Repeat after me: There is no such thing as open DRM.
Yes, you can distribute the algorithms openly, but in the end every single DRM system is going to be based on secret encryption keys. It is a felony in the United States for you to read/use such encryption keys for most purposes. This is how DRM works; because it cannot work in any other way, it depends on outlawing certain types of computation to undermine the general-purpose nature of computers. This is done via the DMCA in the United States.
Repeat after me: The only reason for DRM is to eliminate general-purpose computers, and to replace them with futuristic televisions. Why are all of the media industries so scared? Because finally, individual human beings all over the world are able to create and distribute information freely. Up until a few years ago, those media industries had a stranglehold on distribution of information. Everything was broadcast-only. Everything came from a few centralized sources.
DRM is their last hope to outlaw a future that's missing all-powerful information distributors. It is their last hope to turn computers into interactive TVs.
Don't be fooled by DRM that pretends to be "open" or "decentralized." By its very definition, DRM is always closed and centralized -- even if on the legislative level rather than the software level.
As for the inevitable cries of, "DRM has positive uses for system administration and security!": There is no good use of DRM which cannot be achieved with equal ease entirely in user-controlled software. So why don't you put your energy into making easy-to-use encryption systems, and enabling them by default in your applications, instead of scheming to make general-purpose computation illegal?
Although we often speak of increased efficiency in the means of propulsion and in the production of fuel, we too rarely consider the gains promised by more radical approaches.
One might, for example, achieve high-velocity subjective travel merely through a distributed effort to rearrange human definitions of location. By exchanging Surrey and Essex in the general social awareness, humans could potentially travel instantaneously between the two. With digital technology such a measure is no pipe dream; its only complication lies in the difficulty of cooperatively scheduling each individual's location at a specifically desired time.
Another approach which may alleviate the inefficiencies of travel altogether is to restrict each human corporeally to one narrow venue, preferably bounded by chain or wire mesh, within which that human may live free of geography's inconvenience. Such innovative measures are already being developed globally, and it is a simple question of how quickly all humans can be accused of terrorist sympathies before we can consider ourselves to have discovered the future of transportation.
We've got so many humans in the world, so many thieving, conniving proletariat brains thinking without corporate oversight, that there's no easy way for the legitimate, financed inventors to make a profit.
Where would we be if you went around willy-nilly using any idea that struck you as useful? I'll tell you: a hellish chaos of untended progress and distributed profit.
Are you kidding? This is just what I've been waiting for.
We have a fantastic design for a device which identifies terrorists by body odor. It doesn't actually seem to work, so the protection from liability suits will be a major boon. And we could definitely use the Homeland Security Department's product endorsement. Who knew they were in the business?
Scent-o-Fear(TM) The official body odor detection system of the Homeland.
I'm not sure where "material witnesses" entered into this exchange of punitive praise, but be assured, any use of legal terminology in the condemnation of suspects receives my unconditional approval.
Now that you raise the subject, let me take a moment to celebrate the glory of the "material witness" designation. It's not every legal term that describes someone both innocent and worthy of being imprisoned at once.
As you correctly note, the unfortunate state of affairs requires a warrant before someone is held as a material witness. Although this disheartens the most vigorous of the Homeland's defenders, the fact that a material witness is -- in fact and definition -- only a probable witness to a crime reassures us that our protectors may consign to prison someone who is not a traditionally defined criminal; probable cause does not touch the concept, as befits a construct so valued in the War on Terrorism.
"You won't be held for any length of time without good reason, and the fact is that you're completely wrong about holding people without charging them."
So true. Really, this stuff about probable cause and jury trials, I mean, what's the point?
I feel the same way; if somebody's accused by the baggage screener that's proof enough for me.
Package tracking doesn't require the type of sender identification which is being proposed.
You can just attach a unique serial number to each package, then give a receipt with the number to the sender. The sender may then track the package using that serial number.
The "convenience" aspect serves the purpose, in this case, of misleading people into thinking their names and addresses are required to provide letter tracking service. The sender information, because irrelevant for this service, is needed only for other purposes. It is up to you to guess what those purposes are.
Obscenity and other forms of dangerous speech (split infinitives, sentence fragments, etc.) are unprotected -- and rightfully so.
Ask someone who knows. I've been speaking and hearing speech for close to my entire life, and nothing dismays me more than a bit of speech that endangers all of humanity.
That sentence referred to a hypothetical "someone" in an explanation of why due process is important. Deportation isn't really a factor for American citizens (though it could well become one with camps like Guantanamo Bay and the Justice Department's "enemy combatant" categorization). Being held without a lawyer, in a hidden location, without any charges against you -- essentially being "disappeared" -- is a factor even for American citizens. If you're a non-citizen, that's when the deportation-and-torture scenario becomes a possibility. Does that make it alright with you?
