Neverminding custom programming for 64-bit chips, most (if not all) of Darwin and the rest of the OS X system is built with gcc3.1 - once a backend is provided for this, it should be a relatively simple matter to get everything ported. Easy-peasy. An entire OS running natively in 64-bit mode. Of course, leave it to IBM to develop a processor that makes this irrelevant... since the 970 runs 32-bit powerpc instructions w/o emulation:)
And even more expensive now that they've gotten busted for patent infringment.. ouch! Doesn't seem likely that an injunction will be awarded against the sale of Itaniums, but man - that would have to hurt!
But from a consumer standpoint, they are fantastically limited: You can't take your phone and use it with a different provider.
This is what I've always heard about GSM and why I've wanted to try it out (even though I'm in WI). But, when I actually started to look into GSM here, via T-Mobile and AT&T, I find that the providers are purposefully LOCKING the GSM phones to break this capability. This makes a GSM provider no better than a CDMA provider such as Sprint or Verizon. Sure, there are hacks out there that will unlock phones, but don't portray this as a benefit that GSM has to consumers. Having to contact some hacker/cracker to unlock my phone so that it'll work on another GSM network seems distinctly consumer-unfriendly!
Furthermore, some networks (AT&T with the Ericsson/Sony T68i) are reprogramming their firmware to remove the 'unlock' option from their phones. At least this is what appears to be happening from the forums I've looked at. Nevertheless, if GSM companies really wanted their phones to be interoperable, they'd provide 'unlocked' phones and they'd allow a person to purchase only what is necessary to get on their network - no more, no less.
Compare this with CDMA providers that have roaming agreements where the same CDMA phone works on other provider's networks, no hassle, no problem. Sorry, CDMA will continue to get my business, as much as I want all the cool bluetooth connectivity of the T68i.
Which made a subscription worth about zero, as I usually didn't get the issue in the mail until a weak or more after it had hit the newsstands. Don't know if that was happening to anyone else, but I always felt that was a bit of a ripoff.
Amen. Nice to see a comprehensive list of all the bullshit reasons people put forth to justify their actions. Actions that are, have been and will continue to be simply wrong. Morally, ethically, judicially, whatever - they're wrong.
I agree entirely. One note: there isn't really any *inherent* danger in not even having two passwords. This is how OS X works by default - you create an account during the first bootup and the password you enter for that becomes the default sudo/Administrator password - obviously you can change this at a later time if you desire.
A setup like that is fine, because the user just knows that he has a password for the machine - when the system needs to do something privileged, pop-up a box, ask for the system password, and do your thing.
A compromise between total security and user-friendliness is a must for Linux on the desktop to succeed. I think a lot of things can be learned from Apple's approach to security with OS X. While it is not perfect, its not too bad, and certainly better than any OS Microsoft has released, with the possible exception of the most recent, XP. Don't know too much about XP yet, so I won't include it in my sweeping judgement!
The major 4/5 companies that make up the RIAA are necessary to make a band/singer/artist into a megastar. For the foreseeable future, this isn't going to change. Media exposure costs a significant amount of money and that isn't likely to change, either. The popularity of an artist is directly linked to their media exposure, much less to their talent, witness Britney Spears. As long as large sums of money are needed to popularize an artist, the artist won't be hiring anyone, they'll be signing on the dotted line. No way around it that I can see.
As for the scan-o-matic, the fatal flaw is that after the development of such technology, there would be nothing to scan. Who's going to create wonderful things like a Bentley when nobody will pay 'em? Do you think the engineers, designers, et al at Bentley are paid the same as those that are engineering, designing, etc. the Geo Prism? Doubtful - can't cite facts, unfortunately, but it should be a relatively safe conclusion to draw.
The model you propose (like it, pay me) has failed numerous times already in the dot com era. Maybe that's humanity's shortcoming, but either way, it appears if you give something away for free (unencumbered) and then rely on other's good will towards you, you're in for a nasty surprise. Witness shareware in general and witness open source software - know of anyone that's made a killing out of accepting donations for their GPL'd software? Neither do I. Heck, even the developers of the most popular open source software aren't living off donations!
