What would you say if the Tooth Fairy society said mathematics is fine so long as you recognize that Tooth Fairies created numbers in the first place? That is obviously better than some idiot who denies addition, but the statement itself is still wrong. Mathematics is fine. Period.
I agree it is vitally important that science not be used in a misleading way. Not by you or anyone else. Evolution says nothing on the existence or non-existence of an invisible sky wizard. Evolution is fine. Period.
There are more than 100 companies involved in developing and pushing Trusted Computing, and a good argument could be made that Intel as the primary company responsible for initiating it, developing it, and pushing it.
Apple have made such a device. Microsoft haven't.
Microsoft doesn't manufacture PCs, so obviously the number is zero and will remain zero.
However Microsoft does dictate hardware specifications that manufacturers have to follow for their hardware to be compatible with Windows. At one point Microsoft did in fact declare Trust Chips would be REQUIRED on all motherboards in order to be compatible with the next release of Windows. Hardware manufacturers screamed that they wouldn't be ready in time, and Microsoft's internal development project ran off the rails, and they cut the TPM from the hardware specification.
It's funny that you refer to the kerfuffle when a some Apple computers were found to contain this chip. You appear to be unaware of the fact that the !!!majority!!! of Windows computers being sold today include this chip. More than 80% of laptops contain this chip, and a lower but rising percentage of desktops are now shipping with the chip.
Innocent until proven guilty?
Who? And guilty of what?
You seem to be obsessed with the Microsoft angle, and to that extent they are certainly guilty of abusing their monopoly position to dictate to manufacturers that they MUST put Trust Chips on all motherboards, or be driven out of business. It's pretty obvious that no PC motherboard manufacturer could possibly remain in business selling motherboards that were incompatible with Windows. Manufactures must comply with Windows compatibility specifications or they are dead, period. The fact that Microsoft backtracked on that move doesn't change their guilt in intention and guilt in action when they declared the Trust chips would be a mandatory specification.
But if we set aside your obsession with Microsoft, I'd say the first "who" to consider is the Trust Chip itself. I am a programmer and I have read 332 page technical specification for the chip. The chip is specifically designed to be secure against the owner. The chip specification explicitly refers to a "rogue owner" as an attacker, and explains that parts of the specification are MANDATORY in order to secure against the owner. So yes, I'd say it is "proven guilty" that the chip is specifically designed with hostile intent against the owner of the computer. And if we consider the "who" to be the Trusted Computing Group that designed the chip and published that specification, they too are are "proven guilty" of hostile intent against computer owners. There are over a hundred companies that have joined the Trusted Computing Group, but it was founded and is primarily controlled by five companies: AMD, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Intel, and Microsoft. As such, they share the "proven guilt" of designing the chip with hostile intent against computer owners. Or more directly relevant to this story, we can consider the "who" to be this internet access control system. I have read the technical specifications. Those specifications "prove it guilty" of operating as I describe. The future effects the system will have if it does get deployed are not "proven", however it is quite obvious what effect it will have. As far as I am aware you have not disputed that this system will indeed have the future effects that I described.
You seem to think this is just some anti-Microsoft bashing, just because I point out that one of the results of this system will be to give Microsoft effectively monopoly ownership of the internet. If I had a choice between (a) killing Microsoft while letting Trusted Computing proceed, or (b) GIVING Microsoft monopoly ownership of the internet while stopping Trusted Computing, I'd let Microsoft own the internet. Trusted Computing is vastly more destructive than just this particular side effect that happens to benefit Microsoft.
As much as I appreciate Microsoft bashing, I don't think they would go that far:-)
You are still missing how the system works. There is no Microsoft bashing involved. I will stipulate that Microsoft is run by Mother Theresa and Gandhi. I will stipulate that Microsoft is staffed with angels and saints.
The way this system works is that the Trust chip scans the exact operating system binary running on your computer and generates a 160 bit number (a 54 digit number). This number is what the Health Check uses to pass you or fail you. An important point here is that, for all practical purposes, the number of different values can be considered infinite. If someone gives you a random number, you have no way to know what that number means. If a computer is infected by a virus you will get some particular, but arbitrary, number. In fact a virus can evade identification by deliberately randomizing the Health Check number - it can simply generate some random (but unused) code in itself when it infects the system.
Under this system a specific known clean OS binary shows up as a specific known number. Under this system an infected computer shows up as a random number you've never heard of. If this system is going to do anything at all, the only thing it can do is treat a random unrecognized number as a virus.
The only way you can pass the health check is if the system does recognize your specific number as acceptable. The system can do this in one of two ways. The first way to do it is for the ISP to preform a direct check against a whitelist of known approved numbers. The ISP would need to add a particular number to their accept list. They would need to add a specific number for each exact-binary operating system. Most of the ISP's customers use Windows, so obviously your ISP will keep their list up to date with the identification numbers for Windows. In order to force you to patch your system they take your operating system's number off of the approved list and they add the new patched number to their accept list.
The second way they can check these Health numbers, they way that will actually be used, is with an indirect check. They can look for a cryptographic signature from somebody certifying that a particular number (your particular number) represents a clean operating system. Obviously Microsoft is an authority who can legitimately certify that a certain number represents a clean version of their operating system. Apple is also an authority who can legitimately state that particular numbers represent clean versions of their operating systems. Obviously ISPs will put Microsoft on their whitelist to certify clean systems. ISPs will probably put Apple on their whitelists as well, however I certainly wouldn't want to be a Mac user worrying whether an ISP had bothered placing Apple on their whitelist.
In theory your ISP could put a specific binary version of Linux on their whitelist, but ISPs are hardly going to get into the business of certifying specific compiles of Linux or anything else are clean. Much more reasonably, in theory an ISP could put someone like RedHat on their witelist, and RedHat could provide signatures certifying that a particular number is a clean version of their operating system. However good freaking luck if you think your ISP is actually going to bother adding RedHat or anyone else on their whitelist. And even if your ISP whitelisted RedHat, you still fail the Health Check and denied internet access with any other Linux distro. And obviously you have no chance whatsoever if you're using BSD or any other operating system.
ISP's won't be "banning" Linux, they will simply say they don't support it. That already happens today, most ISPs really don't want to hear from you if you're running anything other than Windows. They'd rather just drop you as a customer than deal with support for "strange" operating systems.
But lets pretend we live in Candyland. Lets say your ISP does put RedHat or whoever on their whi
Can you imagine the hysterics if the government had proposed this!
I regret to inform you that the government has been proposing this every year for at least the last ten years.
It seems to have disappeared from the internet, but I saved a copy of a PDF from the December 4&5 2001 Global Tech Summit in Washington D.C. It contains the keynote speech from Richard Clarke, Special Advisor to the President for Cyberspace Security. He literally cited Osama bin Laden in his call to secure the internet. Here are some snippets from that keynote speech:
I think we need to decide that from now on IT security functionality will be built in to what we do, to the products that we bring to market.
TCPA, the Trusted Computing Platform Alliance, is an example of bringing hardware and software manufacturers together. But TCPA is not enough. It's a good beginning, but it's not enough.
