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
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
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?
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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?
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.