Slashdot Log In
Trusted Or Treacherous Computing?
Posted by
Zonk
on Fri Nov 24, 2006 05:24 PM
from the eyes-in-the-dark dept.
from the eyes-in-the-dark dept.
theodp writes "Just because Richard Stallman is paranoid doesn't mean Microsoft's not out to get you. For a hint about the possible end-game of Microsoft's Trusted Computing Initiative, check out the patent application published Thanksgiving Day for Trusted License Removal, in which Microsoft describes how to revoke rights to render based on 'who the user is, where the user is located, what type of computing device or other playback device the user is using, what rendering application is calling the copy protection system, the date, the time, etc.' So much for Microsoft's you-should-have-control assurances."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Hands up, everyone who DIDN'T see this coming... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hands up, everyone who DIDN'T see this coming.. (Score:4, Insightful)
There are a lot of good reasons to do the things Microsoft proposes. Stolen laptops, Malware, Leaked confidential information (think patient records, social security numbers, etc..). The problem is, of course, that most such technologies cut both ways.
Parent
Re:Hands up, everyone who DIDN'T see this coming.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, but I happen to think that's crap. Much like the government, whenever a controversial law/license is proposed, and its supporters, when confronted with an egregious abuse it would permit, use a phrase along the lines of 'Perhaps in theory, but the law would never be applied in that way' - they're LYING. They intend to use the law that way as early and as often as possible.
Those situations would fall under the jurisdiction of law enforcement, not Microsoft.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Those situations would fall under the jurisdiction of law enforcement, not Microsoft.
Once Billy Boy is President [theinquirer.net], they will be one and the same....
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"Malware" isn't illegal. I know of no reasonable law that defines what this might be. Certainly lots of people are inconvenienced by it, but that is hardly justification for making writing software some kind of criminal offence. And any law that purports to make "malware" illegal is utterly unenforcable - do you really believe that some teenager in Romainia is going to be dragged into court in California for a single offence of this type?
Leaking c
Perhaps this law (Score:3, Informative)
Perhaps a little-known law called the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 [wikipedia.org] (18 USC 1030 [cornell.edu]), reasonable or not, defines malware as illegal.
Granted, t
Re:Hands up, everyone who DIDN'T see this coming.. (Score:5, Informative)
"November 15, 1996: Encryption products that presently are or would be designated in Category XIII of the United States Munitions List and regulated by the Department of State pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778 et seq.) shall be transferred to the Commerce Control List,"
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo_crypt_9611_memo
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
If Microsoft can provide tools to resolve the situation faster and more effectively than law enforcement, what's wrong with that?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Hands up, everyone who DIDN'T see this coming.. (Score:5, Insightful)
~Lord Acton
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Law Enforcement almost never solves them.
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like DRM was made for you, to prevent the unauthorized copying of other people's work! [google.com]
Re:Hands up, everyone who DIDN'T see this coming.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone who knows jack or shit about law enforcement knows that they can, do, and will use every law and tactic available to prosecute whoever they think are the "bad guys".
And that's not a slag on law enforcement - that's called "doing their jobs". Obviously, they can get overzealous. And do. And will.
The point is that you give people power, and they will abuse it to the degree they are permitted . That's why Arlo Guthrie got busted for littering (when his real crime was being a dirty hippy), that's why Al Capone got nailed for tax evasion, that's why the Patriot act leads to waitresses on a plane thinking they can kick off breast-feeding mothers just because they feel like it, that's why we've got another 20 years of releasing the falsely convicted based on DNA evidence (too late for the wrongly executed), and it's why your flip attitude is functionally equivalent to saying "exterminate the jews? go ahead - if the authorities are against them, they must have done something!".
And so anything - a new law, a new technical system - that isn't done with an eye to how it could be abused, well, it's foolish and ignorant and entirely predictable, and predictably the people who mean to fuck over everyone ignore these things as plainly as can be.
You really need to study American history again if you don't get this shit by now. Our founding fathers understood this stuff, and that's why "checks and balances" are a part of our government (2000-2006 excepted). You know that scence in Pulp Fiction with the multi-way Mexican Standoff? That's how the US government is supposed to work; go too far, and you'll get blown away, because you can't take out all the other dudes.
Parent
Re:Hands up, everyone who DIDN'T see this coming.. (Score:5, Insightful)
This also provides BIOS and booatable hardware DRM, in order to control over booting systems. While such is good from a security standpoint, it means that with very trivial changes in hardware such as DRM-managed CD and DVD and USB devices, nothing other than a host-designated, signed Windows operating system will be able to boot the machine enough to install new keys and install a new OS. While the designer of such technologies may not envision such abuse, it's certainly within Microsoft's history of anti-competitive behavior to do this.
