Slashdot Mirror
Doctorow on the War on General Purpose Computing
Cory Doctorow has posted the content of his talk delivered at Google this month on what he calls the coming civil war over general purpose computing. He neatly crystallizes the problem with certain types of (widely called-for) regulation of devices and the software they run — and they all run software. The ability to stop a general purpose computer from doing nearly anything (running code without permission from the mothership, or requiring an authorities-only engine kill switch, or preventing a car from speeding away), he says boils down to a demand: "Make me a general-purpose computer that runs all programs except for one program that freaks me out."
"But there's a problem. We don't know how to make a computer that can run all the programs we can compile except for whichever one pisses off a regulator, or disrupts a business model, or abets a criminal. The closest approximation we have for such a device is a computer with spyware on it— a computer that, if you do the wrong thing, can intercede and say, 'I can't let you do that, Dave.'"
Just extend RFC 3514 to add an "Evil Bit" to all executables. If that bit is set, the program won't run.
Problem Solved.
... have long taken advantage of public disinterest, ignorance and general stupidity. The trend will continue. One only has to look at the clusterfuck that is copyright and patents. It's too bad we can't go back and time and kill it. It's become a monster. We alright have outright criminal laws that limit the rights of the public at large to own software. The game industry has become more and more corrupt and criminal as time has gone on and its going to get worse.
The worst thing about it is the millions of mouthbreathing morons who just eat it right up. Diablo 3 had 6Million+ morons buy it. There are days I just want to chuck an asteroid at earth and be dumb with the millions of dumb shits who feed this in the first place.
I'm a woman who uses a PC and a Christian.
So, I now have to deal with a war on PCs, a Republican War on Women, and then there's the War on Christianity.
What is a girl to do!?
The article in full is a very interesting argument for why we will all regret our eagerness to embrace the "walled garden".
Has everyone forgotten the days when your computer actually belonged to you? The days before computing was more than just shopping?
Do you own your PS3 or your Xbox 360?
How did we reach a point where we will so willingly turn over our individual agency to Apple, Microsoft, Sony? Or AT&T and Comcast? Who here believes that those companies can be trusted to look out for our best interests?
You are welcome on my lawn.
Let's see, where have we heard all of this before, on Slashdot, pointed out by average commenters? Oh yeah:
When TPM was introduced in 2006.
When Apple started doing code signing in 2008 on OS X.
Oh, and I forgot driver and application signing in Windows. When did that start?
Please help metamoderate.
Are we willing to give up more control to "Authorities" and who exactly should these authorities be. Should those with authority be able to execute such a kill switch without notice or should users/citizens have notice? Thinking into the future, if i decided to go to a soft drink vending machine that is "smart" and i choose to purchase a sugar laden drink but my bmi is over a certain number should these authorities dispense a diet soft drink instead. I don't believe we are quite in a big brother society (but approaching it) IMHO users should have the option to disable the "dummy switch" on their devices. For example: if a user has(or feels they have) the technical savvy to be able to take care of their computer or device they should be able to retain responsibility for their devices/computers without being required to give it up to an "authority". Looking to a future where if you are 1 second late on your utility payment...oops you don't have that utility any more..
Chief Thinker www.devotedskeptic.com
Its almost as though freedom requires responsibility or something.
how long be for a Rosa Parks or concentration camp like thing comes up.
Banning apps based on connect is pushing 1st amendment issues.
Also there maybe anti trust issues as well now I don't think dell and say MS will be able to get away with selling systems that can't boot Linux or some other OS lets say apple open mac os x for more hardware and MS comes in and try to lock that out.
11 of 9 comments loaded
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Quite possibly they won't. But the case will drag through the courts for a decade, and eventually Microsoft would face a fine of a few hundred million dollars. I'm sure they'd be willing to pay that much, if doing so allowed them to destroy linux on the desktop almost entirely. We've been through this before with their bundling decisions: A seemingly endless legal battle, and while Microsoft eventually lost the benefits they gained from their anticompetative actions arguably outweighed even the record-setting fine.
Preventing the sharing, that is preventing all collaboration, is effectively preventing the whole process. For one thing, fabbing a CPU is an expensive process. It only becomes practical on a large scale.
Here is car/microwave analogy.. and forgive my crassness.
A) Stupid or indifferent people want a computer (car) that just works and they don't have to/nor want to fuck with the innards. They want the computer to be microwave simple. 1) Put food in microwave. 2) Press the "30 sec" button repeatedly until they get the cook time to time they want.* That is it. (Or for the car: key, ignition, go. It came from the factory with everything needed and how it came from the factory is how it will stay)
B) Slashdot "power users" car analogy is that of the muscle cars of the 1960s in the united states. They want to redo the suspension, the transmission. the engine, the carb(s), the differential, get it from the factory with aluminum instead of steel for the body, and have no federal E.P.A. emissions regulations.. straight pipes off the headers. They will get their hands greasy and it will not bother them.
Economically, Apple and Microsoft and all the other players know there is greater market of people for A than B.