It is absolutely your prerogative (sp?) to form your own opinion. Always has been and will be for the time being (Bush et al not withstanding). That doesn't mean my opinion can't be in direct contradiction with yours, even blatantly so.
Anyways, this is a/. thread - I doubt any other readers are taking this thread seriously. If so, they probably out to do something else with their time:)
This technology isn't meant to determine what happens if the one-time pad is lost/captured (its meant to prevent that, though). That scenario is already accounted for in the current one-time pad systems in use *today*. I can't speak from experience of what exactly takes place, but the scenario is accounted for.
Awww, c'mon. It costs a band money to record an album - it may not be THEIR money (it may be the label's), but it costs money. Read the Janis Ian articles - the amount of money it costs isn't negligible. Same with the Bentley, so no - your argument does not hold. It took engineers, designers, mechanics, etc. a lot of time (== money) to develop the Bentley. It took the Bentley company a lot of money spent in research & branding (e.g. marketing) to develop a brand (Bentley) that equates to high quality automobiles. Using your scan-o-matic, you've not compensated any of that, so you've just taken millions of dollars and said "Hey, thanks for the hard work guys, I really appreciate it, ciao."
Yeah, that'll work. Maybe in the Sci-Fi world of Star Trek::TNG, but not in this world.
Furthermore, what you call "fat cats" in the MPAA/RIAA industries are actually quite highly qualified CEOs with MBAs who worked pretty hard to get to where they are (or have the right family connections). It is NOT your perogative to determine that they are being paid too much. This is a capitalist country (and world, for the most part). For better or worse, that means that certain resourceful (define that any way you want) individuals will make more money than others. If you've got what it takes, do it - that's how capitalism works. If you don't, fine - don't complain that others do.
That said, I don't support this bill one bit, but not because I think that file-sharing of copyright materials is legitimate or even called for.
This is pretty simple. A song is worth whatever you are willing to trade in exchange for listening to it.
Listen to it on the radio and you are trading exposure to commercial advertisements for the ability to listen to the song.
Pay for the CD and you are trading monetary funds that you (hopefully) came into possession of legitimately, for the ability to listen to the song whenever and wherever you wish.
Pay for the rights to the song and you are exchanging (a great deal of) monetary funds for the ability to distribute and (possibly) modify the song at your whim to whomever and for however much you deem appropriate (depending on how completely you've gained the rights to the song).
Disclaimer: I in NO way support this bill and think it is ABSOLUTELY wrong for private entities to be given vigilante powers.
That said, here's a suggestion: instead of providing ways that you can build a legal case against the record industry (share legit files along side your illegal files), how about you just stop sharing copyrighted material? Unpopular opinion, I know, but don't bring a perfectly legal, white-vested entity (open source software) into an illegal activity as a shield! That shows blatant disrespect of the authors of the software we Slashdot readers so flaunt.
C'mon, folks - stop sharing copyrighted material! Is it that difficult? Buy the damn discs. If you don't have money (as I always get a few 'poor college students' responding to my posts), listen to the radio. Borrow your friend's (legitimate) CDs (and don't make copies of 'em). Whatever - just don't do shit that's illegal and then complain when folks are gettin' a bit pissy about it!
In my favorite analogy: if I can't afford a car, I'm not going to go steal one. If I can, I'll go buy it, lease it, or rent it. If you can't afford a movie, don't download it on IRC or Kazaa, rent it (and don't make a copy of it). If you can't listen to music you like, turn on the radio or develop a taste for indie music, which is usually a bit cheaper or even free. Get a subscription to Columbia House or BMG if you really dig certain CDs but can't afford 'em when they come out.
C'mon, folks. Stop doin' the illegal thing. If you just want to make your MP3 collection and listen to 'em at work, find ways to do it that don't involve publicizing your entire collection so that other's can download 'em. Get a Rio or an iPod or whatever. Set up some software that allows you to share it to yourself only. Kazaa and other P2P systems may very well have legit uses - fine, let's keep 'em around for those uses, but stop usin' it to share and download copyrighted material.
