs might be used to make a DRM system which would use something like this. But you can make such a DRM system today, even without the hardware, just using Windows Media Player and the associated DRM.
This whole saga has been the final straw for me. I have kept a working install of Linux or BSD for several years, but always needed Windows for something. No more. I have rebuilt my system and shifted to Linux for all home computing. I have always wanted to switch, but never got around to solving each of the minor speed bumps that came along. It was just easier to boot Windows and do what I needed to do. When I wanted to play, I would boot Linux and tinker away. No more. I am completely switched and have remained Windows free for a month. Learning to use Linux and the accompanying applications takes time, not because it is hard, because it is different.
Thank you, Microsoft. You have scared me with the latest blatant attempt to derail open source by dividing the community. The increased presence of DRM in Windows gives me chills, I don't think I can control my own data when you keep the keys to my computer. I don't call Chevrolet for permission to drive to work, I'll be damned if I need your permission to access my own data. Here is the summary, you are fired! Don't worry about pirate protection, trust me, I won't bother. I think I can find the energy (and community support) to solve my remaining migration issues.
To quote a co-worker, "technical solutions to non technical problems will only lead to insanity."
Malware, stolen laptops and confidential information being leaked are not technical problems. They're social problems. Stop keeping confidential information in places where it can be leaked (i.e. on employees' laptops) and these problems go away. A technical solution is not called for.
There is no such thing as "Trusted Computing". There are only degrees of untrusted computing.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
"Just because Richard Stallman is paranoid doesn't mean Microsoft's not out to get you."
When it comes to Microsoft - I know I'm being paranoid, the question is, Am I being paranoid enough?
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
I wonder if Microsoft is aware that they are driving away the technically savvy?
Er. Yes, of course they are. But they're also trying to criminalize us, so not to worry.
Their ideal situation is all technically savvy people who don't work for microsoft are incarcerated well away from accessible computers.
I already have safeguards to protect my data from theft. It's called "running Linux" and "encryption".
And on a side note, this plus a few related recent stories about Microsoft are making me uncomfortable in a new way; Microsoft doing the job that should be done by law enforcement appointed by an elected government. Who here hasn't considered that Microsoft could simply hire it's own army and take over? Think they can't afford it? Think they haven't considered it? Think the citizens would even notice? That's the next step in a corporatocracy (which the United States currently is), is to simply replace the government with a corporation and be done with it.
Yeah, because enterprise customers should have no say in how their data is handled in their organization. It should all be free as in stolen beer, because if God wanted it anyother way he would have magiced locks for electrons.
Don't be a dipshit. If these are unacceptable for the home user (they're not acceptable to me) the technologies will fail in that market place and take the companies that back them (RIAA MPAA members) out behind the woodshed. But that doesn't mean they still don't have or won't find a place. Microsoft is supplying an option (likely flawed) for both end-users and people who make content to make their bread. This is inherently good. This is choice. The wise will prosper and the foolish suffer from it.
er. What is "blue eyed idiot" supposed to mean? I mean, I know what it naively means, but you seem to be using "blue eyed" as some sort of qualification for a particular kind of idiot.
As I (and millions of others of my racial background) have blue eyes, I just want to know, is this just some racist thing like "black skinned idiot" or what?
Whoa, dude, chill out! The guy pointed out that the parent comment was apparently copied from somewhere else without attribution. How does that make him an enemy of liberty who needs to study American history?
>>I think that, like many things, the reasons behind these ideas are well intentioned, but can be used for evil if not policed.
I don't mean to pile on, but we're talking about Microsoft's WGA and other "friendly" technologies here. What part of it do you think is "well-intentioned"?
And as far as "..can be used for evil if not policed." Just who do you think is doing the policing? As my parent put so aptly put it, using technical jargon, this is a "load of crap".
You are welcome on my lawn.
Point of order: that is false. Surveys have shown that users were willing to give out things that they claimed were their passwords for a piece of chocolate.
Since my laptop was stolen about five months ago I can appreciate the qualities of a system which could be used to at least cripple hardware which was stolen or otherwise suspect.