Now, I do like the idea of a walled garden to protect the idiots from themselves without telling them "No" outright. (Just don't run as admin/root and you're 90% there, but most ISV can't or won't write code that works as non-root) I just don't want the walled garden applied to me. I don't need their excuse of "give me your freedom so I can keep you safe". I know how to fix my own car.
* About the 30 seconds and microwave. for some it seems "time cook" + "5" + "0" +"0" + "start" is too complex.
AFAIK nobody is preventing you from making your own computer that will run any program you want. Nobody is preventing you from designing your own microprocessors and any other component for which you can do computation. Nobody is preventing you from writing the software to do whatever computation you want.
Actually, it's already a criminal offence to run some programs (DRM crackers etc.). I say we'll see the first attempt to seriously enforce laws against running certain kinds of offline software (as opposed to online software like filesharing tools) by 2020.
If you've got the money for it. This isn't about just desktop PCs. It's about more embedded systems as well. The example of self-driving cars was used several times. Could you build a new control computer for a car, including reverse-engineering all the propritary (and likely encrypted) protocols used to communicate between the driving computer and the control chips in the engine, breaks, steering motors and sensors?
The OnStar system is one of many deal breakers that would prevent me from buying a GM product; that along with a zillion horror stories. Seeing that many people feel the same way all this does is open up an easy way for competitors to compete. They just won't put that feature in. Their advertising becomes easy, "Look we didn't screw up your purchase."
The only companies that will put these sort of features in are usually defending some other business model. So Apple will put in measures to defend iTunes. Google will put in measures to defend their store, and it looks like Microsoft is thinking about measures to defend either their OS or their store.
But does anyone really think that the server manufacturers are going to make servers that make it hard to install Linux? Also Microsoft is becoming weaker and weaker. They certainly have some weight to throw around but even if they bully a few desktop manufacturers into forcing some protection onto their systems no doubt they will just release a "server only" motherboard that doesn't have any protection and is a complete copy of the desktop except something like the BIOS will boot up and say "Server BIOS". Not to mention that other MB manufacturers will just tell MS to go pound sand.
Also does anyone think that say the Raspberry Pi will give a hoot as to what MS has to say?
The real war on General purpose computing is the trend people using smart phones and tablets. These devices do almost everything the average user needs. It is the more power user types who need what is becoming the specialty hardware of a desktop that they can control. As a programmer I need to be able to install the OpenCV libraries and whatnot but my mother wants the fewest clicks to get to her mail.
Also keep in mind that the seemingly locked down iPhone has done as well as it has due to the fact that it is far less locked down than the phones that proceeded it including the blackberry. Often you would buy a phone from Telus or Sprint only to find that they had crippled some features such as custom ring tones so as to sell you ring tones. When Apple introduced the iPhone they didn't let the Telcos crap up their phones. Can you imagine what the Telcos would have done to the iPhones if they could. All kinds of custom backgrounds, remove the app store and replace it with one of their own, make it so you can't upload your own music, can't surf via WiFi. Again these companies would have crippled the iPhone to protect their other business model.
Again as a programmer if Apple were to lock down the next version of the OS, I would not upgrade and then begin exploring other options. As it stands my next phone will almost certainly be something like an Openmoko.
PS The business model that GM seems to be defending is the fact that the government is their primary lifeline. They know who is buttering their bread and it certainly isn't the consumer.
The author has obviously never tried to get an unsigned device driver running under Windows 7.
Having to switch the OS into "test mode" and jumping through other hoops is a real pain.
It works if the hardware isn't commodity. You could build an emulator for a self-driving car computer, or an artificial limb controller. But without the actual car or limb mechanics, it isn't going to do you a lot of good.
I can still go to Newegg.com and order a bunch of commodity parts and assemble a general purpose computer, install a completely FLOSS operating system and all the software I want on it. I can load it up with quad GPUs for password cracking, terabytes of storage for all my pirated media and warez, run TOR and Truecrypt, and all sorts of other "evil" features. If there's a war on general purpose computing it's clear which side is winning.
As it stands now, an individual has never had more access to computing power, bandwidth, and data than they do now. Yes, there are locked down boxes you can buy if you're not interested in all that, but individual components are still being sold. There's a thriving market for computer hardware that isn't going to disappear any time soon, and neither will the free software made to run on such hardware. As little as $35 (or whatever the Raspberry Pi costs) gets you a "general purpose computer", albeit a very simple and underpowered one.
Walled gardens can peacefully co-exist without threatening general purpose computing.
And as we've seen from every iOS device, even walled gardens don't keep people locked in if they are determined to leave. If you make compelling hardware people will always find ways to use it how they wish. I can easily take root control over my iPhone if I wanted to. Same is true for Android devices.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
I've got karma to burn, so here goes.
As I get older I want to tinker with my machines less and I want them to just work more. That means that my home setup has gone from a half dozen servers all running a variety of Windows and Linux/BSD operating systems to one simple desktop with ESXi. All the VMs are backed up automatically, they're upgraded automatically (to stable versions -- I don't care about bleeding edge anymore), and they basically don't need to be touched for months and months and months. It means my desktop computer has gone from multibooting various flavours of Linux with Wine to just... Windows 7.