This doesn't matter. What's being transmitted here is not the message, its the one-time cipher pads used to encrypt/decrypt the message. The gov't./military already uses one-time pads - but, they're disseminated on physical media, requiring delivery and disposal by physical, trusted personnel. So, this is about transmitting that one-time cipher pad, not about transmitting the actual messages. The messages, once encoded with the one-time cipher pad that is to be used for that particular transmission (pre-determined by the gov't./military) will be transmitted in the clear over current transmission media (public/private networks, transcontinental/oceanic fiber, military/communications satellites, etc.) The "messsage", encrypted with the one-time cipher that this new transmission medium disseminated, is unbreakable by untrusted parties, because of the one-time pad being used, not because of the transmission type being used.
The one article I read about this talks about the satellite communications that were being intercepted in Europe from NATO troops in the Balkans. This new quantum crypto transmission method for one-time pads has nothing to do with that - THAT was about the military not having enough encrypted satellite channels for the amount of data that they were needed to transfer. This wouldn't change that in one bit. This only affects the legwork currently needed to disseminate one-time pads to all necessary parties. The one-time pad systems are already being used, this would just make the process a bit less resource intensive and available to more parties (not just the ones that have reliable access to diplomatic couriers). Maybe that would change the situation above, because more people could take advantage of the one-time pad system, but I doubt it. This seemed more of a limitation of the satellite bandwidth than anything else.
While I agree that crypto in general should be accessible to the public, this *particular* system should be of little interest to the public. Multi-national, global corporations, maybe. The general public? Doubtful. Think about it. What's being discussed here is a way of encrypting one-time cipher keys for encrypting/decrypting messages. I can't fathom how much work it takes to setup and maintain a communications network based on one-time pads. Maybe someone from the NSA/CIA/Scotland Yard wants to chime in with some info on this, but I imagine its pretty darn resource intensive. This isn't something that you'd start applying to your email communications to your friends, as you'd have to be distributing your one-time keys to your trusted friends and they'd have to be reporting any attempts (or successes) of intercepting or socially-engineering your one-time keys so that you could appropriately revoke affected one-time keys.
This isn't like SSL or public-key crypto, this is a totally different game where absolute and utter confidentiality of communication is necessary. Never mind the low-orbiting satellite system you'll have to setup or lease time on so that you can distribute your one-time pads to your circle of trusted communicators.
Now - don't get me wrong. I agree with the poster in that if criminals want to use this, it won't matter if its publicly available or not. Criminals can use one-time ciphers right now, some possibly do. The concept of this isn't new. The only thing new here is the dissemination of the one-time pads, which currently takes a fair amount of legwork. This article isn't about transmission of the message, its only about transmission of the keys to encrypt/decrypt the message. These keys are currently stored on media and couriered to embassies worldwide by a country's diplomatic couriers and such. Used 'one time' and then the media is destroyed to prevent any future knowledge of past keys. The messages that use these one time keys can be sent over any medium. I wouldn't be surprised at all if some are sent via specialized email systems that at some point hit a public point of the Internet or travel through the air where they could be intercepted.
FYI - this isn't about encrypting or securing the transmission of the message, only the transmission of the keys to decrypt the message and/or encrypt a response. What's basically being researched is how to disseminate the one-time keys that the gov'ts. and military installations around the world have been using for a few years now, without all the footwork that has been needed for that to date.
The messages are entirely secure, as they are encrypted with these one-time keys (the ultimate in security, as they don't rely on any particular mathematical principles that could be susceptible to breaking as computing power/methods evolve).
Getting away from the legwork needed to use a one-time cipher system is what is being developed here. So in this sense, the 'message' that's being sent is the one-time cipher, which, wouldn't really need to be 'stored' again using PGP or other methods - it would just need to be used, then abandoned. Make sense? Old one-time keys don't do a snoop any good as they are in no way related to future one-time pads.
Hope this is (a) somewhat correct and (b) somewhat clearing things up.
So, restricting DRM so that it doesn't prevent time-shifting, copying for backup purposes, format-shifting and doesn't require closed-source proprietary applications and encryption algorithms leaves what benefit, exactly, to the publishers of the media?
If someone can't take an album and change the encoding of the audio information to whatever they want (e.g. lossless, space saving FLIC or lossy highly compressed MP3) and/or take an album and duplicate it (exactly) for backup purposes (otherwise, the backup is less useful), then that's unduly restricting the current fair-use rights of consumers, right?
