Security engineering used to be about protecting people or their possessions...about 30 years ago. For the past three decades, as consumers have become more and more able to copy books, music, movies, and software, more and more security engineering work has gone into restricting access to "media." Thus, we saw AGC hacks, watermarks in music, CSS, hundreds of different software restriction systems, PDF restrictions, gaming console restrictions...these are security systems. As you have probably noticed, these systems are becoming more and more advanced -- PDF restrictions are simple to break, Kindle is not so simple.
I want to mount the drive with all my movies and music over NFS, and watch those movies and listen to that music (my Gig-E LAN is fast enough). I want to have my media center download or stream entertainment over the Internet. I want to use Ekiga through my media center.
In short, I want a system that does more than what Sony assumed people would want when they created the PS3's OS.
"Well, apparently when you buy a PS3, you do not actually own a PS3...."
Welcome to the world of proprietary computing, the world we are careening toward. You are only allowed to use your computer for the things that the manufacturer thinks you should be using your computer for. That is what the PS3 is, a computer that Sony dictated what you use it for, and that is what the iPad/Phone/whatever are, computers that Apple dictates the use of. In 20 years, we may be hard pressed to find any personal computers that are not locked down and proprietary, and hackers* will have to resort to buying server class hardware for themselves (there may be a silver lining here, as the expense might lead to a new era of sharing among hackers).
* I of course mean "hacker" in the traditional sense, not just media-hyped criminals
What Sony gave us was a glimpse of proprietary computing platforms: "Sorry sir, but we will not grant you access to the graphics accelerator -- you are only supposed to be using Other OS if you want to run HPC workloads, not just to watch movies." I waited years for a hack that would break the PS3 hyperviser, so that I could use my PS3 the way I wanted to use it, as a media center, and I am not the only one.
Of course, respecting their customers is not something Sony has ever expressed any interest in, so I really should not be surprised.
Not exactly what I would call an "embrace" -- no graphics accelerator, one SPE disabled, no direct hardware access...how does that could as "embracing homebrew?" That is them pretending to provide support for people who want to get their hands on a Cell processor, while in reality doing everything possible to ensure that only those workloads they deemed fit could be run. After all, it would be terrible if I used my PS3 as a media center, unless I do so using Sony's restrictive software.
"Obama won the election and represents the will of the people. He can do what he wants. That's democracy."
No, that is not how American government works. The president is elected to oversee the implementation of bills passed by Congress, that is all -- presidents do not create laws, nor do they unilaterally decide that the US should sign a treaty. What Obama is doing is sidestepping America's democracy, so that Biden's friends in Hollywood can get what they want.
It is not being called a "treaty" because then the senate would have to vote on it, giving the American public a small window of opportunity to review it and decide whether or not we want it. Copyright lobbyists know that would be bad news for them, since they have not yet convinced the American public that their business interests are more important than our rights and freedoms (but they are working on that -- brainwashing schoolchildren and all), so they convinced their friends in the White House to sidestep democracy. Really, these people have no interest in freedom or democracy, unless it applies to them and their business; when it is inconvenient, they are quick to abandon it.
What is scary is that we have a president who stands with them on it.
When I was in high school, we just used SSH to bypass the various firewalls and filters the school had in place. That is how we got our first lesson in freedom and democracy: you need to actively work to protect it from those in power.
"if it is serious it will get picked up. If it isn't it will get pretty much ignored."
Hm, I would have thought that a copyright treaty being negotiated in secret and classified as "national security" would have counted as "serious," considering that it basically subverts our democratic processes. Funny how the New York Times has given such scant coverage to it...
"The entire equipment load-out for Iraq and Afghanistan?"
I did not realize that a list of what sort of equipment was purchased constitutes a threat to national security. They did not post troop movements, they just posted a list of what our tax dollars are being spent on -- whose life does this endanger?
"The security procedures at GITMO?"
What about them? If these procedures are so weak that they must be kept secret to remain effective, there is a problem with the procedures.
"There's nothing just about releasing that sort of information."
The American people deserve to know what their tax dollars are being spent on. Again, we are not talking about troop movements or battle plans, or the positions of nuclear submarines. The information itself could have been collected by a determined, organized, and well funded adversary anyway.