Why?
I just want things to work.
I don't want to spend hours trying to get Wine to run World of Warcraft better, I just buy a new video card and be done with it. I use an iPhone because its working is binary; either it works perfectly, more or less easily, or it doesn't work at all and I'm not tempted by some half-broken package that if I tinker with it enough will be mostly stable (this version). It just works or it doesn't, and there's nothing an iPhone can't do that I care enough to go Android. Who really care if you can't telnet to your phone? Really?
Windows 7 just works. My iPhone just works. That's what I want my machines to do.
After all, if you work for your machines, who owns who?
Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
People are buying phones. They aren't buying computers.
So your anti-geek screed is pretty meaningless.
The fact that it is a computer pretending to be a phone is no more meaningful than a 68030 being embedded in your microwave.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Except in this case it's "They told me not to let you do that, Dave."
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
In fact, most programmers have an iPhone or an Android and accept the fact that they don't and don't need to completely control that device. It doesn't limit what they can do on OTHER devices that they own.
People without the technical savvy to manage a general purpose computer without support and restrictions don't NEED a general purpose computer without support and restrictions. They'll always be the bulk of the market.
A car with a computer in it that prevents the car from hitting another car also prevents you from deliberately ramming other cars. We use our brains to make a judgement that it is worth it on balance. And no, we can't make a car that never ever crashes, but we can take legitimate steps to reduce crashes significantly, and in fact it is immoral to do any other thing.
The main thing people want from a computer is also not to crash. Not just literal crashes where the kernel panics, but also getting a virus that takes the machine down, or having data stolen, or being added to a botnet, or even just doing something that requires the user to stop their own work and put on an I-T hat and do some maintenance. We have to do everything we can to reduce those crashes, because again, it is immoral not to. If a computer wastes 30 minutes of a user's time per week, that is more than one day of their life per year your lousy computing product is stealing from that user. And 30 minutes per week is low.
Once again, Doctorow describes a Nerd Utopia where the other 90% of humanity die in car crashes and spend a day or more out of every year working around unproductive computer behavior. All to satisfy Nerd Dogma. The 90% is not interested. They did not even buy PC's — nerds did, business replaced their typewriters with them, and then sales topped out at 350 million per year, making up an installed base of about 1 billion PC's at any one time. The regular person does not want a general purpose computer that can configure. They want iPods: an easy-to-use device that has 100 specific features that never stop working, does specific tasks in a transparent manner, and yet provides the benefits of computing, and gets better via software updates.
iPad is not a general purpose computer — it only does about 1 million things. However, the regular consumer, armed with a general purpose computer can typically accomplish only a handful of things, and all of those are well within the 1 million things iPad does. That is why Nerds say iPad does less than a PC and everyone else says iPad does more.
A general purpose computer is like a workshop where you can go in and with a little work, make any tool. To some people that is Nirvana — to most, it is a grim jail cell. An iPad is a Swiss Army knife with 1 million tools inside, all ready to use. Nerds have to understand, for most people that is not just enough tools do they don't need a general purpose computer, they are also thankful that iPad has saved them from PC's. And there are plenty of True Nerds who find an iPad on the coffee table is Just Fine Thank-You. The monster workstation is still there in the Nerd Cave for your bash scripts.
To me, I don't think you have to do anything more on this issue but compare the first 5 years of Windows XP malware (seemingly infinite — at one point XP malware was the majority of Internet traffic) to the first 5 years of iOS native malware (zero.) END OF DEBATE. The iOS devices were online most of the time via various wireless networks and had no I-T managing them. They went from 16 native apps to 600,000. iOS should be awash in native malware but it has zero and that is the MINIMUM acceptable behavior for a consumer computer. An iPad has to be as reliable as paper.
And BTW — the same company that makes these blasphemous consumer computers that don't crash, also runs 4 giant developer programs (Mac, iOS, Safari, iTunes,) one of the most successful open source projects ever (WebKit,) and their instructions for how to make iTunes Extras/LP include bash commands. There is another side to the coin. They are serving the consumer computing user with iOS which does exactly what they want and serving developers and creatives with the Mac, which can do anything. To Buddhists, Mac OS and iOS are yin and yang, it is obvious. You can't make one thing for everybody. Doctorow is assuming that there will be only one kind of computer, either general purpose or not. No. Nobody is taking away your Unix. (Your Windows is
The Death of the PC has been predicted many times. I can believe that the modern surge of high-powered phones and tablets will displace laptops, but general purpose computing workstations? Engineers and scientists need lots of computrons in close communication with local high-speed storage and graphics hardware, so consequently there will always be a stream of low-to-mid-range server technology feeding into general purpose computing workstations, and so there will always be something for hobbyists. I suspect that any significant regulatory forcing in this ecology would affect scientific and engineering innovation to such a degree that any nation implementing draconian technology restrictions would soon find itself at the bottom of the heap. Those who allow free technology will define the next generation.