It is not beyond the wit of this industry to figure out a way of forcing down patches.
ISPs and carriers can insist that when cable modems and DSL hookups are made, firewalls are installed. It is not enough for an ISP or carrier to say, oh, and by the way, you might want to think about a firewall.
If you check the PDF on this story, the plan is explicitly based on TPM Trust Enforcement Chips being built into computers as part of forcing down these patches and controlling internet access. "TPM" is the modern name for TCPA.
The US Government has been pushing this crap harder and harder each year in the "National Plan to Secure Cyberspace" and the plans to "Secure the National Information Infrastructure" and in every other Capitalized Plan And Policy And Strategy Regarding The Internet. The government has been funneling tens of millions of dollars of grants every year into developing this crap. Starting in 2006 the US Army mandated Trust Enforcement Chips be included in all new computer purchaces, I think(?) this policy been science extended to all military computer purchases, and the government has been seriously discussing making it mandatory for all government computer purchases. The really fun is that the explicitly stated purpose for this government policy. The purpose is to use government buying power to fund and manipulate the manufacturing industry. The declared purpose is fabricate a commercial demand to ramp up production of these chips, and for these chips to be included by default in ALL new consumer PCs. The government has been increasingly pushing this agenda in international relations and in bodies under the UN. Unfortunately the European Union has, if anything, become even more eager than the US in their grand plans to in promoting the new Information Economy and the new Information Society. Yay for more Capitalized Plans from our European brothers. There has been increasing activity from all parties on plans for instituting Internet Governance. It's interesting to note that the world's most repressive regiems are most enthusiastic. They are just drooling over the surveillance, control, tracking, law enforcement, repression, and censorship that comes along with locking down computers and locking down the internet internet access and internet communications.
Just to link a single example of recent government work product, Slashdot reported on White House Unveils Plans For "Trusted Identities In Cyberspace" from the President's Cyberspace Policy Review. And lets have a Capitalized Yay for the Capitalized Identity Ecosystem it wants impose on us. If you actually get down into the proposal it is the same crap to lock down our computers with these Trust Enforcement Chips. Not only can these chips preform Health Checks to grant or deny you access to the internet, these chips will lock down our digital identities and manage our privacy. If you read the fine PDF in that link, page 4 has an "Envision it!" box explaining how this Identity
Replying to myself, I forgot to point out that the PDF explicitly advocates using legislation and international bodies to impose this "Health Check" on internet access.
I'm more worried about the implications. "you cannot go online unless you download this patch from microsoft".. what if the patch contains something I don't like?
Oh, you missed a whopper of an implication. You can't even install that patch until you install Windows.
If you have a computer infected with a random virus, all this system knows is that it doesn't recognize the stuff on your computer. If you have a computer with some other OS, all this system knows is that it doesn't recognize the stuff on your computer. In fact as far as this system knows you could have a Windows system infected by a virus, and the virus is trying to sneak past the Health Check and avoid the new Windows patch by pretending you're running Linux.
All this system understands is that you failed the Health Check.
Your computer has to have the Trust Enforcement Chip to even preform the Health Check. Then you need to be running Windows. Then you can install the patch from Microsoft. Then you pass the Health Check. THEN they want your ISP to allow you internet access.
A network protection scheme doesn't have to verify that Macs, ubuntus etc etc are "compliant" In summary: the point isn't to create Sauron's eye.
If the system worked the way you suggest then viruses and malware could simply claim to be a Mac or Linux. Viruses and malware would be able to completely bypass the system.
If you check the PDF in the article, page 14 explicitly states that the system is supposed to run with a Trusted Platform Module. The very point of the system is to prevent a computer from faking its way past this "Health Check".
As you appear to acknowledge, this system is unable to tell the difference between a clean or infected version of a random operating system like Ubuntu system. This system also cannot tell the difference between Linux and a Virus. If you make any modification to your Windows operating system, this system is unable to tell the difference between your change and a virus infection.
If you read and understand how this system works, any modification you want to make to a Windows operating system will cause it to fail the Health Check. If you try to connect with any alternate operating system it will fail the Health Check. And yeah, a virus infected machine will also fail the Health Check.
However the point is that the system is a whitelist. It checks the precise binary version of the operating system. All it can check weather it has been specifically pre-approved. When this system sees a computer infected with an unknown virus, when this system sees a computer with an unknown operating system, all it knows is that there is unknown unidentified software on the computer. Some random operating system looks the same as some random a virus. Any system that has not been pre-approved is TREATED as a virus.
Anyone who attempts to connect to the network with Linux, or any other operating system, it will fail the "Health Check". Any computer that fails the Health Check is assumed to be infected. The computer is "Quarantined". Quarantine means that you are denied internet access.
One can certainly argue that the intent of this system is to block viruses and malware. However the fact is that the PDF is advocating that this system be imposed by ISPs. The fact is that this system treats any unrecognized operating system like a virus. The fact is that any unapproved system is denied an internet connection. In theory your ISP could put specific binary version of Linux on their whitelist so it will be recognized. However but the instant you recompile Linux it will no longer be recognized. It doesn't matter if you're improving Linux or even patching Linux to prevent it from getting infected. The fact is that the operating system binary is different, it is again unrecognized. You fail the Health Check. You are denied an internet connection. The fact that other operating systems could in theory be whitelisted is completely empty in reality. Macs would survive by for a while in a big show charade of interoperability, but it's a fantasy to imagine even they could last for long.
One could argue that there are good people with good intent working on this, but the fact is that "creating Sauron's eye" is a disturbingly accurate description.
The way the system works is that a special chip in the computer will scan what Operating System and softer you are running. This Trust Chip is designed to be secure against the owner, and secure against software. Any malware or virus is unable override this chip, but the owner himself is also denied the ability to control or override his own computer.
The simplified description is that the chip spies on your operating system ans your software as they load, and then this chip can send a cryptographically-secure spy report to other computers over the network. You're right the scans do not detect "infection". What it does is code your exact system as a number, and then check that Microsoft (or some other entity) has approved that exact system with a crypto-signature.
If you are running Windows and you get infected by something, that change in the system will change the number the chip generates for your system. That different number is not approved. Your computer gets "quarantined". You are denied internet access.
If you are running Windows and you want to an unapproved driver or make any other change to your operating system, then that will also change the number the chip generates for your system. Again, that different number is not approved. Again, your computer gets "quarantined" and you are denied internet access. You no long "own" or control your computer. Your computer is locked against you, and any attempt to change it results in a loss of internet access. In fact any attempt to change your system will also result in the chip locking you out of your own files. That's the other main function of the chip. The network function of the chip is called Remote Attestation, and the file function is called Seal Storage.
If you aren't running Windows, well the chip still generated a special number for whatever OS you are running. Obviously Microsoft or whoever else has not specifically issued an approval for that number, they have not specifically given you a cryptographic signature of approval for that number. When you attempt to connect to the internet your ISP doesn't have that number on their list of "Healthy" numbers. Your computer therefore fails the Health Check. Your computer gets quarantined. You are denied internet access.
