Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Intel Handhelds Hardware

Intel Launches DRM-Enabled CPUs for Phones and Handhelds 308

Posted by michael from the you'll-buy-it-anyway dept.
squidfrog writes "AP reports, 'The next generation of Intel Corp. microprocessors for cell phones and handheld computers will, for the first time, include hard-wired security features that can enforce copy protection and help prevent hackers from wreaking havoc on wireless networks.' Or more ominously, 'The same technology also can be used to ensure that content such as music or movies is used in a way dictated by the copyright holder. A purchased song, for instance, would not play unless it's sure that it's authorized and running on secure hardware.'" Intel has a press release.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Intel Launches DRM-Enabled CPUs for Phones and Handhelds More

Intel Launches DRM-Enabled CPUs for Phones and Handhelds

Comments Filter:

  • The bad part about this (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MikeXpop ( 614167 ) <mike AT redcrowbar DOT com> on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @06:25PM (#8853903) Journal
    Is that it will sell just as well as non-DRM'd hardware because the masses are clueless as to what it does.

    We as geeks need to inform people about this thing.

    • Re:The bad part about this (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Jason1729 ( 561790 ) on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @06:28PM (#8853945)
      It will probably sell better than non-DRM hardware because of the way it can be marketed. It allows you to play DRM content that you can't play on non-DRM'd hardware. That sounds like a positive feature if you don't know the details.

      Jason
      ProfQuotes [profquotes.com]

      • Re:The bad part about this (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Niten ( 201835 ) on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @08:02PM (#8855078)

        Exactly. Just last night there was a blurb on CNN that mentioned these new processors, after which the news anchor told the audience that these revolutionary new phones would surely protect them from the hacker threat. Kind of makes you wonder who was really writing his lines...

    • Re:The bad part about this (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Jake Diamond ( 770429 ) <jdwhite@hotmail. ... com minus distro> on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @06:32PM (#8854002)
      Unfortunately, the companies pushing these schemes tell Joe Consumer that it's going to make their devices "more secure", and Joe Consumer believes them. Even if they know it's there, I don't think there's going to be an outcry about it because most people think it's a good thing. Lots of people hear about the downsides of such technology, and write it off as a paranoid delusion.

      • Re:The bad part about this (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        "Joe Consumer" is not as dumb as you might think. Calling him "Joe Consumer" and talking about how gullible he is compared to you, however, will NOT help persuade him to your cause. An adult human person isn't usually stupid. Ignorant, maybe, but usually fully capable of grasping the issue of DRM being a means for corporations to control what you can and cannot see and hear - and more importantly, what information you can and cannot pass on to your friends. Put in those terms, people cop on pretty damn

        • Re:The bad part about this (Score:5, Insightful)

          by MikeXpop ( 614167 ) <mike AT redcrowbar DOT com> on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @06:47PM (#8854226) Journal
          Joe Consumer is not gullable. He is ignorant as you said. However he's only ignorant when it comes down to computers. Joe Consumer has more important thing to worry about than some DRM thing in his cell phone. It's also important to realize that Joe doesn't read slashdot or fark or kuro5hin. The only exposure he'll have to DRM knowledge is the spin Intel puts on it. And of course it will be a positive one.

    • Re:The bad part about this (Score:5, Insightful)

      by EpsCylonB ( 307640 ) <eps&epscylonb,com> on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @06:33PM (#8854018) Homepage
      Is that it will sell just as well as non-DRM'd hardware because the masses are clueless as to what it does.

      We as geeks need to inform people about this thing.

      I have got a feeling that people will eventually realise what DRM is and it's disadvantages. Bear in mind that the early adopters of the kind of device this will be used in will likely be technologically literate, and the widespread use of mp3 by the general public mean that any DRM that is too restrictive will probably lead to failure.

      As long as there is a non DRM option people will choose the hardware that lets them do what they want.
    • I'd bet the phone companys will even advertize "New DRM Technology!" as a good thing, right on the box

    • Music! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by antic ( 29198 ) on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @07:00PM (#8854391)
      How the fuck did we get to the point where music needs to be "secure content"?

      What happened to kids having jam sessions in their parents' garages?

      What happened to aboriginies hitting sticks against each other?

      Or bands playing gigs in pubs?

      Yes, these are careers and corporations, but just think about then and now. Music for the love of it then, music for the money in it now.

      RIAA/MPAA & friends need to step back and take a look at what they're doing and requesting from hardware, software, and people.

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @06:26PM (#8853915)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Mod chip? (Score:5, Funny)

    by solid ( 15355 ) on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @06:26PM (#8853922)
    So will I now have to get a mod chip for my mobile phone?

    • Re:Mod chip? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Goldfinger7400 ( 630228 ) on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @06:38PM (#8854085)
      Rather, could this be the catylyst that might prompt hackers to engineer their own equipment, rather than just taking a PC with Windows and some downloadable software to do mischief. The earliest traditions of hackers were based off of trying to avoid stuff like this, with big Intel locking down its architecture to keep out script kiddies might we see a new renaissance of serious hardware hackers working on hackable hardware?

    • Re:Mod chip? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by slux ( 632202 )
      That would be funny if not for the fact that it takes a little more than a modchip to remove DRM when it's actually inside the processor and not a separate fritz-chip on the board.

      It will not be modchipped.

      Not on the mobile phones (however absurd that may be in any case) and also not on the desktop computers which are getting their share too with Intel now including LaGrande silently on their new processors starting with Prescott.