AFAIK nobody is preventing you from making your own computer that will run any program you want.
Except an army patent lawyers at every major computer and software company.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
Actually, it's already a criminal offence to run some programs (DRM crackers etc.).
I'm quite sure it is also a criminal offence in many jurisdictions to use a word processor that you purchased completely legally, to write the planning for a murder, a kidnapping, a bank robbery and so on.
People should at least know a couple of things. Some companies make computer hardware, and some companies make computer software. Software is something that works on computer hardware. It "can" be the case that the same companies who make the the hardware could also make the software, but this is NOT implied. In the past, we've had the pleasure that we could get our software from anyone because the PC design philosophy was "open".
The standard car analogy may suffice here. Some companies make cars. Some companies make gas. We don't buy "Ford" or "Chevrolet" gas do we? But the analogy gets deeper than this. The gas is seen as the OS in this analogy. We figure that if we put in a single type of gas, example "Ford" gas, we can still travel where we want. But the problem is that the "Ford" gas will only work on certain highways that the car maker will allow us to go down. Going forward in the computer industry, this exactly what is going on. If you use Apple computers and devices for example, you can only view the world through Apple's lens.
Do you know Torchwood? The very first episode was that the policewoman find Torchwood and gets in the headquarter. After she gets out Jack drugs her with an amnesia-pill and she runs home and write everything about Torchwood in her PC before she fells asleep and forgets everything. Before she almost felt asleep, Torchwood control her PC, the PC goes blank and everything she wrote is gone.
Free operating systems are a thread to every government, because such controls are impossible on a system that can be modified by the user. If you think it's scri-fiction: the TPM chips are around since at least 2006.
TPM is for "Trusted Platform Module". Of course the "Trusted" part is that a third party can trust your PC that you didn't change it in any undesired way.
http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
As much time as for a Rosa Parks or concentration camp like thing comes up!
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
And the pen of today is the PC, the evil empire fears the computer more than they fear guns, bombs or riots! "They" can crush any armed resistance like swatting a fly, "they" can subvert, obfuscate, terrorize, propagandize, manipulate the uninformed population with a constant stream of artfully crafted disinformation! Creating "Dire emergencies", "deadly boogimen", one "crisis" after another, thereby keeping the unsophisticated, sufficiently frightened and therefor easily controllable! The PC and the Internet allows the average person the ability to do an "end run" around all the lies, fabrication and propaganda being spewed by the government/corporate controlled media.
Without open source software and a free and public Internet, REAL, open, barefaced, undisguised, tyranny would already be here.
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
Special purpose computing is a maintenance intensive task and a management nightmare on any large scale.
It can be done. It's called "ROM" code. The computer device should ONLY run code from the address space reserved for ROM chips. Forget about the convenience of loading programs into RAM for execution. It leads to compromises.
Updates, patches and the latest awesomeness will just have to wait. And when [security] bugs are found, you just have to turn the thing off until someone can come along with a new ROM.
People don't want PITA systems like these. They are expensive, slow to deploy and all sorts of things like this. Before anyone says "CD/DVD ROM" please don't. Just don't.
Cheap and convenient invariably creates holes in security. It's just the way things are.
Let's not go overboard here. Microsoft is far from being saintly, but at the end of the day, Microsoft is largely indifferent to the existence of desktop Linux.
Microsoft views desktop Linux kind of like the tiny black ants you see walking behind the toilet after a week of thunderstorms. You could go get the ant spray and wipe them out, but then the second floor will smell like ant spray for the rest of the day, and it would mean having to go downstairs, hunt for the ant spray, go back upstairs, and use it.
More importantly, from Microsoft's world view, half the computers running Linux have a paid OEM license for some version of Windows anyway, and the other half are owned by people who, if you backed them up against a wall and forced them at gunpoint to give up using Linux, would buy a Mac. If Linux annoys Microsoft, it's only because Microsoft is forced to stop and find some way to accommodate it.
Server Linux? Yes, that annoys Microsoft. Android? Hell yeah, that annoys Microsoft even more. But Desktop Linux? Meh. Barely even on the radar. Now, if somebody fights back against Metro by porting KDE or Gnome to Windows 9... well, THEN Microsoft might get really annoyed and notice...
Banning apps based on connect is pushing 1st amendment issues.
It's not, because a private entity does it. The 1st only restricts how the government may censor you.
This, by the way, is also why both Rosa Parks and concentration camps are a complete non sequitur.
It is ridiculous to see 'journalists' wash away the importance and implication of the word "war" with this popular loose application b.s.
There is no army of organized funding and violence to include killing many humans and destruction of societies in these "wars". A war on women? A war on net neutrality? A war on gp computing? NO. Bad choice of words.
War is a big word.
A walled garden does not preclude allowing the ability to turn it off. {...} They could quite easily add an 'opt out' and let people install outside software at their own risk.
As an example of a non obligatory garden: the webOS system from Palm/HP/Gram, on Pre smartphones and the like.
Out of the box your Pre/TouchPad is the classical walled garden example:
It has a application manager, which lets you download or buy applications from a official repository of doctored applications.