If you want to mane an UnApproved modification to Windows, or if you're not running Windows, then your computer is treated the same way the system treats an infected machine. You are denied internet access, and they justify that action by using the phrase "infected machine" when in fact there is no infection.
Oh, and I almost forgot. If your computer doesn't have a Trust Chip in it then you can't preform the cryptographic Health Check at all. Without the chip you could falsely send the number representing a clean approved system. Without the chip a virus could falsely send the number for a clean approved system. If you don't have the Trust Chip you fail the Health Check and they have to assume you are infected. They intend to ban you from the internet if you don't have the Trust Chip to lock down your computer.
However, that is still an improvement over the current situation
Some people do think it would be an improvement to ban non-Windows systems from the internet, some people do think it would be an improvement to prohibit anyone from modifying their operating system, some people do think it would be an improvement to deny people ownership and control of their own computers, some people do think it would be an improvement to impose globally-enforced DRM system. However I suspect you might now have a somewhat less favorable view of this particular system:)
I see this as another stealth control measure to create a defacto model for denying service.
You hit the nail on the head there, and about the obscenity that this would deny people internet access if they aren't running an approved operating system, and to "Stuff this genie back into the bottle".
However I find it appalling that you were pushing for this exact system in the first place. "Infected machines could not access account services or cart/profiles, etc.". If I understand you correctly, you're still proposing making it mandatory for people to have TrustChips in their computers. You're still using those TrustChips to scan exactly what operating system and software people have. You're still banning people if they aren't running specific whitelisted operating systems. You're still banning people if they aren't running specific mandatory whitelisted software. Furthermore you are still using the false term "infected machines" when you ban UNINFECTED machines. Banning people for the grievous crime of choosing some other operating system. Yes, some sites might bother to whitelist specific Apple operating systems, and in theory specific sites could whitelist particular unmodified (and unmodifiable) compiles of Linux. However whitelisting for Apple system would be very hit-or-miss at best. Anyone with a Mac would be banned from a substantial percentage of sites, and any other operating system would in reality be subject to an absolute lock out.
In my proposal, enforcement would be at site logon
Oh joy, your proposal was that people would be free to connect to the internet but instead be banned from using the internet in any meaningful sense?
It is also misleading or naive if anyone suggests the system is just for banking and shopping. (As if "merely" banning non-Microsoft systems would be much better.) Once you actually deploy this sort of system then any and all websites can use it for any and all purposes. Do you seriously have any doubt that the system would quickly and widely be used by general websites, even "open" websites withou logons? That ordinary sites would want to check that you're not running any sort of ad-blocker? That many ordinary sites would want to check for DRM-style conformance that your OS/broswer won't save a copy of images or other content from the site?
If you actually build and deploy the system you said you advocated a large portion of sites on the internet would use it for one reason or another, and anyone NOT running the Standard Approved Microsoft OS would be largely banned from the internet. And then it just keeps getting worse. That functionality can and will be baked into protocols. Anyone not running the Standard Approved Microsoft OS would be banned from using those protocols at all on the internet.
Al also find it strange that you didn't foresee this ISP-level enforcement in the first place. Preforming the "Health Check" at the initial ISP access is the obvious and unavoidable result of any system of this sort.
As I said, your post left me confused. I have trouble reconciling how you reject this system, yet you were intimately involved in producing it. I have trouble understanding your support for the underlying system is being used in a somewhat more limited form, yet a form which was still "stealth control measure to create a defacto model for denying service". I don't understand how widespread "denial of service" on the internet is somehow Good while denial of internet service somehow crosses into Evil. Did I misinterpret part of your post?
The reason neutrino detectors are underground is that you don't want them to detect any old neutrino.
Neutrino detectors are put underground to shield out noise from stuff like cosmic rays.
You can indeed shield from -some- neutrinos
A solid lead wall one trillion miles thick would provide less than 10% shielding against neutrinos. An entire planet will shield 0.000000000% of neutrinos. An entire star will shield 0.00000000% of neutrinos. Nothing short of a black hole will noticeably shield against neutrinos, and even then the black hole would just "vacuum up" the neutrinos rather than shielding them in any conventional sense.
Problem here is that you have absolutely no proof of this.
Their work and discussions are all sitting on an open public message board!
I don't own a PS3 and I wasn't involved, but I am a hacker-type and I went there to read the technical details when the story came up. I can't imagine a better "proof" of what happened than the public transcripts of everything that went on.
The other problem with your rant is that you didn't acknowledge that Hotz broke out of the hypervisor before OtherOS had been removed.
Yes I did:
"And lets look at the purpose of the first PS3 crack that came out. People were trying to get the graphics hardware to work in OtherOS and for legitimate homebrew games. And as always, the system got cracked for legitimate purposes. And furthermore, that crack did NOT enable piracy.
Sony didn't remove OtherOS randomly. They removed it out of paranoia, out of their obsession for control, and out of stupidity. The crack broke the broke out of the hardware limitations on OtherOS, but it did not put you in the GamesOS. It did not load copied games.
You just want to believe that the USB hack was created out of revenge.
After Sony stupidly killed OtherOS, all those programmers who were running Linux and programming their own software for the PS3 went into overdrive trying to get their systems working again. It is all publicly documented on their message boards how they found a hole in the system and they attempted to use it to reactivate OtherOS. Software was written and posted for exploiting that hole. No one was able to leverage that particular hole to get into OtherOS. Note that the exploit software they created and posted to work on with specifically deactivated the system call for loading games. It was obvious that any moderately competent programmer could re-write it to reactivate game loading, but they specifically made the effort to switch that functionality off in the version they posted and worked with. They were trying to fix the OtherOS that Sony deliberately broke.
Of course once that hole was discovered and publicly posted to work on, it was trivial for any minimally competent programmer to turn game loading back on. I don't know who did that, and I did not claim to know it was for "revenge". That is certainly a plausible explanation, but I don't know. But that was not the claim or point I was making. My point was that systems get cracked by legitimate hackers for absolutely legitimate purposes. Once they accomplish the expert feat of cracking past the anti-owner security system it is usually trivial for someone to adapt it to copying games.
My point was that the PS3 remained uncracked for years is exactly because they included OtherOS which (mostly) enable all those expert hackers to do the stuff they wanted to do without needing to crack the system. My point is that when the fist crack did show up all it did was legitimately free up the hardware restrictions in OtherOS, it did NOT work for games. My point is that Sony fucked over console owners, and they fucked themselves over when they killed OtherOS. The second crack, the crack that didn't work for OtherOS, the crack that only worked in games mode, the crack that was repurposed for game copying, it was only discovered and publicly analyzed as a side effect of the HONEST and LEGITIMATE work to re-enable Linux and other other software.
My point is that Sony wouldn't have the current problem if they weren't so moronically and maliciously destructive.
three locations that we can expect to have different neutrino fluxes. Let's have one at high altitude, say a passenger jet that's going to make a fair number of transatlantic journeys. The second can be in a laboratory. The third, let's put that in a box and have an ROV place it in some deep sea trench
It's possible I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to test, but your experiment appears to be broken. All three samples will have effectively identical neutrino flux. Being the same shape they will have the same self-flux from decaying atoms, and they will all have the same solar neutrino flux because you can't shield neutrinos. Even at midnight they will all get equal and full blast neutrino flux from from solar neutrinos passing through the entire planet and hitting them from below.