And what makes you think MSFT would actually do that? How many stolen iPods do you think are out there? Apple can identify them uniquely but they won't shut them off or trace them as long as the new owners keep buying music. That's a little cynical, I'm sure that's not the only reason. But turning off hardware is a pretty aggressive move, especially if it's not your hardware. Bad juju, mon.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
But what with the system you buy direct from the manufacturer like dell will only run m$ windows and apps from the dell store?
Yes, that is what the new enterprise encryption is for. They (MS) say you can encrypt email to be self destructing as well as put encryption on documents with many of the restrictions in the patent. So Yes, there is a valid reason and I'm sure plenty of businesses that would love this tech.. then documents could not only be encrypted on disk but critical ones could self destruct if the laptop wasn't connected within a timeframe to the authenticating domain... pretty cool stuff. MS has their own reasons for course.. how many leaked emails or docs get to the press? think Halloween Documents... never again!!! But it also has purpose for DRM... once you create the tech doesn't mean it's not in WMP11 also! what better way to test it out... imagine being able to disable content based on IP... take your laptop overseas and it could "know" from the IP address at the airport wireless your in an invalid region and disable your movies until you return to "safer" shores.... that's REALLY scary.. but it's what they're selling on the enterprise side...
Perhaps a little-known law called the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 (18 USC 1030), reasonable or not, defines malware as illegal.
Granted, the enforcability of this law, just like any U.S. law, tends to stop at the border, so no a Romanian script-kiddie isn't going to be dragged into a California courtroom, and he won't be dragged into any Romanian courtroom either unless writing malware's a crime in Romania as well.
It must be Windows. It needs half a gig of RAM and a hardware-accelerated graphics card just to run Solitaire.
Tell the server that you're no longer authorized so you can move your license, then hit the rewind button in VMWare =)
Melissa
"Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
Google has Google DRM. Please don't paint them as saints. They're the same as any other company out there that has any kind of copyrighted media to manage: hopelessly stuck on the belief that DRM is worth something, when the only people it screws are paying, technically incompetent customers.
Further, let companies try to DRM things. Just let them keep doing it. Stop worrying about making them quit it. Worry about helping the EFF and other organizations draft laws to repeal the force of law put behind DRM systems. The law already enforces copyright, so there's no need for laws enforcing DRM. Worry about cracking DRM systems. If you don't believe in it, destroy it. That's called civil disobedience, and it's not your right. It's your responsibility.
You accept that Microsoft provides to you the software covered by this license, as is, including with
all the faults, errors, omissions, bugs and flaws.
but not limited to, any (if any) implied warranties, duties or conditions of merchantability, of
fitness for a particular purpose, of reliability or availability, of accuracy or completeness of
responses, of results, of workmanlike effort, of lack of viruses, and of lack of negligence, all with
regard to the Product, and the provision of or failure to provide support or other services,
information, software, and related content through the Product or otherwise arising out of the use
of the Product.
Damn! Take the stick of your butt and replace it with a sense of irony! It is ironic that the guy is all pro-freedom and at the same time is abusing that freedom and thus making a case for the anti-freedom crowd. Mindless zealotry isn't that great of an advocacy tactic, especially when you turn it on the people who support you.
Sorry, but I happen to think that's crap. Much like the government, whenever a controversial law/license is proposed, and its supporters, when confronted with an egregious abuse it would permit, use a phrase along the lines of 'Perhaps in theory, but the law would never be applied in that way' - they're LYING. They intend to use the law that way as early and as often as possible.
If you're going to quote another user's post verbatim, it's generally considered polite to include attribution.
Encryption was moved from the Munitions list to the Commerce list in 1996 "because of the increasingly widespread use of encryption products for the legitimate protection of the privacy of data and communications in nonmilitary contexts"
. htm
"November 15, 1996: Encryption products that presently are or would be designated in Category XIII of the United States Munitions List and regulated by the Department of State pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778 et seq.) shall be transferred to the Commerce Control List,"
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo_crypt_9611_memo
Oh man, you were doing great right up until this part.
You really need to study American history again if you don't get this @#$% by now. Our founding fathers understood this stuff, and that's why "checks and balances" are a part of our government
Then you finish up with this:
(2000-2006 excepted).
You seriously think that getting around checks and balances is a new occurrence in the last six years? Let me say that you need to go back and study your American history.