But if you want to use your device in creative new way, you need just to type 1 command to switch the phone into developer mode. This command is well documented in the developer documentation. (The only draw back is that the first version was a little bit long to type, because it was a joke on the komani code. later versions introduced shorter alternatives). And then you can do pretty much anything you want with your smartphone/tablet. including installing any software of your liking. Or even installing an application manager which can also use homebrew and opensource repositories. (= Preware). And once you've finished sideloading external software, just switch back into regular mode and continue using your new homebrew apps or the new app manager.
There are no need for hacking, for exploits, for stolen keys, etc.
Using this is at the owners' own risk. But if you corrupted your smartphone/tablet by installing too much weird shit, there's the webOS doctor which is designed by Palm/HP/Gram, to revert back your hardware to factory default. (Though you lose anything you did which was not backed up on the cloud. You lose your homebrew applications. But not the personal assistant data).
And a non-locked android smartphone works in the same way, letting the user do side-loading or replace the firmware altogether.
BUT
Apple and Microsoft decided they didn't wanted to do it that way. They are trying to do as much as possible to prevent going out of the walled garden.
Apple refused to let users do anything else than get applications from the Apple AppStore and at some point even tried to sue against circumvention.
Microsoft is at the center of a controversy due to their abusive requirement regarding the ARM version of Win8 and the Secure UEFI booting.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Actually, it's already a criminal offence to run some programs (DRM crackers etc.).
I'm quite sure it is also a criminal offence in many jurisdictions to use a word processor that you purchased completely legally, to write the planning for a murder, a kidnapping, a bank robbery and so on.
Source?
This sounds awfully hard to enforce, and besides, How do novelists work around such a prohibition?
No sig for the moment.
Get's it's justification. I always ran the pirated versions of games on my PC, because they were more stable with the DRM removed. Now it seems that legitimate software users will also benefit from the Pirated software sources as it will not have the self destruct or report home capability.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
It's _VERY_ likely in the future that if your software/hardware is not "blessed" by your government, it will be illegal to own, and you will be blocked from accessing any network, including the internet. This neatly stops things like Wikileaks, offenses against the media, etc, etc. What, this is unthinkable?... Weeeeeeeeel, The iPad's selling in record numbers, and ALREADY does this, by design. Unless Apple loads the software in the "App Store" it _cannot_ be loaded onto an iPad without "jailbreaking" it. And most sheeple are just fine with that. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPad#Digital_rights_management It's only a short stroll to making that kind of behavior lawfully required for _ALL_ computing equipment. After that, no more worries about proving what IP Address belongs to whom; just prove that you "unlawfully" hacked hard/software to make it do something the government doesn't want, and throw you in a cell.
The sad thing is the fact that legislators and do-gooders fail to understand duality. Everything, and I mean everything, can be used for both good and bad, used and abused. A piece of rope has lots of useful applications. It also can be used to strangle someone or tie someone up against their will. A knife can be used to prepare food...or to slit someone's throat. Do we legislate against the potential misuse of these things i.e. try to prevent someone from buying a piece of rope because they might hang themselves? Or take more nebulous concepts such as legislating against so-called hate speech. Who decides what hate speech is? You? Me? And on what basis? Gut reaction? How it makes you feel? Why is what some talk show hosts or politicians say acceptable to one group yet considered hate speech to another? And why are the same "tests" not applied equally?
The simple fact is that it all boils down to someone's interpretation of a concept as to whether or not it's good or bad. You can legislate all you want and never solve the problems. People will always find a way around it. (And legislators don't really care about the efficacy of their laws because they're only interested in getting reelected saying "Look, I tried to do something, vote for me").
Technology will always be subject to misuse. Trying to prevent it is a waste of time and money. Trying to prevent Darwinism from thinning the herd only weakens the gene pool.
First of all read http://www.ranum.com/security/computer_security/editorials/dumb/ item #2. You cannot "enumerate evil". Similarly big brother will find that they can't come up with an all-inclusive blacklist of "evil apps". There will *ALWAYS* be something they haven't thought of.email
Instead, it's much more effective to whitelist "harmless apps". So you'll end up with...
* an email applet
* a spreadsheet applet
* a chat applet
* etc, etc, etc
Either that, or the "general purpose applet" will be Facebook... bleagh.
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
Linux on the desktop is nothing today, but it still poses a threat because of what it could become. Particually in developing countries, where few computer owners can afford a windows license - their options are linux or pirate windows. Most choose the latter. Linux isn't much of a competitor, but on the desktop it's the only competitor Microsoft has.
Not at all; that's a ludicrous claim of any reasonably free society (including once rather worse off than the USA). For example, it's completely legitimate to write a book in which the character plots the execution of a real-world individual, and to include the full details of that plan in the book. Nothing about your writing becomes illegal until you try to use the book as a mechanism to break a law which is completely unrelated to writing (specifically, conspiracy to commit murder) by doing things like telling other people that they should, in real life, follow the plan laid out in the book. Even in that case, it's not the actual writing that is the illegal part, it's the use to which you put the writing. If you don't actually engage in a conspiracy to commit murder, you can write about murder all you like. Indeed, you may instead use the book for completely legal purposes (random example: as part of a course for bodyguards, where the plan as outlined in the writing is used as a scenario in which you now have to defend the target).