Why? It would be bad. I'm fuzzy on the whole good/bad thing. What do you mean, "bad"? Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light.
Actually there was a large project dedicated to re-enable OtherOS, and I don't think it would be accurate to classify that work as revenge. During that work they found a partial hole, but it wasn't good enough to enable OtherOS. That partial hole became public on their message boards. The crack was a side effect of legitimate work, and perhaps it was revenge when someone repurposed it with a minor tweak to load copied games.
I have no idea what would have happened if Sony "reopened OtherOS". However there is no question that analysis of the PS3 system was almost nonexistent for several years while OtherOS was available. There's no question that killing OtherOS on people's immediately produced a global network of hundred or thousands of programmers all dedicated to getting their systems working again, and and establishing a global network distributing and coordinating thousands of man-hours of expert work per week dissecting and analyzing the PS3 internals and the "security" lockout mechanisms. If Sony hadn't killed people's systems in the first place none of the piracy stuff your talking about would exist today.
A while ago Slashdot had a story where someone made a chart of the various console systems, how long they were out before they got cracked, what person or group created the crack, and the purpose of the crack. It is quite interesting that every single crack was produced for entirely legitimate purposes. Legitimate homebrew coders, people wanting to run Linux, people wanting wanting to to use the console as an audio or video system. It's quit interesting that the people with the skillset to crack a console are almost invariable people with absolutely legitimate intent and purpose in doing so. It is extremely interesting that "pirates" and "pirate groups" don't appear to possess the skills to crack a console. It is only after a console's anti-owner "security" gets cracked for legitimate purposes that someone else makes a minor tweak to the crack to also support copying games.
But the most interesting part of it was that the chart showed that the PS3 system remained uncracked far far longer than any of the other systems. All other systems systems got cracked within a few months of release. The PS3 system remained uncracked for several years. An absolutely unprecedented timespan for any major console. They went on to discuss how the PS3 was the first and only system that allowed people to engage in their homebrew without needing to crack the system, allowed people to run Linux and media players and everything else, all without needing to crack the system. All of the hackers could engage in all of their legitimate activities without needing to crack the system. So all the legitimate hackers went ahead and engaged in their legitimate activities, and didn't bother trying to hack the system. And pirates don't crack systems. So the PS3 remained uncracked exactly because OtherOS was included.
And lets look at the purpose of the first PS3 crack that came out. People were trying to get the graphics hardware to work in OtherOS and for legitimate homebrew games. And as always, the system got cracked for legitimate purposes. And furthermore, that crack did NOT enable piracy. It was a legitimate crack for a legitimate purposes, and it was completely useless for running pirated games. And what happened? Sony pulled a bonehead move. Sony fucked over all of the legitimate users, legitimate programmers, and Sony fucked themselves over. Sony killed OtherOS on people's systems. There was no piracy, Sony just fucked over good legitimate people and hosed all of the consoles, and fucked themselves in the process. Obviously all of those fucked over programmers were pissed off, and highly motivated to get their sabotaged consoles working again. All those programmers started woking on getting all of their legitimate projects working again. And in analyzing the systems to fix the OtherOS ability they came across a partial crack in part of the system, but the hole wasn't big enough to re-enable OtherOS, so they just kept on working. Of course that partial hole effectively became public when they discovered it and analyzed it on their message boards. And someone made a minor tweak to that crack allowing copied games to be loaded.
And there you have it. There was no piracy crack because of OtherOS. There was no piracy even when OtherOS was cracked to legitimately enhance graphics support. But by nuking the legitimate
First of all, according to police figures the majority of seized "child porn" images are not photos of children being abused. Things like children engaged in ordinary gymnastics events dressed in their usual leotards. According to police figures the majority of seized images involve no crime whatsoever, other than interpreting the gymnastics poses in a sexual manner or deciding that the chest or crotch areas are too prominent in the images or somesuch.
But lets set aside most of the images in this naughty-picture-witchhunt. Lets just consider the cases where it's a photo of someone committing a crime.
There are strange people who whack off to images or video of burning buildings, doubtlessly including 9/11. i.e. real (and fatal) harm to nearly three thousand real humans. However most people can grasp the simple concept that you put people in prison for actual criminal acts like arson, and don't put people in prison simply for possession their strange arson image collection.
Note that we have standard laws for contributing to a crime. Paying someone to commit arson is a crime. Conspiring, aiding, abetting, or anything else in furtherance of arson is a crime. If someone clips arson photos from the newspaper, or downloads videos from the internet, but he HASN'T committed arson and he HASN'T committed any of the standard contributory crimes relating to arson, then we can certainly call him a freak. However it would be insane to call him a criminal.
By definition that's what we're talking about here. We're talking about one unique "possession of offensive information" law to criminalize people who aren't guilty of any other crime. By definition we're talking about people who have not directly committed the crime in the photos, nor have they indirectly contributed to any crime under any of the existing contributory laws.
Lets examine this in a concrete manner. I happen to like redheads. Unfortunately redheads are rather rare. A couple of years ago I found this neat program called Imagewolf. You point it at a website and it downloads all the images on that site, and then it starts following the links out from that site to find more sites to download more images and continue walking those links finding semi-random sites on the internet. I pointed it at a redhead site and left it running for a weekend, saturating a broadband download pipe. It automatically discovered hundreds of further websites and downloads probably close to a hundred thousand images, several gigs. All perfectly legal. At the end of the weekend I started scanning through the download folder and deleting images thousands at a time, looking for redheads. I deleted like 99.9% of them. All is well and good, I am a perfectly law abiding citizen. However I came to an insane realization, and perhaps you can explain this to me. I realized that I had deleted a different 99.9% of those randomly harvested images, the law would have declared me a criminal subject to a bazillion years in prison.
Am I missing something here? I haven't done anything improper to any child, I haven't requested, commissioned, conspired, aided, abetted, or committed any other contributory crime. Running software for an automated harvest of random web images is perfectly legal. Yet somehow deleting a different 99.9% would legitimately have made me a criminal? I seriously don't get it. I find that notion shocking and nonsensical. Does your "real harm to real humans" somehow magically apply if I had deleted differently? Do you have any other way to justify this law? Or can we agree that this law is FUBAR and that the naughty-picture-police should be reassigned the job of rescuing actual children and catching actual criminals who are committing actual criminal acts against those actual children?
Slashdot Mirror
What would you say if the Tooth Fairy society said mathematics is fine so long as you recognize that Tooth Fairies created numbers in the first place? That is obviously better than some idiot who denies addition, but the statement itself is still wrong. Mathematics is fine. Period.
I agree it is vitally important that science not be used in a misleading way. Not by you or anyone else. Evolution says nothing on the existence or non-existence of an invisible sky wizard. Evolution is fine. Period.
-
You're going to have to sue him for it. You can get in line behind all of the sexually abused children.