Let me refresh your memory on a few things:
There are dozens of other examples in just the last fifty years, including the secret overflights of Soviet territory by US reconnaissance aircraft, CIA testing of drugs (LSD, IIRC) on members of the populations of several metropolitan areas.
It looks like what is needed is a Constitutional garentee that protects us from these technology abuses. First off, when a consumer buy a license to something that license must be trasferable as the consumer see fit, as long as the transfer does not cost (not the same as not making additional money, as they would have you believe) the content provider any money.
Example: you have the lo-def Start Wars DVD but you want the latest Star Wars HD DVD (physical or downloaded from provider) you must pay. After you pay, you must be allowed to, at your own expense convert, retransmit or duplicate said content to any device proven to be yours, with out exception. You must not be allowed to transfer to a device that is not yours with out the content creator/owners permission. It is their content if it copyrighted, but it is YOUR license - this is what everybobdy MUST understand if there is going to be any viable solution. Both sides must be protected, both sides must give a little.
It is unfair to consumers when they must continue to pay for content that they have already purchaed when there is NO cost to the original provider when they simply want to make the best use of the technology they posess, and this is only possible because of the absolute monopoly that a content provider has- they are THE only one that has the content. There is NO choice of where to get Star Wars from. The monopoly they have makes the whole Microsoft thing look silly, but no one says a word.
Although to be fair to content providers, any license that cannot be enforced in such a system must be exempt- that is, your old Star Wars DVD cannot be converted to a HI-DEF version.
The second part of the amendment is really just the First Amendment re-worded- just replace the words Congress, Government, State with Corporate Entity or Special Interest Group. These people cannot be allowed to dictate policy anymore.
The third part of the Amendment is that this sort of technology must not be used in a manner that has no direct consumer/end user benifit - that mean no approved spyware and no lock-in/out. The extent of DRM and Trusted Computing should be to provide a reasonable framework to allow fair business- for both proprietary and free solutions.
We need to make this a 2008 political hot button issue people. We cannot allow matters like this to be decided by people who can only relate the Internet to plumbing to decide who, how, when, where and why we can use technology - it is bad for business, it is bad for society, it is bad any way you look at it.
What a coincidence.....
I bet there's a number of other people that have had the same dream. I just wish there was a way to make it stop. Because I keep having it over and over again. Each time a little further along then the last.
Too bad, because it (your fellow citizen's freedom) will be sold for the right price.
Today's lesson: Freedom is for sale for about $2 less than the going price.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
While that may be, it was (until Jan 2000) still illegal to import or export strong encryption software. I'm not sure where it stands now. Anyone?
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
the kind that sells their service to load your goods into their truck and transport them to your new home, then ransoms your personal possessions for additional fees.
Bernard Swiss
I hope Microsoft locks Vista down tighter than a bedbugs arsehole with lots of user restrictions, DRM, **AA protections and many other inconveniences. That should send another 5-10% of their users over to the FOSS community.
That's the same basis most Americans (who do) vote, base their vote on...
I don't get it. Why is there a moderation called "Funny", but no moderation called "Sad"?
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
I think that you're thinking of Reservoir Dogs, not Pulp Fiction.
It took me a while to get it, but it's the diner scene at the finish.
There is nothing actually wrong with Microsoft producing the tools. What is wrong is for Microsoft to use the tools. They should be producing the tools for use by law enforcement. Other companies and industries design and make tools for law enforcement to use, and do not use them themselves to enforce the law. So why should Microsoft not do the same rather than acting as vigilantes and taking the law into their own hands?
This is worthless; moving licenses between machines is only any use in a perfect world. A world where you get twenty four hours notice before lighting fries your computer. In the real world the license (and the rest of the data) has to be recovered from a backup tape or a flash drive.
The point is that you give people power, and they will abuse it to the degree they are permitted
What is the TCM? Control. The Trusted Computing Module is a computer-generated cryptographic cage, built to keep us under control in order to change a human being into this...
[holds up eyeballs]
I completely agree with the parent. I am that old too - but it took some time. Actually I remained a cluelessly happy MS user until having to compile and teach a course on various IT issues including its history (was back in 2000). Digging into the books and websites for course materials, I unearthed so much stinky stuff about a certain corporation and their typical practices that it made me sick. Thankfully, in those days Stardivision released their StarOffice 5.1 and 5.2 which along with Mandrake (6.1?) gave me a mostly working platform for academic office needs. Since then it has been Linux for me.