Unfortunately, leaving those same rights unhindered, technologically, makes it technologically possible to pirate media like never before. I don't believe that that means the technology should be hindered, to prevent the piracy at the expense of fair use.
If the MPAA/RIAA is concerned (for their bottom line) with piracy, then they should fund a task force (maybe) who's responsibility it is to shut down media pirates. Its *already* against the law, why do we need new measures? We don't. We simply need better enforcement (not through technological means) of our existing laws.
Yes, and the stuntmen (or women) are not the ones doing the audio/video editing for movie releases and CD productions. So, back to the original point...
Good point, something to be wary of, to be sure. However, a counterpoint might go like this: gross negligence in both of the fields you mentioned (law, health care) can result in death. The same cannot (easily) be said about the A/V profession.
At the current state of affairs, with the current public knowledge of what's at stake and the current pressure that the industry's are exerting on our lawmakers, I'd say that yes, it is inevitable that restrictive DRM technologies that do not have the consumer's best interests at heart will in fact be implemented and supporting laws will be passed.
I think we still have some time, but I don't think we have much more time. The industry's that are pushing for DRM know that the more time they allow, the more likely it is that the public will become aware of what's going on. Hurry things through (like the DMCA) and the chance of success increases dramatically.
I'm pessimistic, sure. Who knows what kind of backlash would occur once DRM technology is mandated or at least is enabled by default on 85% of platforms? Instead of trying to educate lawmakers and the general public that certain DRM is good and certain DRM is bad, I think *right now* it might be better to simply lay DRM flat on its back and then start evolving technology that protects the consumer's rights.
Actually, if I recall, Apple's CEO, Steve Jobs, had to appear before Congress to defend their "Rip.Mix.Burn" advertising campaign that promoted the 'classic' iMac line of products.
To me, that's not silence. It may not be telling the RIAA/MPAA to shove it, but its not silence either.
In its current (and likely, future) incarnations, DRM empowers the publishers of content. Not the creators, not the public.
Neither the creators nor the public is clamoring for DRM and neither of these parties is currently fighting very hard to prevent the publishers from getting DRM the way they want it.
Gillmore may be missing the point, but currently, "...hard to get the right laws..." is a bit on the rosy side, don't ya think?
To all the geeks out there: here's another chance to put your money where your mouth is. Support the EFF, support the ACLU, support Apple. They're standing up for you, whether directly or indirectly. Whether for their own good or yours. Regardless, at the moment, they're standing up for you.
Now's the time to show your support. Go buy an iPod. If you don't have a Mac, buy the Windows one. I *think* both the Mac iPod and the Windows iPod are supported by the new gnuPod software, but check to be sure.
Going to be purchasing a new system soon? Don't build your own - that sends a message to no-one. Buy a Mac. Run Linux on your Mac if you must, but buy a Mac. Not ready to do that? At least tell people who look to your for computer know-how, that they should buy a Mac. Explain why. Explain what hangs in the balance - educate some people.
Make a difference. Advocate and speak with your pocketbook - that's what will work.
One thing that I see that might change this is the simple fact that a large percentage of the media that is created and distributed is created and prepared for distribution on Macs. That might make a difference. Video is edited on Macs. Audio is mixed on Macs. Etc.
Will this make a difference in the end? Who knows. But I'm throwin' my support to Apple - they're getting my dime and that won't change until they do something distinctly anti-consumer (more anti-consumer than charging for.Mac which I think is perfectly justified).
Linux is great, but Linux has no clout, unfortunately. Linux on servers doesn't need DRM technologies - and that's all that Linux is *really* doing in business (see IBM, SAP/SuSE, RedHat, etc.). But, Apple is all about the consumer, DRM is a big deal there. Never mind that Steve Jobs owns (or is the CEO or something of) Pixar, which is in the business of creating movies that up 'til now have been pretty successful.
Monster's Inc. racked up $80 million in DVD/VHS sales in the first week. I'd say that with Jobs at the helm of that kind of sway, we can expect something rosier than what is presented above.