-
I have a problem with free will but choose to believe in it because I was predestined to
*You* may be some soulless automata predestined to believe in free will, but *I* choose not to believe in free will.
-
Obviously that is true of any ordinary book, but the point here is that it refutes the Bible as the supposed "One True Word of God".
-
To quote Pascal, Twain, Jefferson, Hemingway, and Goethe:
I apologize for the length of my post. I had not the time to make it shorter :)
-
Not a problem
-
You seem to obsessing over Microsoft.
There are more than 100 companies involved in developing and pushing Trusted Computing, and a good argument could be made that Intel as the primary company responsible for initiating it, developing it, and pushing it.
Apple have made such a device. Microsoft haven't.
Microsoft doesn't manufacture PCs, so obviously the number is zero and will remain zero.
However Microsoft does dictate hardware specifications that manufacturers have to follow for their hardware to be compatible with Windows. At one point Microsoft did in fact declare Trust Chips would be REQUIRED on all motherboards in order to be compatible with the next release of Windows. Hardware manufacturers screamed that they wouldn't be ready in time, and Microsoft's internal development project ran off the rails, and they cut the TPM from the hardware specification.
It's funny that you refer to the kerfuffle when a some Apple computers were found to contain this chip. You appear to be unaware of the fact that the !!!majority!!! of Windows computers being sold today include this chip. More than 80% of laptops contain this chip, and a lower but rising percentage of desktops are now shipping with the chip.
Innocent until proven guilty?
Who? And guilty of what?
You seem to be obsessed with the Microsoft angle, and to that extent they are certainly guilty of abusing their monopoly position to dictate to manufacturers that they MUST put Trust Chips on all motherboards, or be driven out of business. It's pretty obvious that no PC motherboard manufacturer could possibly remain in business selling motherboards that were incompatible with Windows. Manufactures must comply with Windows compatibility specifications or they are dead, period. The fact that Microsoft backtracked on that move doesn't change their guilt in intention and guilt in action when they declared the Trust chips would be a mandatory specification.
But if we set aside your obsession with Microsoft, I'd say the first "who" to consider is the Trust Chip itself. I am a programmer and I have read 332 page technical specification for the chip. The chip is specifically designed to be secure against the owner. The chip specification explicitly refers to a "rogue owner" as an attacker, and explains that parts of the specification are MANDATORY in order to secure against the owner. So yes, I'd say it is "proven guilty" that the chip is specifically designed with hostile intent against the owner of the computer. And if we consider the "who" to be the Trusted Computing Group that designed the chip and published that specification, they too are are "proven guilty" of hostile intent against computer owners. There are over a hundred companies that have joined the Trusted Computing Group, but it was founded and is primarily controlled by five companies: AMD, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Intel, and Microsoft. As such, they share the "proven guilt" of designing the chip with hostile intent against computer owners. Or more directly relevant to this story, we can consider the "who" to be this internet access control system. I have read the technical specifications. Those specifications "prove it guilty" of operating as I describe. The future effects the system will have if it does get deployed are not "proven", however it is quite obvious what effect it will have. As far as I am aware you have not disputed that this system will indeed have the future effects that I described.
You seem to think this is just some anti-Microsoft bashing, just because I point out that one of the results of this system will be to give Microsoft effectively monopoly ownership of the internet. If I had a choice between (a) killing Microsoft while letting Trusted Computing proceed, or (b) GIVING Microsoft monopoly ownership of the internet while stopping Trusted Computing, I'd let Microsoft own the internet. Trusted Computing is vastly more destructive than just this particular side effect that happens to benefit Microsoft.
-
As much as I appreciate Microsoft bashing, I don't think they would go that far :-)
You are still missing how the system works. There is no Microsoft bashing involved.
I will stipulate that Microsoft is run by Mother Theresa and Gandhi.
I will stipulate that Microsoft is staffed with angels and saints.
The way this system works is that the Trust chip scans the exact operating system binary running on your computer and generates a 160 bit number (a 54 digit number). This number is what the Health Check uses to pass you or fail you. An important point here is that, for all practical purposes, the number of different values can be considered infinite. If someone gives you a random number, you have no way to know what that number means. If a computer is infected by a virus you will get some particular, but arbitrary, number. In fact a virus can evade identification by deliberately randomizing the Health Check number - it can simply generate some random (but unused) code in itself when it infects the system.
Under this system a specific known clean OS binary shows up as a specific known number. Under this system an infected computer shows up as a random number you've never heard of. If this system is going to do anything at all, the only thing it can do is treat a random unrecognized number as a virus.
The only way you can pass the health check is if the system does recognize your specific number as acceptable. The system can do this in one of two ways. The first way to do it is for the ISP to preform a direct check against a whitelist of known approved numbers. The ISP would need to add a particular number to their accept list. They would need to add a specific number for each exact-binary operating system. Most of the ISP's customers use Windows, so obviously your ISP will keep their list up to date with the identification numbers for Windows. In order to force you to patch your system they take your operating system's number off of the approved list and they add the new patched number to their accept list.
The second way they can check these Health numbers, they way that will actually be used, is with an indirect check. They can look for a cryptographic signature from somebody certifying that a particular number (your particular number) represents a clean operating system. Obviously Microsoft is an authority who can legitimately certify that a certain number represents a clean version of their operating system. Apple is also an authority who can legitimately state that particular numbers represent clean versions of their operating systems. Obviously ISPs will put Microsoft on their whitelist to certify clean systems. ISPs will probably put Apple on their whitelists as well, however I certainly wouldn't want to be a Mac user worrying whether an ISP had bothered placing Apple on their whitelist.
In theory your ISP could put a specific binary version of Linux on their whitelist, but ISPs are hardly going to get into the business of certifying specific compiles of Linux or anything else are clean. Much more reasonably, in theory an ISP could put someone like RedHat on their witelist, and RedHat could provide signatures certifying that a particular number is a clean version of their operating system. However good freaking luck if you think your ISP is actually going to bother adding RedHat or anyone else on their whitelist. And even if your ISP whitelisted RedHat, you still fail the Health Check and denied internet access with any other Linux distro. And obviously you have no chance whatsoever if you're using BSD or any other operating system.
ISP's won't be "banning" Linux, they will simply say they don't support it. That already happens today, most ISPs really don't want to hear from you if you're running anything other than Windows. They'd rather just drop you as a customer than deal with support for "strange" operating systems.
But lets pretend we live in Candyland. Lets say your ISP does put RedHat or whoever on their whi
Can you imagine the hysterics if the government had proposed this!
I regret to inform you that the government has been proposing this every year for at least the last ten years.
It seems to have disappeared from the internet, but I saved a copy of a PDF from the December 4&5 2001 Global Tech Summit in Washington D.C. It contains the keynote speech from Richard Clarke, Special Advisor to the President for Cyberspace Security. He literally cited Osama bin Laden in his call to secure the internet. Here are some snippets from that keynote speech:
I think we need to decide that from now on IT security functionality will be built in to what we do, to the products that we bring to market.
TCPA, the Trusted Computing Platform Alliance, is an example of bringing hardware and software manufacturers together. But TCPA is not enough. It's a good beginning, but it's not enough.