But the real problem is IMHO still the champignon syndrome (kept in dark, fed on shit) of normal, ordinary people (not to say this is unique to IT - happens elsewhere too). As long as the typical Joe/Jane Sixpack does not care, things like this will go on. This is universal - people who are well-educated and smart otherwise are equally clueless in this matter (e.g. it has been a big news for many of them that you should not use your XP without password and in admin mode).
Quoting a popular movie: blue or red pill?
the difference between win98-xp and Vista and beyond is that Vista and beyond will be regulated via mandatory upgrades which will hold your existing content hostage against ongoing upgrades to the curent MS windows while gradually breaking binary compatibility with older MS programs.
Cheers,
PY
Theoretically it would be possible for a large group of consumers to start building their own (rogue?) internet. With the availability of wireless products (e.g. WiFi), it has become possible to build a (mesh) network without having to dig cables into the ground.
:)
;)
But creating anything that comes close to the current size of the internet with just WiFi nodes is difficult to say the least, how to cross the Atlantic for example?
Perhaps we would need to start an Open Source Satellite program...
Let me just say that there are enough skilled people on this planet who might be able to come up with some sort of an alternative option.
(but they need the internet to effectively work together, gheh)
Hello from Seattle!
Do not trust this signature.
I realise that Microsoft is far from trustworthy, but the problem of computer security needs to be solved. There needs to be an option like trusted computing for those who can't afford major computer problems.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Quite apart from the "revoking license" parts, is there really anything to this than a standard application of challenge-response, which if not already patented at least has gazillions of prior arts?
-LArs
eben moglen already said it: the world has changed from a place where behaviour was governed by law to a place where behaviour is governed by switches. earlier it was possible to commit a crime, and the law would deal with you. now, your rights determine what you can do, and law becomes less important. the question is, who decides what rights you have?
WTF! Why can't I mod TFA down as troll!?
What's with the rms bashing? THis guy realizes he is right, and was right way before he saw it coming and instead of apologizingg he dissmised this with a condecending --but still insulting-- joke?
Whats so wrong about ethics?
What you are advocating is the digital equivalent of jailing the user "for his own protection." This is not appropriate, no matter what your intentions are! Don't you see that?
The only reasonable method of security is to give the user the lock and the key, and let him use them as he sees fit. Anything else cannot ever serve the user's best interests, and anyone who claims otherwise is very likely a totalitarian fascist (in an empirical, rather than derogatory, sense).
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
So you think implementing Orwell's Ministry of Truth is a good thing?!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Let me make this perfectly clear to you: you DON'T NEED Treacherous Computing to do this! Every single thing you, as a user, could possibly want to do to protect your data is possible -- and easy, even -- with normal encryption, such as PGP.
There is exactly one and only one thing that Treacherous Computing allows that other technologies do not: the ability to withhold your information from you. Does that sound like something you need or want? It doesn't to me!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
A "normal and reasonable part" of an inherently unreasonable system? I'd say that makes it unreasonable itself!
Well, except that Treacherous Computing is the mechanism to authenticate the machine and make the whole system "work," that is...
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
You incorrectly assume that I have not done the things you suggest, I have and was called a zealot for that as well.
We both know that Microsoft has a long and glorious history of absolutely refusing to listen to reason, even from their own user base. Though I didn't state it, my thought was that if Microsoft lost a goodly portion of their users to the FOSS community, perhaps they might come to the realization that OS usability/control for the customer and interoperability with other OS's are good and DRM plus other restrictions hurt everyone. Microsoft's stubbornness on these issues is mindbogglingly stupid and I don't expect them to change strategy any time soon.
I have had two or more Debian machines on my home LAN coexisting with my wife's Windows machine for over nine years and the only problems I ever had were with Microsoft changing SMB in an attempt to thwart Samba. I have never been a Windows user, used Mac's for about fifteen years prior to Deb, but I will say that, with careful administration, XP has played nicely on our LAN and has been relatively trouble free. I just wish MS were honest in their talk of interoperability.