On DRM, however, it's a different issue. It is illegal to operate a system for breaking DRM, regardless of the purpose of breaking the DRM or the way the system is used. For example, you're not legally allowed to defeat DRM for the purposes of making a backup, even though you're explicitly legally permitted to make personal backups of copywrited works. You're also not legally permitted to break the DRM on an item which you paid for under an agreement of perpetual use, even if the company that provided the item has gone out of business without compensating you for the breach of contract.
It is also illegal to break DRM for the purpose of commiting actual copyright infringement - that is, the distribution of unlicensed copies outside the scope of fair use exceptions - but that makes sense, right? Wrong! The copyright infringement is illegal, sure, but breaking DRM is neither a sufficient nor necessary step toward copyright infringement. It is one avenue which helps enable copyright infringement, of course, but so are VCRs, handheld video recording equipment (camcorders, etc.), memorizing a song, writing down the words of a speech, and many other legally completely valid devices or behaviors. DRM gets singled out as an area where merely doing something which may enable copyright infringement is itself illegal. That's bullshit, but it's the law.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
If the end comes, which I don't believe just that general purpose computers will go back to being a more specialist/expensive tool, then we, the technologists, will only have ourselves to blame.
The reason this is happening is because we have just cared about the other tech users. We've poured scorn on people that click on the wrong link and download a virus. We've tutted at those people that don't know what a file-system is, or why one is better than others. We've laughed when we've heard that someone is still running Windows ME. In short we've cared about ourselves, and our needs, rather than the needs of everyone.
If we had tried to make things simpler and harder to break, but still retained the flexibility, we could probably have done it but it was cooler to rewrite a device driver, or develop a new filesystem/GUI. We didn't, and this is the result.
You may think me a tired, old, cynic. I'd have to disagree about the tired bit.
Here's what I see a standard user looking for application-wise in each device category (regardless of tech-savvy).
1. On a smartphone/small portable: short games, music, photos, search, social connectivity, convenience apps (calorie counter, etc.)
2. On a tablet/medium portable: everything listed for phones, ebook support, movies, e-mail
3. For a laptop/desktop: Everything listed for tablets, AAA games, office software, storage, photo/video editing.
As you get more computing power, your needs become more general. I think that we will see basic users move away from the desktop paradigm and into the laptop/tablet/phone setup. For a current $800 laptop you can do pretty much anything you want. AND as device connectivity gets better you will be able to use a laptop as a media source for your tv, etc. I don't think IT departments will go the same route because it's so much easier to keep desktops working with part interchangeability. This means there should be a market for desktops for the forseeable future (just maybe not at your local store).
Now to the real topic: you have your hacker desktop sitting in front of you, can you use it to do whatever you want with it? I would generally say yes you can. Knowing how IT depts work, and how many of them need to have control over what software is on a workstation, I believe that there will be SOME way to get program X working on desktop Y. Otherwise software vendors and companies that use them are going to get very pissy, very quickly. And there are a lot more established software vendors than I think Apple and Microsoft can take on. If there's any hiccups in a DRM policy (likely), Windows-compatible operating systems may magically come into the public eye.
Your standard user may not want general computing, but it's pretty much required in our current workplace society. Still, it never hurts to stand up for freedom.
What about a device that fits in a 5 1/4" bay, bears a slim optical drive, and a tiny SSD? The SATA write commands are ignored by the controller; if possible, the relevant lines are physically cut off from the motherboard. They instead lead to a slim optical drive; when a disk is placed in the drive, and a (recessed, molly-guarded) switch is pressed, the device's ROM code instructs the disk contents to be flashed onto the SSD. If you can be certain your image supplier is trustworthy, you can distribute the images over the internet with minimal fuss (and a lot of standard public-key cryptographic authentication to ensure the image isn't tampered with in transit).
The only attack surface I can see is the ROM code in the OS drive's loader, and compromising the OS vendor. Cracking AES is also possible, but there are other more lucrative goals for a black-hat hacker with the keys to AES' kingdom.
Yes.
I may even succeed before the actuarial tables suggest I should die of natural causes.
Now, if somebody fights back against Metro by porting KDE or Gnome to Windows 9... well, THEN Microsoft might get really annoyed and notice...
Wow, the delusion here is so intense its hard to look at. :)
The very idea that Windows users would buy into the mentality that their cohorts and support desk people should have 8 or 10 different UI environments to choose from is ludicrous. I know that's not exactly what you meant, but it doesn't make sense that you'd port an alternative desktop to Windows without also importing the culture that produced the alternatives. Windows has had its own (few) desktop alternatives in the past and it will once again, and no one will be under the misapprehension that troubleshooting and maintenance all be done in the CLI just because desktop alternatives exist (because Windows will come with a standard desktop even if some people don't like it).
