Most of the posts here, even by those who seem to have read the article, are missing what I find to be the take home message:
Being able to make computers serve you in arbitrary ways (e.g., being able to code) is compared to being able to read and write in the middle ages. Those who could do it rose to the top of society, and many of those at the top used their elite skills to oppress those who could not.
Now granted, the author didn't really do a good job of eloquently conveying that message, but I do think that it is interesting and possibly deserves further consideration.
People keep bringing up the "you don't need to know how a car works in order to be able to drive it" argument. I think that this argument is misplaced. It is normally the case that you do not need to know how something works if you plan to use it for its intended purpose. However, if you plan to use something beyond its intended purpose (e.g., stunt driving), or use something for an entirely different purpose (e.g., using a car as a portable generator), then most likely you will need a more thorough knowledge of how things work in order to do so.
Writing was originally invented for accounting records, but anyone trained in writing can use it for just about anything they want, provided it doesn't violate the DMCA. Computers are just about the same.
If you read the article, the point of Conquest is to remove the filesystem complexities that pander to disks. Giant RAM based storage arrays do nothing to simplify and streamline the filesystem code in your kernel.
From reading the press release, it sounds like the headline on this story is wrong. MoFo is suing on their own behalf. The press release does not say that this is a class action lawsuit.
It's a shame though. If it were a class action lawsuit, I'd love to get a share of the take. Assuming they win, of course.
Well spoken. It's good to know that there are still a few people with the ability perform critical thinking. I'm glad you're one of them and I'm glad you decided to share your thoughts with/. You should probably also send them to John Gilmore. I normally find myself in agreement with John, but this is one instance where I vehemently disagree with him.
Oh, and it's a good thing McDonald's hasn't yet bought up all the good burger joints and put them out of business.
I attended the 2002 IPAM Crypto conference at UCLA where Steven Rudich gave a presentation on this. There is an important point that, from reading the comments thus far, is not being appreciated.
The paper does not say that programs can't be obfuscated. What it does say, is that there can be no generalized "obfuscator" that you run your program through and voila you've got an obfuscated version.
Hoever, program obfuscation is possible on a per program basis. Simply put, the more obfuscated a program is, the more difficult it might be for someone to reverse engineer it.
The folks at cloakware have done what's supposed to be a bang up job of embedding AES keys in an obfuscated client. What that means is that you can use powerful, yet easy to compute, block ciphers with symmetric keys for "public" key cryptography. The clients will have your key embedded in the program, but in theory they won't be able to recover it.
As the paper proves, Cloakware has to do the obfuscation on a program by program basis. They can't have a generalized obfuscating machine because such a machine can't exist.
Now, while I firmly believe that perfect DRM is an impossible goal (assuming no SSSCA), good enough DRM is certainly conceivable. If CSS had been obfuscated, DeCSS might have come out much later than it did. Program obfuscation could easily be used by those want DRM. They'd have to be prepared to be in a digital arms race, but they could probably as least give those who want to crack DRM a run for their money.
All things considered, we'd be better off if content providers were willing to trust software DRM rather than forcing all non copy-compliant hardware out of existence.
Slashdot Mirror
As opposed to expressing the speed of walking as being 1/1,000,000,000,000 light.
Wow, the speed of walking is about 1.08 meters per hour? It's a miracle that anyone gets anywhere, much less Mars.
Now granted, the author didn't really do a good job of eloquently conveying that message, but I do think that it is interesting and possibly deserves further consideration.
People keep bringing up the "you don't need to know how a car works in order to be able to drive it" argument. I think that this argument is misplaced. It is normally the case that you do not need to know how something works if you plan to use it for its intended purpose. However, if you plan to use something beyond its intended purpose (e.g., stunt driving), or use something for an entirely different purpose (e.g., using a car as a portable generator), then most likely you will need a more thorough knowledge of how things work in order to do so.
Writing was originally invented for accounting records, but anyone trained in writing can use it for just about anything they want, provided it doesn't violate the DMCA. Computers are just about the same.
See, in Windows, users can't run arbitrary code, only attackers have that privilege.
Actually, what they've done is novel.
If you read the article, the point of Conquest is to remove the filesystem complexities that pander to disks. Giant RAM based storage arrays do nothing to simplify and streamline the filesystem code in your kernel.
What exactly is software privacy anyway?
And how does anyone get lucky enough to be named Heathcote Hobbins?
From reading the press release, it sounds like the headline on this story is wrong. MoFo is suing on their own behalf. The press release does not say that this is a class action lawsuit.
It's a shame though. If it were a class action lawsuit, I'd love to get a share of the take. Assuming they win, of course.
-Cube
Well spoken. It's good to know that there are still a few people with the ability perform critical thinking. I'm glad you're one of them and I'm glad you decided to share your thoughts with /. You should probably also send them to John Gilmore. I normally find myself in agreement with John, but this is one instance where I vehemently disagree with him.
Oh, and it's a good thing McDonald's hasn't yet bought up all the good burger joints and put them out of business.
-Cube
I attended the 2002 IPAM Crypto conference at UCLA where Steven Rudich gave a presentation on this. There is an important point that, from reading the comments thus far, is not being appreciated.
The paper does not say that programs can't be obfuscated. What it does say, is that there can be no generalized "obfuscator" that you run your program through and voila you've got an obfuscated version. Hoever, program obfuscation is possible on a per program basis. Simply put, the more obfuscated a program is, the more difficult it might be for someone to reverse engineer it.
The folks at cloakware have done what's supposed to be a bang up job of embedding AES keys in an obfuscated client. What that means is that you can use powerful, yet easy to compute, block ciphers with symmetric keys for "public" key cryptography. The clients will have your key embedded in the program, but in theory they won't be able to recover it. As the paper proves, Cloakware has to do the obfuscation on a program by program basis. They can't have a generalized obfuscating machine because such a machine can't exist.
Now, while I firmly believe that perfect DRM is an impossible goal (assuming no SSSCA), good enough DRM is certainly conceivable. If CSS had been obfuscated, DeCSS might have come out much later than it did. Program obfuscation could easily be used by those want DRM. They'd have to be prepared to be in a digital arms race, but they could probably as least give those who want to crack DRM a run for their money.
All things considered, we'd be better off if content providers were willing to trust software DRM rather than forcing all non copy-compliant hardware out of existence.