Of course, those "countermeasures" certainly haven't made the industry any less fucked up! I don't know about you, but I'd rather prevent these assholes from trying to enslave me in the first place. Talking about "countermeasures" is counterproductive.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
...but it's not. It's deliberate, calculated, evil terminology designed to mislead the computer using masses into giving up their rights. It's doublespeak, and it's the best example of it I've seen in the last decade (and that includes things like "homeland security"). It's a damn shame that not enough people have read 1984 (or at least The Right to Read ) in order to recognize it as such and have society reject it wholesale!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Well, your original assertion that "it is illegal for Americans to write strong encryption software (it is considered a munition)" was proven flat wrong. As for the exports, see here.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Naturally, you were modded offtopic while the gp poster (who is also OT) is still at +5.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Rather an emotive, sweeping generalisation there, comrade. ;)
WTF? Most typical gamers have little tech savvy. The programmers, scientific users, and Computer Science professionals would be the more savvy audience.
... and then they built the supercollider.
Time to ditch x86 and go open hardware with OpenSPARC. Throw in a leapfrogging of inet2 with a user-created
net of some sort, and the treacherous computing group (including pocket legislators) can go to hell.
With all of the lock down that they have?
*You can only use our phones
*You must pay for a data plan to the get discount on that phone
*You can only use apps that you buy at our store
The cell phone has competition and a high churn rate. People abandon the hardware to go to another carrier. Microsoft is at risk of the same thing. Abandonment of the platform to churn to the competition such as Apple.
There best hope is the platform will not be abandoned entirely but used alongside other services. This would be like using my cell phone for phone calls only and using my PC for internet, games, music, IM, and email instead of the cell plan. The first thing I did on my cell plan was to have internet blocked so the kids could not download any pay per item junk such as ringtones and IM. This has kept the extras billing under control.
The truth shall set you free!
You mean your password isn't really "GiveMeTheChocolate"?!?
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Used to be you could get Windows and keep it reasonably safe from viruses/cracking/licence-revocation by not connecting to the internet. That option will no longer exist as of Vista.
The term dead man's switch originated in the train industry. The idea is that a switch has to be kept contuously pressed for the train to continue operating. If the engineer suffers a stroke or heart attack, he can't keep the switch pressed, releasing the switch triggers a circuit that causes the train's brakes to be applied, bringing it to a halt. A helluva lot safer than the alternative.
In software, it has a more sinister meaning. Your software must contact the mothership, be inspected by it, and receive authorization to continue operating. If it can't cantact the mothership, it stops functioning. Go to http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/useterms/ and select
Product Name: Windows Vista
Version: Home Basic
Language: English
and download the PDF that it points to. On Page 2 of that pdf, paragraph 4 talks about mandatory activation. If it was a one-shot deal, I wouldn't have a problem. ***BUT*** paragraph 5 on that same page states (and I quote)
5. VALIDATION.
a. The software will from time to time validate the software, update or require download of the validation feature of the software. Validation verifies that the software has been activated and is properly licensed. [...deletia...]
b. During a validation check, the software will send information about the software and the device to Microsoft. This information includes the version and product key of the software, and the Internet protocol address of the device. Microsoft does not use the information to identify or contact you. By using the software, you consent to the transmission of this information. [...deletia...]
c. If, after a validation check, the software is found not to be properly licensed, the functionality of the software may be affected. For example, you may
* need to reactivate the software, or
* receive reminders to obtain a properly licensed copy of the software,
or you may not be able to
* use or continue to use some of the features of the software
The sections I bolded basically state...
1) Vista may, from time to time, decide that it wants to call the mothership and download/install/run additional software
2) By using Vista, you agree to item 1)
3) If the validation doesn't work, e.g. no internet connection to the mothership, Vista may partially or completely stop working.
Fills me with confidence... NOT!
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
>>we've got another 20 years of releasing the falsely convicted based on DNA evidence (too late for the wrongly executed)
If you think all the people released were actually innocent, you should probably research it a bit more. A lot of times people are released simply because no matching DNA samples were found. This doesn't (in the slightest) mean they didn't actually do it. The "set em free if we don't have a matching sample" movement is based on communist principles of trying to undermine the judicial system, and is turning loose convicted murderers and rapists on the streets.