The sad truth here is that Desktop Linux mostly annoys the consumers who encounter it, and a big part of that annoyance is the DE conundrum.
People in developing countries are probably even less prepared to deal with the amorphous nature of 'Desktop Linux' than are people in the more developed countries.
Fabbing the CPU is the easiest part of the game. Designing it is what is really expensive. Fortunately, we have the source code for a good CPU to get started, should we ever need to re-bootstrap the IT industry.
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
That is a long article. I stopped reading after the section on TPM (looks interesting, but I don't have the time right now).. The argument about TPM is flawed:
According to TFA, the TPM allows the user to install keys for any bootloader they want when it is in "certainty" mode. I have never seen this option in the BIOS, so it has to be possible to install keys after the OS has booted. The TPM cannot take over the UI of the computer, because it isn't directly connected to the keyboard and mouse, so the UI for adding new keys has to be produced by the CPU. This means that any sufficiently advanced malware can also do exactly what the "add keys " UI does and install its own bootloader keys. A possible objection is that if the OS only runs signed executables, the malware wouldn't run in the first place. There are many problems with this argument, but even if we assume that is true, the OS could be written to only load signed executables without a TPM. There is no logical connection there. For malware, the TPM is at best like MAC address filtering on WLAN, adds an extra inconvenience for the attacker.
The other purpose of the TPM in TFA is to protect against physical attacks. Assuming again that keys can only be added after a valid OS is loaded, the protection actually works, and it would also work with a password-protected BIOS. I'm sure there are again many interesting attacks (maybe you can even load a different OS by overwriting memory using a FireWire device, and the TPM will think you never rebooted). There are also tonnes of other mischief hackers could do to your HW, but it's usually detectable. The problem is that you are worried about *someone stealing your laptop, then returning it to you with a keylogger or something*. I bet that many people for whom that level of paranoia is justified wouldn't trust that the NSA have snuck a little key into the TPMs by default.
The US with its big corporations and lawyers is becoming too restrictive.
It is time to move to a different "wild west" which is actually in the east.
China, land of the free!
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
I don't believe patents work that way.
You can make an exact replica of most anything you want. What you can't do is SELL it. You can make a "2012 Ford Mustang" in your garage, complete with ECU and everything.
What you can't do is sell it.
You can make your own iPad, you can even round the corners and include the logo. You can even install the OS and have it be identical in every way. You'll still not have violated patent laws until you market it.
In some of those cases there's some nasty DRM laws that may get you in trouble but that hasn't anything to do with patents.
Now, I could be mistaken but I'm pretty sure I'm not and I'm pretty sure you're mistaken and that you're not alone on that. A lot of people think that. A lot of people think you have to file, put a symbol, and include a date (and update it) for copyright too - that is also incorrect.
Patents are public knowledge, you can use any of them in your own private project. You can't market them.
Trademarks a whole different entity, more like copyright that people think copyright is (when it isn't - copyright laws were changed a long time ago) and, again, you can't use them without permission if you're going to market them. I'm a little unsure of this one - but I'm pretty sure and too lazy to check which means I'm likely correct - but you can use a trademark without permission at any time you want for your own personal use. I can put the Nike "Swoosh" on my boat shoes if I want.
Copyright, actually is way confusing, but is created on creation and is assumed from the start. Registering copyrighted works is only valuable if you expect to recoup losses of a certain type.
Again, just so you know, if you want to use something and there's a patent then you're free to do so without fear so long as you don't market it. The minute you market it, or even insinuate it, or even have it somehow associated with a profitable venture I'd recommend both not doing it and getting a lawyer. There is absolutely nothing stopping you from creating your own Windows 8 operating system - complete with logo - for personal use. There is no legal recourse either.
However, if you then use that OS to sell or even use it in your office where you perform profitable activities I'd get a lawyer or ten. The first one is certainly going to get you in trouble and the second one just might but I'm not entirely clear on that.
Also, you don't "lose" a copyright like you can a trademark. Yes, we all blow our nose on a Kleenex but you can't just bang out a rehash of Never Gonna Give You Up. I include that just because the subjects are often intertwined and there is a lot of confusion.
If I'm mistaken then I'm sure someone will be along but I don't believe I am. You can use the patent library and build yourself a whole bunch of awesome and there's not a damned thing the lawyers can do. To say so is silly and is nothing less than FUD. Which leads to this...
I'm going to assume it was a mistake based on ignorance but that doesn't speak very well for you. I'm going to assume you just didn't know better but you made an attempt to speak authoritatively on the subject, as in you presented a clear and precise statement that is patently (pun intended) false.
Now, my question is, why did you say that? You stated, clearly, that making "your own computer" would be prevented by an "army of patent lawyers" which is false. Even if they did send you a letter there's no judge out there that's going to accept the case. There is no case to be had so long as it is "your own computer" (which is pretty clearly established in the text).
I guess I can understand that some folk wouldn't know this BUT there are a few things strange about this.
Your comment is moderated as being insightful.
Your comment is not correct.
The reason I know your comment is incorrect is because it is an often discussed topic here on Slashdot.