Parent
Re:Hands up, everyone who DIDN'T see this coming.. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want to protect the user, you give the keys to the user (or let him chose them). No encription that hides the keys from you is there for your benefit.
Parent
Re:Hands up, everyone who DIDN'T see this coming.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Surveys have shown that users are willing to give out their passwords for a piece of chocolate. Cars are Hijacked every day, and the user just gets out of the car leaving the keys to the attacker. I'm not saying that a TPM chip is the best way to solve the problem, but merely putting it in the users hands doesn't solve much of anything.
I think the real problem here is the lengthening of the digital divide. The people who would benefit from these features are the people who would hand out their password for a chocolate crisp. These people might have some to lose from Treacherous Computing, but not as much as those who are smart enough to know better.
I wonder if Microsoft is aware that they are driving away the technically savvy? Most of us who use Windows and have some tech savvy are the gamer audience and even though making the move back to running a Unix-derived OS of some sort will impact my primary use for my home computer, I am still starting to seriously plan for it. I wonder how many other gamers are thinking the same thing? I wonder if Microsoft has considered how much losing a big share of the gamer market will hurt them? It is my opinion that a significant chunk of the home market is Windows because that's what the games run on, and if game developers suddenly find it economical or desirable to port their games to different platforms, that could have a pretty significant impact on Microsoft's stranglehold on PC gaming.
Of course, I'm probably just a statistical anomaly, but I like to hope I'm not... heheheheh
Parent
Re:Hands up, everyone who DIDN'T see this coming.. (Score:5, Funny)
Point of order: that is false. Surveys have shown that users were willing to give out things that they claimed were their passwords for a piece of chocolate.
Parent
Re:Hands up, everyone who DIDN'T see this coming.. (Score:4, Insightful)
To quote a co-worker, "technical solutions to non technical problems will only lead to insanity."
Malware, stolen laptops and confidential information being leaked are not technical problems. They're social problems. Stop keeping confidential information in places where it can be leaked (i.e. on employees' laptops) and these problems go away. A technical solution is not called for.
Parent
Re:Hands up, everyone who DIDN'T see this coming.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Greed and control isnt monopolized by microsoft. Though they are one of the biggest holders by default due to their impact on most every part of society at this point.
For and against (Score:5, Insightful)
As a realist, though, I cannot possibly trust that a large organization could implement this properly without willingly abusing it or unwillingly fscking it up.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why bother? Laptops are easily replaceable. It's the data that you have to worry about. Encrypt it and keep the keys on a device that's kept seperate from the laptop (USB key?) unless it's in use. Combine that with fingerprint scanning or other biometrics if you're really paranoid. And don't encrypt the partition or directo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Say what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe someone should read the patent in question?
Re:Say what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Most people nowadays believe it is quasi-legal to download and "share" music with the rest of the Internet-using world. If they aren't on a dialup connection, they may have downloaded a movie or two as well.
Of course, all of this was illegal. Have these people been arrested? How is "Legal" supposed to be enforced? Trust? Yeah, right. Nobody since about 1830 relies on "trust" to stay in business. And I think that guy went bankrupt like he deserved.
And "tru
Re:Say what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Too late. The barn door is open. The horse is running free, halfway across the State. Locking it now ain't gonna help any.
Content has become cheaper and easier to distribute. Just like when the printing press came out 500 years ago which removed the need for scribes - content creators will have to adapt or die. Book authors can adapt in one of several ways: release books in serial form with the understanding that if enough people don't pay for one chapter, the next one isn't coming out. Possibly a return to the idea of the literary magazine. Sure it can be pirated, but not quickly. Also it could even be free and supported with unobstusive advertising.
Movie producers can write for the theatre, and people *will* pay to see live performances. People will also go to the movie theatres to see movies, and theatres can be policed pretty well as far as respecting copyright. Maybe there'll also be fewer inane movies that are made solely for money since there'll be less easy money in production.
Musicians will still have live performances, concerts, etc. Perhaps tickets will be more expensive than today, but people will still go watch as they do now.
I'm not saying that those changes are for the better, but like it or not, mass media as it has worked for the past 75 years or so is dead. Passing obtrusive laws and locking down computers will only delay the inevitable. There are two choices: adapt or die.
-b.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
That's kind of like saying nobody should ever lock their house or car, because the neighbours aren't criminals dammit and if you have to trust me not to steal your stuff, well boo-fucking-hoo.
What's that? You do lock your car? Well I can't say I blame you. There are untrustworthy people in the world, after all.
Re:Say what? (Score:4, Funny)
No, this is slashdot, where we read an inaccurate, third-hand interpretation of the abstract of a patent (not the claims), then check to see who it was granted to, and rubbish or support it based on that.