"It is not much of a jump from there to consider releasing upcoming convoy routes so that insurgents can emplace IEDs against them."
Yes, it is a huge jump, since that actually places lives at risk, unlike the examples you listed.
"I do not trust WikiLeaks to say "this awesome classified information is harmful to people's lives, so we won't release it.""
Would you prefer if the people who actually perform the leaks were to post the information on Usenet? Or perhaps a torrent website? The fact that you feel Wikileaks should be responsible for determining what information needs to remain classified is interesting; I would have thought that the people with access to the information in the first place would be the ones responsible for making such a determination.
"A corporation's goal is to increase its profits & market shares."
This is, of course, by order of the US court system, and coincidentally a result of a similar attempt by Ford to use his corporation spread a certain ethical principle:
Could you at least read the next sentence? Seriously, I said it was not as bad as what the Chinese do. GP said that he feels free to criticize the US government without fear of reprisal, and all I said was that, in fact, criticism of the US government does not go unpunished. No, it is not the same thing as what the Chinese do, but it is not the democratic ideal that we like to hold ourselves and our society to.
"I guess most people don't care, and select one of the browser at random"
Spot on. Most people do not even know what browser they are using or what a browser even is. They are given a choice, and they just choose without really knowing what it is that they are choosing from.
Hmm...so when given a choice, people sometimes choose different browsers? This is news? This sounds like the argument Netscape made back when they were suing Microsoft here in the USA...
Slashdot Mirror
Security engineering used to be about protecting people or their possessions...about 30 years ago. For the past three decades, as consumers have become more and more able to copy books, music, movies, and software, more and more security engineering work has gone into restricting access to "media." Thus, we saw AGC hacks, watermarks in music, CSS, hundreds of different software restriction systems, PDF restrictions, gaming console restrictions...these are security systems. As you have probably noticed, these systems are becoming more and more advanced -- PDF restrictions are simple to break, Kindle is not so simple.
I want to mount the drive with all my movies and music over NFS, and watch those movies and listen to that music (my Gig-E LAN is fast enough). I want to have my media center download or stream entertainment over the Internet. I want to use Ekiga through my media center.
In short, I want a system that does more than what Sony assumed people would want when they created the PS3's OS.
How do we stop submitters from using words like "yo" in the headline?
"Well, apparently when you buy a PS3, you do not actually own a PS3...."
Welcome to the world of proprietary computing, the world we are careening toward. You are only allowed to use your computer for the things that the manufacturer thinks you should be using your computer for. That is what the PS3 is, a computer that Sony dictated what you use it for, and that is what the iPad/Phone/whatever are, computers that Apple dictates the use of. In 20 years, we may be hard pressed to find any personal computers that are not locked down and proprietary, and hackers* will have to resort to buying server class hardware for themselves (there may be a silver lining here, as the expense might lead to a new era of sharing among hackers).
* I of course mean "hacker" in the traditional sense, not just media-hyped criminals
What Sony gave us was a glimpse of proprietary computing platforms: "Sorry sir, but we will not grant you access to the graphics accelerator -- you are only supposed to be using Other OS if you want to run HPC workloads, not just to watch movies." I waited years for a hack that would break the PS3 hyperviser, so that I could use my PS3 the way I wanted to use it, as a media center, and I am not the only one.
Of course, respecting their customers is not something Sony has ever expressed any interest in, so I really should not be surprised.
"embraced homebrew"
Not exactly what I would call an "embrace" -- no graphics accelerator, one SPE disabled, no direct hardware access...how does that could as "embracing homebrew?" That is them pretending to provide support for people who want to get their hands on a Cell processor, while in reality doing everything possible to ensure that only those workloads they deemed fit could be run. After all, it would be terrible if I used my PS3 as a media center, unless I do so using Sony's restrictive software.
Can you point out the error? I see a warning related to not including stdio.h, but it is still valid C code and will still do exactly what you expect.
In C you can implicitly declare functions! I demand at least half of your firstborn.
int main()
{
printf("Hello, world");
return 0;
}
I demand your first born.