Slashdot Mirror
Neverminding custom programming for 64-bit chips, most (if not all) of Darwin and the rest of the OS X system is built with gcc3.1 - once a backend is provided for this, it should be a relatively simple matter to get everything ported. Easy-peasy. An entire OS running natively in 64-bit mode. Of course, leave it to IBM to develop a processor that makes this irrelevant ... since the 970 runs 32-bit powerpc instructions w/o emulation :)
And even more expensive now that they've gotten busted for patent infringment .. ouch! Doesn't seem likely that an injunction will be awarded against the sale of Itaniums, but man - that would have to hurt!
I hadn't heard that Quartz Extreme was ungodly slow ... far as I know, that handles 2D & 3D processing of on-screen graphics.
.. maybe you don't have a Mac capable of running QE? So .. you'll be shelling out your cash for a new spiffy Mac w/ a 64-bit processor, right?
.. sid-down.
Ohhhh
Uh-huh. Thought so. Hey you in the back
So, Google was one of the 14 companies surveyed? Anyone else know of a company running 10,000 Linux nodes for their web serving environment?
Cheers.
Furthermore, some networks (AT&T with the Ericsson/Sony T68i) are reprogramming their firmware to remove the 'unlock' option from their phones. At least this is what appears to be happening from the forums I've looked at. Nevertheless, if GSM companies really wanted their phones to be interoperable, they'd provide 'unlocked' phones and they'd allow a person to purchase only what is necessary to get on their network - no more, no less.
Compare this with CDMA providers that have roaming agreements where the same CDMA phone works on other provider's networks, no hassle, no problem. Sorry, CDMA will continue to get my business, as much as I want all the cool bluetooth connectivity of the T68i.
Cheers.
Which made a subscription worth about zero, as I usually didn't get the issue in the mail until a weak or more after it had hit the newsstands. Don't know if that was happening to anyone else, but I always felt that was a bit of a ripoff.
Cheers.
Amen. Nice to see a comprehensive list of all the bullshit reasons people put forth to justify their actions. Actions that are, have been and will continue to be simply wrong. Morally, ethically, judicially, whatever - they're wrong.
I agree entirely. One note: there isn't really any *inherent* danger in not even having two passwords. This is how OS X works by default - you create an account during the first bootup and the password you enter for that becomes the default sudo/Administrator password - obviously you can change this at a later time if you desire.
A setup like that is fine, because the user just knows that he has a password for the machine - when the system needs to do something privileged, pop-up a box, ask for the system password, and do your thing.
A compromise between total security and user-friendliness is a must for Linux on the desktop to succeed. I think a lot of things can be learned from Apple's approach to security with OS X. While it is not perfect, its not too bad, and certainly better than any OS Microsoft has released, with the possible exception of the most recent, XP. Don't know too much about XP yet, so I won't include it in my sweeping judgement!
Cheers.
The major 4/5 companies that make up the RIAA are necessary to make a band/singer/artist into a megastar. For the foreseeable future, this isn't going to change. Media exposure costs a significant amount of money and that isn't likely to change, either. The popularity of an artist is directly linked to their media exposure, much less to their talent, witness Britney Spears. As long as large sums of money are needed to popularize an artist, the artist won't be hiring anyone, they'll be signing on the dotted line. No way around it that I can see.
/. thread - I doubt any other readers are taking this thread seriously. If so, they probably out to do something else with their time :)
As for the scan-o-matic, the fatal flaw is that after the development of such technology, there would be nothing to scan. Who's going to create wonderful things like a Bentley when nobody will pay 'em? Do you think the engineers, designers, et al at Bentley are paid the same as those that are engineering, designing, etc. the Geo Prism? Doubtful - can't cite facts, unfortunately, but it should be a relatively safe conclusion to draw.
The model you propose (like it, pay me) has failed numerous times already in the dot com era. Maybe that's humanity's shortcoming, but either way, it appears if you give something away for free (unencumbered) and then rely on other's good will towards you, you're in for a nasty surprise. Witness shareware in general and witness open source software - know of anyone that's made a killing out of accepting donations for their GPL'd software? Neither do I. Heck, even the developers of the most popular open source software aren't living off donations!
It is absolutely your prerogative (sp?) to form your own opinion. Always has been and will be for the time being (Bush et al not withstanding). That doesn't mean my opinion can't be in direct contradiction with yours, even blatantly so.