Parent
Re:Say what? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think I'd rather go to the library and read a freakin book, for free, before they find a way to DRM paper.
The only think lamer than M$ is an M$ apologist... I really can't understand why you'd spend any effort sticking up for them. You just enjoy having your rights restricted? You enjoy getting less for your money? You actually believe that this nonsense will slow the pirates down for even a second? It won't. It will just inconvenience millions of honest people. It's the digital equivalent of getting felt up by an airport security goon, all in the name of stopping "the terrorist".
I truly pity you, and your abject servility to a faceless and uncaring authority.
Parent
Re:Say what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Similar to 'certificate revocation' (Score:4, Interesting)
If you believe your password has been compromised, or your PIN had become known to someone else, then for 'high-value' systems you need to be able to administratively indicate that any 'authority to behave as you' is not to be believed any more.
The 'personal' computing market is splitting.
If you inflict this kind of feature on a lawyer, doctor, or engineer, who is trying to go about their professional work, you cause loss and damage and you get your product thrown out post-haste as unfit for purpose. Lawyer, doctor, and engineer have plenty of money and need the top-grade service.
If you give someone a cheap deal on a Star Wars DVD because of them being willing to accept the possibility that their permission to view it might disappear unexpectedly, then that's rather like having a 'standby list' of people who might or might not be able to get on a plane at cheap prices according as whether the plane fills up with full-price passengers.
Patenting stuff like this is a good thing (Score:4, Informative)
Richard Stallman paranoid? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Richard Stallman paranoid? (Score:4, Insightful)
More to the point, is he paranoid enough?
Parent
"Treacherous" is, of course, the answer (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course it's "treacherous", not "trusted". It's about taking control away from the owner, the user; and giving it to a remote entity. Hasn't it always been?
Clear evidence of this comes to light when you think closely about the proposed "Owner Override" feature that would effectively disable an onboard TPM chip...or maybe not, depending on whether or not we're being lied to about that.
First off, if this feature is really everything we're told it is -- that it really disables the TPM chip -- then what is the entire point of this? To have software, music and video vendors build their content around a supposedly "unbreakable" remote control scheme in their power...only to be broken by a built-in flick-of-a-switch feature?
And if we are being lied to about "owner override", then it's clear there is something they want to maintain hidden from us.
Either way, it won't work. Somewhere on the motherboard, between the keyboard and the hard drive, if you will, data must be unencrypted. You just can't keep something that is exclusively mine and in my possession, a secret from me!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No... it doesn't work that way. When you disable the TPM, it really is disabled. It's just that your machine and its software can no longer remotely attest to its configuration -- meaning that it can no longer report that the hardware is intact and that you are running SPECIFIC code. In that case, the remote server will refuse to send any content. This is the essence of DRM.
In future, once the plans for these TPMs have reached fruition, you will not be able to connect to the internet (because the ISP will
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Over their dead body... (Score:2)
Paranoia is a mental illness, not a belief (Score:5, Insightful)
Stallman and I are old enough to remember how Microsoft has comported itself for a quarter century. They are consistent liars and cheats, and pointing this out is just a service to the yunguns who don't even remember MS criminally falsifying video evidence -- and getting caught red-handed, too -- at the monopoly trial. IF you or I had done that, we'd still be in federal prison. MS just had a president dump their criminality into the shredder, and then made even more monopoly money.
They perform no action idly. They've a plan, and it involves killing competition and keeping all the money in the world for themselves. It's a mission statement.
I had a terrible dream last night. (Score:2)
Silly dream? *shrugs*
It's for moving licenses (Score:2)
It is very simple (Score:5, Insightful)
And for the record, Richard Stallman is very good at foreseeing problems way before other people, but that does not make him paranoid, just foresightful.
The technical specification of "owner" (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem , of course, comes when you buy or rent a Trusted Computing device from a vendor who has previously "taken ownership" of the device before your purchase, in the technical sense put forth in the spec. If you're renting it, then it's legally the property of the vendor, and they have every right to control of their property. But if you purchase a device outright, there's no excuse for a vendor to retain ownership in the technical sense if they have ceded it to you in the legal one. This is the Crux of all the "evil" potential that Trusted Computing has. If the consumer is the owner, there's not much vendors can do to be evil with it.
The features of Trusted Computing devices work, and they are genuinely useful - but they only serve the "owner" of the device. It is our responsibility to demand full ownership of our devices (and not to settle for "rented" equipment, in the technical sense or the legal one).
Re: (Score:2)
Re:could be used to control use of olderS/W versio (Score:3, Interesting)
Think about it. It would be like having a Microsoft board member sitting inside of your computer! The best part is that he c