I like sticking it to the man as much as anyone, but I'm not insane. The current "turn 'em loose" program IS insane.
Ok, I gonna give some specs, so we can know what are we talking about:
A TPM is a microcontroller that can do RSA and some hashing functions (SHA1).
Its installed on most new notebooks, like all the Apple Macbooks. My HP Laptop has one, the Infineon SLB 9635. It has all kind of tampering protections, like an active random number signal shielding, etc. Specs are Here .
It is not a Crypto accelerator. Typically a TPM chip is *slower* than a equivalent cipher operation realized on the CPU.
Linux has drivers for It. Interestingly, my chip, the SLB9635, is flasheable...
All TPM 1.2 Microcontollers have a unique internal RSA 2048 bit private key, (This is the key being hidden to the user) that inserts on the trust chain, whose root is MS, (Not sure about this).
You can tamper with it, flash it, etc. If the chip detect some anomaly, it wont stop working, but only flag it with one bit.
One of many things that can be done with it, is to hash all the software installed and sign it with the private key. Then some vendor can check if you have approved software with valid licenses.
Sure you can put linux and forget about it, but, like the number of the beast, soon you gonna need one to buy and see things.
Alfred
These are the people that have less reason to use Windows, though. In addition to gaming, I am also a coder but I use Windows only because I'm not really up to fighting with the Linux gaming experience. If all I did was code, then I'd see no reason at all to use Windows and I'd switch in a heartbeat.
However, I will not tolerate Vista.
Also, saying that most gamers use Windows (whether they are technical or not) is very different from saying that gamers are mostly technically savvy. Most gamers are just consumers. Sure, there are some gamers who are also technically savvy, but it's not the factor that defines them.
... and then they built the supercollider.
there are enough skilled people on this planet who might be able to come up with some sort of an alternative option.
There are. No question about it.
However they pale in comparison to the institutions driving the need for a computer you don't control. The DMCA is one example of their efforts. Another is the RIAA filesharing media perp walk.
Finally, even *if* a group started something, maybe like an anonymous Internets v 3.0, the party line is used by the elite: "Only criminals/terrests would use an anonymous Internet 3.0 for their evil deeds." And then dredge up a couple of the worst abusers and make them do the media perp walk.
If developers -still- insist on pursuing the project, a swift character assassination of a couple of the top devs by dragging them through the local legal system is all that is required. Not the first choice, but a reliable tool to maintain control.
It was fun while it lasted.
Of course, this was all in a dream I had last night and in no way reflects reality.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
The key word there is profitable. If I'm not looking to charge for projects I create in my free time, then it really doesn't matter, does it? Professionally, I'll continue to use whatever OS the person signing my check decides to put on my desk, but at home the choice is not profit motivated, it is purely gaming motivated. My unwillingness to switch to Vista is going to impact my gaming no matter what I do...
Most gamers are just consumers.You must be young. In the computing era I grew up in, an interest in video games is what drew you into computing in the first place. That's not to say you are right or wrong, but we obviously have a very different perspective on things because of it. Most of the folks I know who are capable of gaming on a PC are technically savvy, but maybe that has more to do with the people I tend to know. *shrug*
I don't see what the problem is and what everybody is bitching about? The only reason you're all upset must be because you use something from M$?..and since all you idiots keep putting money into Bill Gayes pockets, you deserve nothing less. Did you stop buying computers that come with windows? Demand M$-free computers from you local dealer (and I don't mean the guy selling you pot)? Demand that they stop using M$ crap at work? My guess is that none of you probably has, and now you can lie sleepless in the bed you have help Bill Gayes make for you.
//TiredS
I for one don't even buy a cell phone if I suspect it can contain some trace of M$ crap.
Depends on what you call "young." I grew up playing Space Invaders and Pac Man at the arcades, when there were very few decent gaming options for home computers (and hardly anybody had a home computer, anyway). This doesn't change the fact that most gamers today are consumers. My generation is only a miniscule proportion of the market, and many of us have retired from gaming. Heck, most games are aimed at the young - and the ethos is totally different today. We used to program our own games. How many gamers do that today, versus the number who just consume games as a product?
Today, there's no real correlation between gaming and geekiness. Games are "cool," and a mass-consumer product.
... and then they built the supercollider.