Anyways, this is a
Cheers!
This technology isn't meant to determine what happens if the one-time pad is lost/captured (its meant to prevent that, though). That scenario is already accounted for in the current one-time pad systems in use *today*. I can't speak from experience of what exactly takes place, but the scenario is accounted for.
Does that make sense?
Awww, c'mon. It costs a band money to record an album - it may not be THEIR money (it may be the label's), but it costs money. Read the Janis Ian articles - the amount of money it costs isn't negligible. Same with the Bentley, so no - your argument does not hold. It took engineers, designers, mechanics, etc. a lot of time (== money) to develop the Bentley. It took the Bentley company a lot of money spent in research & branding (e.g. marketing) to develop a brand (Bentley) that equates to high quality automobiles. Using your scan-o-matic, you've not compensated any of that, so you've just taken millions of dollars and said "Hey, thanks for the hard work guys, I really appreciate it, ciao."
Yeah, that'll work. Maybe in the Sci-Fi world of Star Trek::TNG, but not in this world.
Furthermore, what you call "fat cats" in the MPAA/RIAA industries are actually quite highly qualified CEOs with MBAs who worked pretty hard to get to where they are (or have the right family connections). It is NOT your perogative to determine that they are being paid too much. This is a capitalist country (and world, for the most part). For better or worse, that means that certain resourceful (define that any way you want) individuals will make more money than others. If you've got what it takes, do it - that's how capitalism works. If you don't, fine - don't complain that others do.
That said, I don't support this bill one bit, but not because I think that file-sharing of copyright materials is legitimate or even called for.
Cheers.
This is pretty simple. A song is worth whatever you are willing to trade in exchange for listening to it.
Listen to it on the radio and you are trading exposure to commercial advertisements for the ability to listen to the song.
Pay for the CD and you are trading monetary funds that you (hopefully) came into possession of legitimately, for the ability to listen to the song whenever and wherever you wish.
Pay for the rights to the song and you are exchanging (a great deal of) monetary funds for the ability to distribute and (possibly) modify the song at your whim to whomever and for however much you deem appropriate (depending on how completely you've gained the rights to the song).
Yep, its really that simple.
Very well stated. :)
Disclaimer: I in NO way support this bill and think it is ABSOLUTELY wrong for private entities to be given vigilante powers.
That said, here's a suggestion: instead of providing ways that you can build a legal case against the record industry (share legit files along side your illegal files), how about you just stop sharing copyrighted material? Unpopular opinion, I know, but don't bring a perfectly legal, white-vested entity (open source software) into an illegal activity as a shield! That shows blatant disrespect of the authors of the software we Slashdot readers so flaunt.
C'mon, folks - stop sharing copyrighted material! Is it that difficult? Buy the damn discs. If you don't have money (as I always get a few 'poor college students' responding to my posts), listen to the radio. Borrow your friend's (legitimate) CDs (and don't make copies of 'em). Whatever - just don't do shit that's illegal and then complain when folks are gettin' a bit pissy about it!
In my favorite analogy: if I can't afford a car, I'm not going to go steal one. If I can, I'll go buy it, lease it, or rent it. If you can't afford a movie, don't download it on IRC or Kazaa, rent it (and don't make a copy of it). If you can't listen to music you like, turn on the radio or develop a taste for indie music, which is usually a bit cheaper or even free. Get a subscription to Columbia House or BMG if you really dig certain CDs but can't afford 'em when they come out.
C'mon, folks. Stop doin' the illegal thing. If you just want to make your MP3 collection and listen to 'em at work, find ways to do it that don't involve publicizing your entire collection so that other's can download 'em. Get a Rio or an iPod or whatever. Set up some software that allows you to share it to yourself only. Kazaa and other P2P systems may very well have legit uses - fine, let's keep 'em around for those uses, but stop usin' it to share and download copyrighted material.
Cheers.