In other words, I learned (from here) more about patents than I'd needed to know and I learned tha
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
The problem that we face today is that "general purpose computers" need administration. In a corporate environment they get this from the IT department. In a geek home, they get this from the users. In Joe Sixpack's home there isn't any at all.
The end result of this is Joe Sixpack's home computer is laden with trojans, viruses and malware. His banking information isn't safe and neither are credit cards or any other financial information. His computer is used by others to send spam and to infect other computers on the Internet. Needless to say every once in a while Joe gets his computer fixed (or replaced) and he isn't happy about the cost of doing this. When one of his neighbors gets an iPad and he sees the functionality without the risks he is sold and he will never go back to a PC that needs administering but doesn't get it.
The geeks are (of course) offended by this move. In many ways the response needs to be "Too bad, the marketplace has spoken."
When Joe Sixpack also happens to be involved in the government at some level this takes on a whole new aspect. Why should the government not take steps to protect other Joes from what he has experienced? Why should their private and financial information be at risk? We have pretty much proven that anti-virus and anti-malware software doesn't work, so that isn't a solution. The walled garden approach or the restricted functionality Internet appliance approach works and fits in well with what most users really want.
Of course you are going to see legislative moves to push people further and further towards solutions to the malware problem. And this is a good thing because we cannot as a society continue to tolerate unadministered computers that are actively being used against their owner's interests.
They are ultra keen on the locked down walled garden approach with the chrome book.
When friends tell me how wonderful life is with an iphone or ipad, I always ask them how they expect to install a virus. Because if you dont have the option to install a virus of your choosing then you really dont control the device and it is not a computer. We often think of a virus as undesirable, but in reality it expressed one thing: full control over the hardware. No viruses = limited control. At some point a virus will be something you will want to get. Like the one that will sweep across the world moving from router to router. The one that will open up the massive free worldwide wireless bandwidth we all have sitting mostly idol on our locked down routers right now. When that happens, many will find themselves scrambling to remove the security measures on their routers in order to allow the virus to improve their computing lives.
A) Stupid or indifferent people want a computer (car) that just works and they don't have to/nor want to fuck with the innards.
Calling the tens or hundreds of millions of people who side with the Apple, Microsoft or Amazon product "stupid" simply takes the geek out the game. You've given them no reason to care if the OEM hardware manufactuer writes the geek off as a profitless niche market.
.
And while we are on the insanely stupid things that microwaves do and we can't stop them doing...it used to be that when you popped the door open (after the cook time finished) the beep(ing) would stop. Now you get a beep for the door opening, and four beeps you can't mute. All thanks to Yet Another Interface Spiralling Out Of Control (pronounced Yay-Suckage!).
I come here for the love
Fabbing quantity 1 or two is extremely expensive. You'd need to be able to share so a large group could combine their orders into a worthwhile run size to get decent pricing.
Isn't this just another version of the halting problem, with mathematics replaced by politics?
DNA is a Turing machine. You, however, being dynamic and emergent, are not.
The sad truth here is that Desktop Linux mostly annoys the consumers who encounter it, and a big part of that annoyance is the DE conundrum.
Apart from people (mostly who aren't part of the group they refer to) on internet criticizing desktop Linux I have not seen this... And I have some 1st hand experience, as I have turned a couple "average Joes" and a bunch of non-experts with better than average computer skills into Linux - I only remember two people who were actually happy about it when I gave them an alternative DE to supplement what they did not like (one didn't like the default interface and one had machine which ran quite a bit smoother with XFCE).
I did notice a certain growth in doubt towards Linux from couple Windows users who saw my Ion 3 desktop, but I countered that with explaining that it's a minor league alternative environment I installed and configured myself for my specific needs, and demonstrated the default Gnome and XFCE desktops to them - after that I was left with the impression that, if anything, they felt that the choice was a good thing.
Distributions offer quite well configured default DE's, and mostly, I believe, average users don't much bother themselves by thinking about other DE's - there's no reason for them to care, and that pretty much crumbles the argument that the number of available alternatives is a negative thing for success of DE Linux.
In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
People are buying products like the iPad and Android phones by the hundreds of millions. People are demanding exactly that: computers that are controlled by the "mothership" as he puts it. That's Apple's entire business model, and they're the most valuable company on the planet right now.
A common claim, which I very much doubt. I don't believe that people buying these devices, apart from maybe small fringe group, even care about it - their willingnes to buy those devices would not dimmish if there was a simple way to install (slash enable installing) of 3rd party apps, for example, especially if it were not a feature that's enabled by default.
And then there are people who are not buying these (except for Android devices, in which I believe it's very small number of devices where rooting the system is not extremely simple to do) exactly because of their walled garden approach - leading to, if my theory is correct, walled garden actually hurting the sale f those devices.
In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
In Canada, the mere presence of "digital locks" (read DRM) trumps any and all rights that the person may have with regard to the work.
For example, if a DRMd work falls into the public domain, breaking the DRM is still a criminal offense.
Thank you Harper's Conservatives.