It is not beyond the wit of this industry to figure out a way of forcing down patches.
ISPs and carriers can insist that when cable modems and DSL hookups are made, firewalls are installed. It is not enough for an ISP or carrier to say, oh, and by the way, you might want to think about a firewall.
If you check the PDF on this story, the plan is explicitly based on TPM Trust Enforcement Chips being built into computers as part of forcing down these patches and controlling internet access. "TPM" is the modern name for TCPA.
The US Government has been pushing this crap harder and harder each year in the "National Plan to Secure Cyberspace" and the plans to "Secure the National Information Infrastructure" and in every other Capitalized Plan And Policy And Strategy Regarding The Internet. The government has been funneling tens of millions of dollars of grants every year into developing this crap. Starting in 2006 the US Army mandated Trust Enforcement Chips be included in all new computer purchaces, I think(?) this policy been science extended to all military computer purchases, and the government has been seriously discussing making it mandatory for all government computer purchases. The really fun is that the explicitly stated purpose for this government policy. The purpose is to use government buying power to fund and manipulate the manufacturing industry. The declared purpose is fabricate a commercial demand to ramp up production of these chips, and for these chips to be included by default in ALL new consumer PCs. The government has been increasingly pushing this agenda in international relations and in bodies under the UN. Unfortunately the European Union has, if anything, become even more eager than the US in their grand plans to in promoting the new Information Economy and the new Information Society. Yay for more Capitalized Plans from our European brothers. There has been increasing activity from all parties on plans for instituting Internet Governance. It's interesting to note that the world's most repressive regiems are most enthusiastic. They are just drooling over the surveillance, control, tracking, law enforcement, repression, and censorship that comes along with locking down computers and locking down the internet internet access and internet communications.
Just to link a single example of recent government work product, Slashdot reported on White House Unveils Plans For "Trusted Identities In Cyberspace" from the President's Cyberspace Policy Review. And lets have a Capitalized Yay for the Capitalized Identity Ecosystem it wants impose on us. If you actually get down into the proposal it is the same crap to lock down our computers with these Trust Enforcement Chips. Not only can these chips preform Health Checks to grant or deny you access to the internet, these chips will lock down our digital identities and manage our privacy. If you read the fine PDF in that link, page 4 has an "Envision it!" box explaining how this Identity
Replying to myself, I forgot to point out that the PDF explicitly advocates using legislation and international bodies to impose this "Health Check" on internet access.
-
I'm more worried about the implications.
"you cannot go online unless you download this patch from microsoft".. what if the patch contains something I don't like?
Oh, you missed a whopper of an implication. You can't even install that patch until you install Windows.
If you have a computer infected with a random virus, all this system knows is that it doesn't recognize the stuff on your computer. If you have a computer with some other OS, all this system knows is that it doesn't recognize the stuff on your computer. In fact as far as this system knows you could have a Windows system infected by a virus, and the virus is trying to sneak past the Health Check and avoid the new Windows patch by pretending you're running Linux.
All this system understands is that you failed the Health Check.
Your computer has to have the Trust Enforcement Chip to even preform the Health Check.
Then you need to be running Windows.
Then you can install the patch from Microsoft.
Then you pass the Health Check.
THEN they want your ISP to allow you internet access.
-
A network protection scheme doesn't have to verify that Macs, ubuntus etc etc are "compliant"
In summary: the point isn't to create Sauron's eye.
If the system worked the way you suggest then viruses and malware could simply claim to be a Mac or Linux. Viruses and malware would be able to completely bypass the system.
If you check the PDF in the article, page 14 explicitly states that the system is supposed to run with a Trusted Platform Module. The very point of the system is to prevent a computer from faking its way past this "Health Check".
As you appear to acknowledge, this system is unable to tell the difference between a clean or infected version of a random operating system like Ubuntu system. This system also cannot tell the difference between Linux and a Virus. If you make any modification to your Windows operating system, this system is unable to tell the difference between your change and a virus infection.
If you read and understand how this system works, any modification you want to make to a Windows operating system will cause it to fail the Health Check. If you try to connect with any alternate operating system it will fail the Health Check. And yeah, a virus infected machine will also fail the Health Check.
However the point is that the system is a whitelist. It checks the precise binary version of the operating system. All it can check weather it has been specifically pre-approved. When this system sees a computer infected with an unknown virus, when this system sees a computer with an unknown operating system, all it knows is that there is unknown unidentified software on the computer. Some random operating system looks the same as some random a virus. Any system that has not been pre-approved is TREATED as a virus.
Anyone who attempts to connect to the network with Linux, or any other operating system, it will fail the "Health Check". Any computer that fails the Health Check is assumed to be infected. The computer is "Quarantined". Quarantine means that you are denied internet access.
One can certainly argue that the intent of this system is to block viruses and malware. However the fact is that the PDF is advocating that this system be imposed by ISPs. The fact is that this system treats any unrecognized operating system like a virus. The fact is that any unapproved system is denied an internet connection. In theory your ISP could put specific binary version of Linux on their whitelist so it will be recognized. However but the instant you recompile Linux it will no longer be recognized. It doesn't matter if you're improving Linux or even patching Linux to prevent it from getting infected. The fact is that the operating system binary is different, it is again unrecognized. You fail the Health Check. You are denied an internet connection. The fact that other operating systems could in theory be whitelisted is completely empty in reality. Macs would survive by for a while in a big show charade of interoperability, but it's a fantasy to imagine even they could last for long.
One could argue that there are good people with good intent working on this, but the fact is that "creating Sauron's eye" is a disturbingly accurate description.
-
The way the system works is that a special chip in the computer will scan what Operating System and softer you are running. This Trust Chip is designed to be secure against the owner, and secure against software. Any malware or virus is unable override this chip, but the owner himself is also denied the ability to control or override his own computer.
The simplified description is that the chip spies on your operating system ans your software as they load, and then this chip can send a cryptographically-secure spy report to other computers over the network. You're right the scans do not detect "infection". What it does is code your exact system as a number, and then check that Microsoft (or some other entity) has approved that exact system with a crypto-signature.
If you are running Windows and you get infected by something, that change in the system will change the number the chip generates for your system. That different number is not approved. Your computer gets "quarantined". You are denied internet access.
If you are running Windows and you want to an unapproved driver or make any other change to your operating system, then that will also change the number the chip generates for your system. Again, that different number is not approved. Again, your computer gets "quarantined" and you are denied internet access. You no long "own" or control your computer. Your computer is locked against you, and any attempt to change it results in a loss of internet access. In fact any attempt to change your system will also result in the chip locking you out of your own files. That's the other main function of the chip. The network function of the chip is called Remote Attestation, and the file function is called Seal Storage.
If you aren't running Windows, well the chip still generated a special number for whatever OS you are running. Obviously Microsoft or whoever else has not specifically issued an approval for that number, they have not specifically given you a cryptographic signature of approval for that number. When you attempt to connect to the internet your ISP doesn't have that number on their list of "Healthy" numbers. Your computer therefore fails the Health Check. Your computer gets quarantined. You are denied internet access.