This doesn't matter. What's being transmitted here is not the message, its the one-time cipher pads used to encrypt/decrypt the message. The gov't./military already uses one-time pads - but, they're disseminated on physical media, requiring delivery and disposal by physical, trusted personnel. So, this is about transmitting that one-time cipher pad, not about transmitting the actual messages. The messages, once encoded with the one-time cipher pad that is to be used for that particular transmission (pre-determined by the gov't./military) will be transmitted in the clear over current transmission media (public/private networks, transcontinental/oceanic fiber, military/communications satellites, etc.) The "messsage", encrypted with the one-time cipher that this new transmission medium disseminated, is unbreakable by untrusted parties, because of the one-time pad being used, not because of the transmission type being used.
The one article I read about this talks about the satellite communications that were being intercepted in Europe from NATO troops in the Balkans. This new quantum crypto transmission method for one-time pads has nothing to do with that - THAT was about the military not having enough encrypted satellite channels for the amount of data that they were needed to transfer. This wouldn't change that in one bit. This only affects the legwork currently needed to disseminate one-time pads to all necessary parties. The one-time pad systems are already being used, this would just make the process a bit less resource intensive and available to more parties (not just the ones that have reliable access to diplomatic couriers). Maybe that would change the situation above, because more people could take advantage of the one-time pad system, but I doubt it. This seemed more of a limitation of the satellite bandwidth than anything else.
Cheers!
While I agree that crypto in general should be accessible to the public, this *particular* system should be of little interest to the public. Multi-national, global corporations, maybe. The general public? Doubtful. Think about it. What's being discussed here is a way of encrypting one-time cipher keys for encrypting/decrypting messages. I can't fathom how much work it takes to setup and maintain a communications network based on one-time pads. Maybe someone from the NSA/CIA/Scotland Yard wants to chime in with some info on this, but I imagine its pretty darn resource intensive. This isn't something that you'd start applying to your email communications to your friends, as you'd have to be distributing your one-time keys to your trusted friends and they'd have to be reporting any attempts (or successes) of intercepting or socially-engineering your one-time keys so that you could appropriately revoke affected one-time keys.
This isn't like SSL or public-key crypto, this is a totally different game where absolute and utter confidentiality of communication is necessary. Never mind the low-orbiting satellite system you'll have to setup or lease time on so that you can distribute your one-time pads to your circle of trusted communicators.
Now - don't get me wrong. I agree with the poster in that if criminals want to use this, it won't matter if its publicly available or not. Criminals can use one-time ciphers right now, some possibly do. The concept of this isn't new. The only thing new here is the dissemination of the one-time pads, which currently takes a fair amount of legwork. This article isn't about transmission of the message, its only about transmission of the keys to encrypt/decrypt the message. These keys are currently stored on media and couriered to embassies worldwide by a country's diplomatic couriers and such. Used 'one time' and then the media is destroyed to prevent any future knowledge of past keys. The messages that use these one time keys can be sent over any medium. I wouldn't be surprised at all if some are sent via specialized email systems that at some point hit a public point of the Internet or travel through the air where they could be intercepted.
Hope this helps!
Cheers.
FYI - this isn't about encrypting or securing the transmission of the message, only the transmission of the keys to decrypt the message and/or encrypt a response. What's basically being researched is how to disseminate the one-time keys that the gov'ts. and military installations around the world have been using for a few years now, without all the footwork that has been needed for that to date.
The messages are entirely secure, as they are encrypted with these one-time keys (the ultimate in security, as they don't rely on any particular mathematical principles that could be susceptible to breaking as computing power/methods evolve).
Getting away from the legwork needed to use a one-time cipher system is what is being developed here. So in this sense, the 'message' that's being sent is the one-time cipher, which, wouldn't really need to be 'stored' again using PGP or other methods - it would just need to be used, then abandoned. Make sense? Old one-time keys don't do a snoop any good as they are in no way related to future one-time pads.
Hope this is (a) somewhat correct and (b) somewhat clearing things up.
Cheers.
So, restricting DRM so that it doesn't prevent time-shifting, copying for backup purposes, format-shifting and doesn't require closed-source proprietary applications and encryption algorithms leaves what benefit, exactly, to the publishers of the media?
If someone can't take an album and change the encoding of the audio information to whatever they want (e.g. lossless, space saving FLIC or lossy highly compressed MP3) and/or take an album and duplicate it (exactly) for backup purposes (otherwise, the backup is less useful), then that's unduly restricting the current fair-use rights of consumers, right?