"Obama won the election and represents the will of the people. He can do what he wants. That's democracy."
No, that is not how American government works. The president is elected to oversee the implementation of bills passed by Congress, that is all -- presidents do not create laws, nor do they unilaterally decide that the US should sign a treaty. What Obama is doing is sidestepping America's democracy, so that Biden's friends in Hollywood can get what they want.
It is not being called a "treaty" because then the senate would have to vote on it, giving the American public a small window of opportunity to review it and decide whether or not we want it. Copyright lobbyists know that would be bad news for them, since they have not yet convinced the American public that their business interests are more important than our rights and freedoms (but they are working on that -- brainwashing schoolchildren and all), so they convinced their friends in the White House to sidestep democracy. Really, these people have no interest in freedom or democracy, unless it applies to them and their business; when it is inconvenient, they are quick to abandon it.
What is scary is that we have a president who stands with them on it.
Uhm, I don't know about you, but I have been using an Intel card for years and the problems you mentioned were solved around 2005.
"1.) It encourages kids to try to break the filter (actually, this can be a good thing if you're wanting to hire some student TA's)"
Thus teaching them how to protect their rights when the authorities try to take them away; I am almost for the filters in light of that.
When I was in high school, we just used SSH to bypass the various firewalls and filters the school had in place. That is how we got our first lesson in freedom and democracy: you need to actively work to protect it from those in power.
"if it is serious it will get picked up. If it isn't it will get pretty much ignored."
Hm, I would have thought that a copyright treaty being negotiated in secret and classified as "national security" would have counted as "serious," considering that it basically subverts our democratic processes. Funny how the New York Times has given such scant coverage to it...
"The entire equipment load-out for Iraq and Afghanistan?"
I did not realize that a list of what sort of equipment was purchased constitutes a threat to national security. They did not post troop movements, they just posted a list of what our tax dollars are being spent on -- whose life does this endanger?
"The security procedures at GITMO?"
What about them? If these procedures are so weak that they must be kept secret to remain effective, there is a problem with the procedures.
"There's nothing just about releasing that sort of information."
The American people deserve to know what their tax dollars are being spent on. Again, we are not talking about troop movements or battle plans, or the positions of nuclear submarines. The information itself could have been collected by a determined, organized, and well funded adversary anyway.
"It is not much of a jump from there to consider releasing upcoming convoy routes so that insurgents can emplace IEDs against them."
Yes, it is a huge jump, since that actually places lives at risk, unlike the examples you listed.
"I do not trust WikiLeaks to say "this awesome classified information is harmful to people's lives, so we won't release it.""
Would you prefer if the people who actually perform the leaks were to post the information on Usenet? Or perhaps a torrent website? The fact that you feel Wikileaks should be responsible for determining what information needs to remain classified is interesting; I would have thought that the people with access to the information in the first place would be the ones responsible for making such a determination.
"A corporation's goal is to increase its profits & market shares."
This is, of course, by order of the US court system, and coincidentally a result of a similar attempt by Ford to use his corporation spread a certain ethical principle:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Company
Which seems most likely?
Hong Kong is not like the rest of China. The censorship laws are less restrictive, and the people enjoy a greater degree of freedom.
"But the format could be perfectly evil by, for example, prohibiting printing of the viewed document"
Which is only evil if your PDF reader respects restriction flags...oh, right, in the USA that is required by law. Yup, bad idea.
Could you at least read the next sentence? Seriously, I said it was not as bad as what the Chinese do. GP said that he feels free to criticize the US government without fear of reprisal, and all I said was that, in fact, criticism of the US government does not go unpunished. No, it is not the same thing as what the Chinese do, but it is not the democratic ideal that we like to hold ourselves and our society to.
Which is I said, "Not as bad as what happens in China." Try reading more than the first sentence, perhaps it will help clarify things for you.
"I guess most people don't care, and select one of the browser at random"
Spot on. Most people do not even know what browser they are using or what a browser even is. They are given a choice, and they just choose without really knowing what it is that they are choosing from.
Hmm...so when given a choice, people sometimes choose different browsers? This is news? This sounds like the argument Netscape made back when they were suing Microsoft here in the USA...