If you want to mane an UnApproved modification to Windows, or if you're not running Windows, then your computer is treated the same way the system treats an infected machine. You are denied internet access, and they justify that action by using the phrase "infected machine" when in fact there is no infection.
Oh, and I almost forgot. If your computer doesn't have a Trust Chip in it then you can't preform the cryptographic Health Check at all. Without the chip you could falsely send the number representing a clean approved system. Without the chip a virus could falsely send the number for a clean approved system. If you don't have the Trust Chip you fail the Health Check and they have to assume you are infected. They intend to ban you from the internet if you don't have the Trust Chip to lock down your computer.
However, that is still an improvement over the current situation
Some people do think it would be an improvement to ban non-Windows systems from the internet, some people do think it would be an improvement to prohibit anyone from modifying their operating system, some people do think it would be an improvement to deny people ownership and control of their own computers, some people do think it would be an improvement to impose globally-enforced DRM system. However I suspect you might now have a somewhat less favorable view of this particular system :)
-
Your post left me a bit confused.
I see this as another stealth control measure to create a defacto model for denying service.
You hit the nail on the head there, and about the obscenity that this would deny people internet access if they aren't running an approved operating system, and to "Stuff this genie back into the bottle".
However I find it appalling that you were pushing for this exact system in the first place. "Infected machines could not access account services or cart/profiles, etc.". If I understand you correctly, you're still proposing making it mandatory for people to have TrustChips in their computers. You're still using those TrustChips to scan exactly what operating system and software people have. You're still banning people if they aren't running specific whitelisted operating systems. You're still banning people if they aren't running specific mandatory whitelisted software. Furthermore you are still using the false term "infected machines" when you ban UNINFECTED machines. Banning people for the grievous crime of choosing some other operating system. Yes, some sites might bother to whitelist specific Apple operating systems, and in theory specific sites could whitelist particular unmodified (and unmodifiable) compiles of Linux. However whitelisting for Apple system would be very hit-or-miss at best. Anyone with a Mac would be banned from a substantial percentage of sites, and any other operating system would in reality be subject to an absolute lock out.
In my proposal, enforcement would be at site logon
Oh joy, your proposal was that people would be free to connect to the internet but instead be banned from using the internet in any meaningful sense?
It is also misleading or naive if anyone suggests the system is just for banking and shopping. (As if "merely" banning non-Microsoft systems would be much better.) Once you actually deploy this sort of system then any and all websites can use it for any and all purposes. Do you seriously have any doubt that the system would quickly and widely be used by general websites, even "open" websites withou logons? That ordinary sites would want to check that you're not running any sort of ad-blocker? That many ordinary sites would want to check for DRM-style conformance that your OS/broswer won't save a copy of images or other content from the site?
If you actually build and deploy the system you said you advocated a large portion of sites on the internet would use it for one reason or another, and anyone NOT running the Standard Approved Microsoft OS would be largely banned from the internet. And then it just keeps getting worse. That functionality can and will be baked into protocols. Anyone not running the Standard Approved Microsoft OS would be banned from using those protocols at all on the internet.
Al also find it strange that you didn't foresee this ISP-level enforcement in the first place. Preforming the "Health Check" at the initial ISP access is the obvious and unavoidable result of any system of this sort.
As I said, your post left me confused. I have trouble reconciling how you reject this system, yet you were intimately involved in producing it. I have trouble understanding your support for the underlying system is being used in a somewhat more limited form, yet a form which was still "stealth control measure to create a defacto model for denying service". I don't understand how widespread "denial of service" on the internet is somehow Good while denial of internet service somehow crosses into Evil. Did I misinterpret part of your post?
-
Greetings human.
Take me to your leader, Hugh Hefner.
-
Yeah, but human T+A is a rather underwhelming 3.
-
The reason neutrino detectors are underground is that you don't want them to detect any old neutrino.
Neutrino detectors are put underground to shield out noise from stuff like cosmic rays.
You can indeed shield from -some- neutrinos
A solid lead wall one trillion miles thick would provide less than 10% shielding against neutrinos.
An entire planet will shield 0.000000000% of neutrinos. An entire star will shield 0.00000000% of neutrinos. Nothing short of a black hole will noticeably shield against neutrinos, and even then the black hole would just "vacuum up" the neutrinos rather than shielding them in any conventional sense.
-
Problem here is that you have absolutely no proof of this.
Their work and discussions are all sitting on an open public message board!
I don't own a PS3 and I wasn't involved, but I am a hacker-type and I went there to read the technical details when the story came up. I can't imagine a better "proof" of what happened than the public transcripts of everything that went on.
The other problem with your rant is that you didn't acknowledge that Hotz broke out of the hypervisor before OtherOS had been removed.
Yes I did:
"And lets look at the purpose of the first PS3 crack that came out. People were trying to get the graphics hardware to work in OtherOS and for legitimate homebrew games. And as always, the system got cracked for legitimate purposes. And furthermore, that crack did NOT enable piracy.
Sony didn't remove OtherOS randomly. They removed it out of paranoia, out of their obsession for control, and out of stupidity. The crack broke the broke out of the hardware limitations on OtherOS, but it did not put you in the GamesOS. It did not load copied games.
You just want to believe that the USB hack was created out of revenge.
After Sony stupidly killed OtherOS, all those programmers who were running Linux and programming their own software for the PS3 went into overdrive trying to get their systems working again. It is all publicly documented on their message boards how they found a hole in the system and they attempted to use it to reactivate OtherOS. Software was written and posted for exploiting that hole. No one was able to leverage that particular hole to get into OtherOS. Note that the exploit software they created and posted to work on with specifically deactivated the system call for loading games. It was obvious that any moderately competent programmer could re-write it to reactivate game loading, but they specifically made the effort to switch that functionality off in the version they posted and worked with. They were trying to fix the OtherOS that Sony deliberately broke.
Of course once that hole was discovered and publicly posted to work on, it was trivial for any minimally competent programmer to turn game loading back on. I don't know who did that, and I did not claim to know it was for "revenge". That is certainly a plausible explanation, but I don't know. But that was not the claim or point I was making. My point was that systems get cracked by legitimate hackers for absolutely legitimate purposes. Once they accomplish the expert feat of cracking past the anti-owner security system it is usually trivial for someone to adapt it to copying games.
My point was that the PS3 remained uncracked for years is exactly because they included OtherOS which (mostly) enable all those expert hackers to do the stuff they wanted to do without needing to crack the system. My point is that when the fist crack did show up all it did was legitimately free up the hardware restrictions in OtherOS, it did NOT work for games. My point is that Sony fucked over console owners, and they fucked themselves over when they killed OtherOS. The second crack, the crack that didn't work for OtherOS, the crack that only worked in games mode, the crack that was repurposed for game copying, it was only discovered and publicly analyzed as a side effect of the HONEST and LEGITIMATE work to re-enable Linux and other other software.
My point is that Sony wouldn't have the current problem if they weren't so moronically and maliciously destructive.