Unfortunately, leaving those same rights unhindered, technologically, makes it technologically possible to pirate media like never before. I don't believe that that means the technology should be hindered, to prevent the piracy at the expense of fair use.
If the MPAA/RIAA is concerned (for their bottom line) with piracy, then they should fund a task force (maybe) who's responsibility it is to shut down media pirates. Its *already* against the law, why do we need new measures? We don't. We simply need better enforcement (not through technological means) of our existing laws.
My opinion, as usual.
Cheers.
Yes, and the stuntmen (or women) are not the ones doing the audio/video editing for movie releases and CD productions. So, back to the original point ...
Good point, something to be wary of, to be sure. However, a counterpoint might go like this: gross negligence in both of the fields you mentioned (law, health care) can result in death. The same cannot (easily) be said about the A/V profession.
:)
That's all I have to say in this installment
Cheers.
At the current state of affairs, with the current public knowledge of what's at stake and the current pressure that the industry's are exerting on our lawmakers, I'd say that yes, it is inevitable that restrictive DRM technologies that do not have the consumer's best interests at heart will in fact be implemented and supporting laws will be passed.
I think we still have some time, but I don't think we have much more time. The industry's that are pushing for DRM know that the more time they allow, the more likely it is that the public will become aware of what's going on. Hurry things through (like the DMCA) and the chance of success increases dramatically.
I'm pessimistic, sure. Who knows what kind of backlash would occur once DRM technology is mandated or at least is enabled by default on 85% of platforms? Instead of trying to educate lawmakers and the general public that certain DRM is good and certain DRM is bad, I think *right now* it might be better to simply lay DRM flat on its back and then start evolving technology that protects the consumer's rights.
Just my opinion, though.
Cheers.
Actually, if I recall, Apple's CEO, Steve Jobs, had to appear before Congress to defend their "Rip.Mix.Burn" advertising campaign that promoted the 'classic' iMac line of products.
To me, that's not silence. It may not be telling the RIAA/MPAA to shove it, but its not silence either.
Cheers.
In its current (and likely, future) incarnations, DRM empowers the publishers of content. Not the creators, not the public.
Neither the creators nor the public is clamoring for DRM and neither of these parties is currently fighting very hard to prevent the publishers from getting DRM the way they want it.
Gillmore may be missing the point, but currently, "...hard to get the right laws..." is a bit on the rosy side, don't ya think?
Cheers.
To all the geeks out there: here's another chance to put your money where your mouth is. Support the EFF, support the ACLU, support Apple. They're standing up for you, whether directly or indirectly. Whether for their own good or yours. Regardless, at the moment, they're standing up for you.
Now's the time to show your support. Go buy an iPod. If you don't have a Mac, buy the Windows one. I *think* both the Mac iPod and the Windows iPod are supported by the new gnuPod software, but check to be sure.
Going to be purchasing a new system soon? Don't build your own - that sends a message to no-one. Buy a Mac. Run Linux on your Mac if you must, but buy a Mac. Not ready to do that? At least tell people who look to your for computer know-how, that they should buy a Mac. Explain why. Explain what hangs in the balance - educate some people.
Make a difference. Advocate and speak with your pocketbook - that's what will work.
One thing that I see that might change this is the simple fact that a large percentage of the media that is created and distributed is created and prepared for distribution on Macs. That might make a difference. Video is edited on Macs. Audio is mixed on Macs. Etc.
.Mac which I think is perfectly justified).
Will this make a difference in the end? Who knows. But I'm throwin' my support to Apple - they're getting my dime and that won't change until they do something distinctly anti-consumer (more anti-consumer than charging for
Linux is great, but Linux has no clout, unfortunately. Linux on servers doesn't need DRM technologies - and that's all that Linux is *really* doing in business (see IBM, SAP/SuSE, RedHat, etc.). But, Apple is all about the consumer, DRM is a big deal there. Never mind that Steve Jobs owns (or is the CEO or something of) Pixar, which is in the business of creating movies that up 'til now have been pretty successful.
Monster's Inc. racked up $80 million in DVD/VHS sales in the first week. I'd say that with Jobs at the helm of that kind of sway, we can expect something rosier than what is presented above.