Actually, the complaint was (and remains) that due process was not followed. Why should this matter? Because someone who is locked up, with no prospect for release and a possibility of deportation to a third-world nation for third-party torture, is much more likely to confess to crimes of which he/she is innocent.
And it does happen. People confess to crimes they didn't commit, often because the risk of being executed otherwise is too great. In return for a confession to lesser crimes than in the original accusation, government prosecutors will seek a less harsh sentence.
Due process exists for other reasons as well; if we go around imprisoning people for years before trial, you're right, there is no excessive penalty for those eventually sentenced to more time than served waiting for a trial. But all of the others who are eventually found innocent will have served time for no reason but your willingness to ignore their plight.
They're not concentration camps; they're freedom camps. I'm sure the government was just trying to correct this mistake on Austin's part. Your hesitation to agree is understandable -- and even permissible as long as you don't take it too far -- but unofficial terminology will only serve the enemy.
You know, I've come to wonder what issues people really honestly have with DRM.
DRM is Digital Rights Management. It manages your rights.
DRM does nothing for the person whom it is controlling. People often point to encryption as a benefit of DRM, but encryption (real, secure encryption, not the kind where you trust one company to keep your secrets for you) has no need for DRM to work well. DRM exists solely to allow remote control over what end users can do with their computers.
You ask why people don't like DRM. It decides what you can and cannot do, enforced by the power of legislation that makes felons of violators. But -- and this is where it gets important -- it isn't managing your rights according to what's legal. It's managing your rights according to what the companies owning/subscribing to the system decree.
This means that you can try to do something that is totally legal, and DRM can block you before the fact. If you try to bypass it to do something which is completely legal, you're a criminal anyway due to the anti-circumvention laws.
Slashdot Mirror
Repeat after me: There is no such thing as open DRM.
Yes, you can distribute the algorithms openly, but in the end every single DRM system is going to be based on secret encryption keys. It is a felony in the United States for you to read/use such encryption keys for most purposes. This is how DRM works; because it cannot work in any other way, it depends on outlawing certain types of computation to undermine the general-purpose nature of computers. This is done via the DMCA in the United States.
Repeat after me: The only reason for DRM is to eliminate general-purpose computers, and to replace them with futuristic televisions. Why are all of the media industries so scared? Because finally, individual human beings all over the world are able to create and distribute information freely. Up until a few years ago, those media industries had a stranglehold on distribution of information. Everything was broadcast-only. Everything came from a few centralized sources.
DRM is their last hope to outlaw a future that's missing all-powerful information distributors. It is their last hope to turn computers into interactive TVs.
Don't be fooled by DRM that pretends to be "open" or "decentralized." By its very definition, DRM is always closed and centralized -- even if on the legislative level rather than the software level.
As for the inevitable cries of, "DRM has positive uses for system administration and security!": There is no good use of DRM which cannot be achieved with equal ease entirely in user-controlled software. So why don't you put your energy into making easy-to-use encryption systems, and enabling them by default in your applications, instead of scheming to make general-purpose computation illegal?
Although we often speak of increased efficiency in the means of propulsion and in the production of fuel, we too rarely consider the gains promised by more radical approaches.
One might, for example, achieve high-velocity subjective travel merely through a distributed effort to rearrange human definitions of location. By exchanging Surrey and Essex in the general social awareness, humans could potentially travel instantaneously between the two. With digital technology such a measure is no pipe dream; its only complication lies in the difficulty of cooperatively scheduling each individual's location at a specifically desired time.
Another approach which may alleviate the inefficiencies of travel altogether is to restrict each human corporeally to one narrow venue, preferably bounded by chain or wire mesh, within which that human may live free of geography's inconvenience. Such innovative measures are already being developed globally, and it is a simple question of how quickly all humans can be accused of terrorist sympathies before we can consider ourselves to have discovered the future of transportation.
Well, there you have the problem.
We've got so many humans in the world, so many thieving, conniving proletariat brains thinking without corporate oversight, that there's no easy way for the legitimate, financed inventors to make a profit.
Where would we be if you went around willy-nilly using any idea that struck you as useful? I'll tell you: a hellish chaos of untended progress and distributed profit.
Software Patents: Because Extortionists are People Too
Are you kidding? This is just what I've been waiting for.
We have a fantastic design for a device which identifies terrorists by body odor. It doesn't actually seem to work, so the protection from liability suits will be a major boon. And we could definitely use the Homeland Security Department's product endorsement. Who knew they were in the business?