-
three locations that we can expect to have different neutrino fluxes. Let's have one at high altitude, say a passenger jet that's going to make a fair number of transatlantic journeys. The second can be in a laboratory. The third, let's put that in a box and have an ROV place it in some deep sea trench
It's possible I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to test, but your experiment appears to be broken. All three samples will have effectively identical neutrino flux. Being the same shape they will have the same self-flux from decaying atoms, and they will all have the same solar neutrino flux because you can't shield neutrinos. Even at midnight they will all get equal and full blast neutrino flux from from solar neutrinos passing through the entire planet and hitting them from below.
-
I just turn around, pull down my pants, and tell them they can scan my iris.
-
"THOU SHALT NOT RECORD THE STREAM"
Why?
It would be bad.
I'm fuzzy on the whole good/bad thing. What do you mean, "bad"?
Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light.
-
Actually there was a large project dedicated to re-enable OtherOS, and I don't think it would be accurate to classify that work as revenge. During that work they found a partial hole, but it wasn't good enough to enable OtherOS. That partial hole became public on their message boards. The crack was a side effect of legitimate work, and perhaps it was revenge when someone repurposed it with a minor tweak to load copied games.
-
I have no idea what would have happened if Sony "reopened OtherOS". However there is no question that analysis of the PS3 system was almost nonexistent for several years while OtherOS was available. There's no question that killing OtherOS on people's immediately produced a global network of hundred or thousands of programmers all dedicated to getting their systems working again, and and establishing a global network distributing and coordinating thousands of man-hours of expert work per week dissecting and analyzing the PS3 internals and the "security" lockout mechanisms. If Sony hadn't killed people's systems in the first place none of the piracy stuff your talking about would exist today.
A while ago Slashdot had a story where someone made a chart of the various console systems, how long they were out before they got cracked, what person or group created the crack, and the purpose of the crack. It is quite interesting that every single crack was produced for entirely legitimate purposes. Legitimate homebrew coders, people wanting to run Linux, people wanting wanting to to use the console as an audio or video system. It's quit interesting that the people with the skillset to crack a console are almost invariable people with absolutely legitimate intent and purpose in doing so. It is extremely interesting that "pirates" and "pirate groups" don't appear to possess the skills to crack a console. It is only after a console's anti-owner "security" gets cracked for legitimate purposes that someone else makes a minor tweak to the crack to also support copying games.
But the most interesting part of it was that the chart showed that the PS3 system remained uncracked far far longer than any of the other systems. All other systems systems got cracked within a few months of release. The PS3 system remained uncracked for several years. An absolutely unprecedented timespan for any major console. They went on to discuss how the PS3 was the first and only system that allowed people to engage in their homebrew without needing to crack the system, allowed people to run Linux and media players and everything else, all without needing to crack the system. All of the hackers could engage in all of their legitimate activities without needing to crack the system. So all the legitimate hackers went ahead and engaged in their legitimate activities, and didn't bother trying to hack the system. And pirates don't crack systems. So the PS3 remained uncracked exactly because OtherOS was included.
And lets look at the purpose of the first PS3 crack that came out. People were trying to get the graphics hardware to work in OtherOS and for legitimate homebrew games. And as always, the system got cracked for legitimate purposes. And furthermore, that crack did NOT enable piracy. It was a legitimate crack for a legitimate purposes, and it was completely useless for running pirated games. And what happened? Sony pulled a bonehead move. Sony fucked over all of the legitimate users, legitimate programmers, and Sony fucked themselves over. Sony killed OtherOS on people's systems. There was no piracy, Sony just fucked over good legitimate people and hosed all of the consoles, and fucked themselves in the process. Obviously all of those fucked over programmers were pissed off, and highly motivated to get their sabotaged consoles working again. All those programmers started woking on getting all of their legitimate projects working again. And in analyzing the systems to fix the OtherOS ability they came across a partial crack in part of the system, but the hole wasn't big enough to re-enable OtherOS, so they just kept on working. Of course that partial hole effectively became public when they discovered it and analyzed it on their message boards. And someone made a minor tweak to that crack allowing copied games to be loaded.
And there you have it. There was no piracy crack because of OtherOS. There was no piracy even when OtherOS was cracked to legitimately enhance graphics support. But by nuking the legitimate
Oh, that's easy. High-speed projectiles on foreigners produce an 82% larger increase in funding than high speed projectiles on domestic citizens.
-
It's photos of children being abused
First of all, according to police figures the majority of seized "child porn" images are not photos of children being abused. Things like children engaged in ordinary gymnastics events dressed in their usual leotards. According to police figures the majority of seized images involve no crime whatsoever, other than interpreting the gymnastics poses in a sexual manner or deciding that the chest or crotch areas are too prominent in the images or somesuch.
But lets set aside most of the images in this naughty-picture-witchhunt. Lets just consider the cases where it's a photo of someone committing a crime.
There are strange people who whack off to images or video of burning buildings, doubtlessly including 9/11. i.e. real (and fatal) harm to nearly three thousand real humans. However most people can grasp the simple concept that you put people in prison for actual criminal acts like arson, and don't put people in prison simply for possession their strange arson image collection.
Note that we have standard laws for contributing to a crime. Paying someone to commit arson is a crime. Conspiring, aiding, abetting, or anything else in furtherance of arson is a crime. If someone clips arson photos from the newspaper, or downloads videos from the internet, but he HASN'T committed arson and he HASN'T committed any of the standard contributory crimes relating to arson, then we can certainly call him a freak. However it would be insane to call him a criminal.
By definition that's what we're talking about here. We're talking about one unique "possession of offensive information" law to criminalize people who aren't guilty of any other crime. By definition we're talking about people who have not directly committed the crime in the photos, nor have they indirectly contributed to any crime under any of the existing contributory laws.
Lets examine this in a concrete manner. I happen to like redheads. Unfortunately redheads are rather rare. A couple of years ago I found this neat program called Imagewolf. You point it at a website and it downloads all the images on that site, and then it starts following the links out from that site to find more sites to download more images and continue walking those links finding semi-random sites on the internet. I pointed it at a redhead site and left it running for a weekend, saturating a broadband download pipe. It automatically discovered hundreds of further websites and downloads probably close to a hundred thousand images, several gigs. All perfectly legal. At the end of the weekend I started scanning through the download folder and deleting images thousands at a time, looking for redheads. I deleted like 99.9% of them. All is well and good, I am a perfectly law abiding citizen. However I came to an insane realization, and perhaps you can explain this to me. I realized that I had deleted a different 99.9% of those randomly harvested images, the law would have declared me a criminal subject to a bazillion years in prison.
Am I missing something here? I haven't done anything improper to any child, I haven't requested, commissioned, conspired, aided, abetted, or committed any other contributory crime. Running software for an automated harvest of random web images is perfectly legal. Yet somehow deleting a different 99.9% would legitimately have made me a criminal? I seriously don't get it. I find that notion shocking and nonsensical. Does your "real harm to real humans" somehow magically apply if I had deleted differently? Do you have any other way to justify this law? Or can we agree that this law is FUBAR and that the naughty-picture-police should be reassigned the job of rescuing actual children and catching actual criminals who are committing actual criminal acts against those actual children?
-