Scent-o-Fear(TM)
The official body odor detection system of the Homeland.
I'm not sure where "material witnesses" entered into this exchange of punitive praise, but be assured, any use of legal terminology in the condemnation of suspects receives my unconditional approval.
Now that you raise the subject, let me take a moment to celebrate the glory of the "material witness" designation. It's not every legal term that describes someone both innocent and worthy of being imprisoned at once.
As you correctly note, the unfortunate state of affairs requires a warrant before someone is held as a material witness. Although this disheartens the most vigorous of the Homeland's defenders, the fact that a material witness is -- in fact and definition -- only a probable witness to a crime reassures us that our protectors may consign to prison someone who is not a traditionally defined criminal; probable cause does not touch the concept, as befits a construct so valued in the War on Terrorism.
So true. Really, this stuff about probable cause and jury trials, I mean, what's the point?
I feel the same way; if somebody's accused by the baggage screener that's proof enough for me.
Greeting Cards for the War on Terror:
http://safetystate.com/ss.cgi?action=material&id=
Package tracking doesn't require the type of sender identification which is being proposed.
You can just attach a unique serial number to each package, then give a receipt with the number to the sender. The sender may then track the package using that serial number.
The "convenience" aspect serves the purpose, in this case, of misleading people into thinking their names and addresses are required to provide letter tracking service. The sender information, because irrelevant for this service, is needed only for other purposes. It is up to you to guess what those purposes are.
Citizens for Surveillance
Obscenity and other forms of dangerous speech (split infinitives, sentence fragments, etc.) are unprotected -- and rightfully so.
Ask someone who knows. I've been speaking and hearing speech for close to my entire life, and nothing dismays me more than a bit of speech that endangers all of humanity.
He was held for five weeks without being charged with any crime. Is that "due process?"
That sentence referred to a hypothetical "someone" in an explanation of why due process is important. Deportation isn't really a factor for American citizens (though it could well become one with camps like Guantanamo Bay and the Justice Department's "enemy combatant" categorization). Being held without a lawyer, in a hidden location, without any charges against you -- essentially being "disappeared" -- is a factor even for American citizens. If you're a non-citizen, that's when the deportation-and-torture scenario becomes a possibility. Does that make it alright with you?
Actually, the complaint was (and remains) that due process was not followed. Why should this matter? Because someone who is locked up, with no prospect for release and a possibility of deportation to a third-world nation for third-party torture, is much more likely to confess to crimes of which he/she is innocent.
And it does happen. People confess to crimes they didn't commit, often because the risk of being executed otherwise is too great. In return for a confession to lesser crimes than in the original accusation, government prosecutors will seek a less harsh sentence.
Due process exists for other reasons as well; if we go around imprisoning people for years before trial, you're right, there is no excessive penalty for those eventually sentenced to more time than served waiting for a trial. But all of the others who are eventually found innocent will have served time for no reason but your willingness to ignore their plight.
Freedom onion soup?
...as long as you keep it filled.
"I'm spending all my time here at work trying to think up a TIA for T.E.R.M.I.N.A.T.O.R."
Terrorist Estimate Report Management Institute Nationally Authorized To Obscure Reality
Sure, you may joke, but there's an important reason for government surveillance of consumer habits.
2 3
Terrorists are everywhere. Yes, even in your breakfast cereal. Did you ever doubt it when they started checking supermarket discount records?
Now you tell me: who's going to protect you when terrorists hitch a ride straight to your basement in that new Sears washer box?
http://safetystate.com/ss.cgi?action=material&id=
They're not concentration camps; they're freedom camps. I'm sure the government was just trying to correct this mistake on Austin's part. Your hesitation to agree is understandable -- and even permissible as long as you don't take it too far -- but unofficial terminology will only serve the enemy.
You know, I've come to wonder what issues people really honestly have with DRM.
7
DRM is Digital Rights Management. It manages your rights.
DRM does nothing for the person whom it is controlling. People often point to encryption as a benefit of DRM, but encryption (real, secure encryption, not the kind where you trust one company to keep your secrets for you) has no need for DRM to work well. DRM exists solely to allow remote control over what end users can do with their computers.
You ask why people don't like DRM. It decides what you can and cannot do, enforced by the power of legislation that makes felons of violators. But -- and this is where it gets important -- it isn't managing your rights according to what's legal. It's managing your rights according to what the companies owning/subscribing to the system decree.
This means that you can try to do something that is totally legal, and DRM can block you before the fact. If you try to bypass it to do something which is completely legal, you're a criminal anyway due to the anti-circumvention laws.
The benefits of DRM for laymen:
http://safetystate.com/ss.cgi?action=material&id=