      It's not used on the desktop yet but the hardware will be there when Longho

      • Re:Mod chip? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Alsee ( 515537 ) on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @09:24PM (#8855767) Homepage
        It will not be modchipped

        You're right. It will be emulated instead. That emulation may or may not be done on a "mod chip".

        It's your property. You rip your chip open, read out your master key, and you have regained control over your own property. Or you pay someone a few bucks to rip open your chip for you and read out your key for you.

        Once you know your own master key you have god-level control over your property. The entire Trust system falls apart. The Trust system relies entirely upon the assumption that people don't know their key.

        I sorta wish I was back in college with a suitable lab handy for scanning microchips. I'd run right out and buy one of these cell phones and get to work on it. I may not have the microscopes and other equipment handy, but I'd be more than happy to go to work reverse-engineering the boot-rom and programming an interoperable emulator.

        It's not used on the desktop yet but the hardware will be there when Longhorn comes out.

        Yep, and going to work on these cellphones will be GREAT practice for liberating PC's from Microsoft's NaGSCaB control.

        It's your property and they can't stop you from reading out YOUR key. Once you know your key you can liberate YOUR computer from THEIR control. All they can do is make it inconvienent. The whole "Trust" system is a load of crap. It would be a good system if they simply game the owner of the system a copy of his key in the first place.

        There is no POSSIBLE way your computer can be any less secure or protect you any less simply because you know your key. The system is still just as secure at protecting your data from attackers, at protecting you from hack attempts and viruses. There is NO legitimate justification to attempt to forbid people to know their own key.

        -

  • As long as it can be soldered (Score:3, Insightful)

    by eclectro ( 227083 ) on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @06:27PM (#8853935)

    it can be hacked.


    • As long as it can be soldered it can be hacked.


      By what? One person in 100,000?

      Have you ever tried to solder the wiring of a cell phone... and still have it work?

      If all Intel, ATT, etc., etc., have to worry about is people soldering their cell phones, they've won. And gotten a good laugh in the bargain.

      • The number of people whose PS2's have been modded by soldering is far greater than the number of people with PS2's who can solder. That's why there are companies providing this service. And because there are companies doing this, and making non-trivial amounts of money, it's worthwhile for some individuals to invest an effort into cracking the system.

        • The number of people whose PS2's have been modded by soldering is far greater than the number of people with PS2's who can solder. That's why there are companies providing this service. And because there are companies doing this, and making non-trivial amounts of money, it's worthwhile for some individuals to invest an effort into cracking the system.

          A cell phone is not a PS2. Soldering a PS2 is trivial. I suspect that soldering a cell phone is non-trivial. :)

          In addition, I don't know how many busi

  • Yeah, right. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bryan Gividen ( 739949 ) on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @06:28PM (#8853937)
    'The same technology also can be used to ensure that content such as music or movies is used in a way dictated by the copyright holder. A purchased song, for instance, would not play unless it's sure that it's authorized and running on secure hardware.'"

    Right, unless you hold down the Shift key when you put the CD in... honestly people, as long as its digital, people will discover loopholes around the system and break it. I don't want to say the effort is pointless, but it definitely is a losing battle.
    • Songs (and all data) don't make decisions about how to allow themselves to be used. All that would have to happen to get around crap like this would be that someone makes a DRM-ignoring player for the data. This might mean cracking some crypto to make the data open, or it could mean cracking an existing player to always allow playing, or it might mean cloning decryption code out of an existing player and embedding it within a DRM-ignoring player framework. (Any of these things could be carried out at sof
  • Doesn't "PXA27x" just roll off your tongue?

    • the name is "XScale" (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Paul Jakma ( 2677 )

      PXA-27x is the model number^Wname. The product name is XScale, ie it is an intel XScale CPU, PXA-27x model family, compared to previous models (families) of the XScale CPU such as the PXA-25x and PXA-21x. All of which essentially are revisions of the DEC SA-1100 StrongARM which intel acquired design rights to as part of DEC's sell-out to^W^Wsettlement from intel.

  • I wonder... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ByteSlicer ( 735276 ) on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @06:28PM (#8853943)
    How long before someone finds a workaround for these security features? Until now, no DRM has been left standing.

  • Not for me! (Score:5, Funny)

    by ackthpt ( 218170 ) * on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @06:29PM (#8853953) Homepage Journal
    I'll just stick with my trusty ol' Z80 semi-portable -PDA, which I built myself and power of a motorcycle battery. *GRUNT*

  • Well that's just great (Score:3, Interesting)

    by tyrani ( 166937 ) on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @06:29PM (#8853954)
    Now I can be subjected to the COMPLETE lyrics of "hit me baby one more time" once ringtone makers find this out.

    Did you know that ringtone sales [yabedo.com] make up 10% of music relates sales now? That's a big number.

  • Can these schemes really work? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by eddie can read ( 631836 ) * on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @06:29PM (#8853962)
    I always figured that no matter what the makers try, if the machine is programmable then a layer can be built on top of the hardware, a virtual machine, that can in effect incapacitate any DRM.

    If there is some sort of foolproof hardware that can't be circumvented, no one has ever explained to me how such a thing could work without being non-programmable.

    Maybe software could be written that needs to hook into the DRM to run. But software is crackable, or seems to have been so far.

    • Your right, and I think that your reasoning is why console video game systems (XBOX, Playstation, etc) get hacked so quickly. However, with Cel Phones, the hardware changes so often, that it wouldn't be hard to keep changing the DMA hardware code every generation. Cel phones are almost disposable these days and as hardware gets even cheaper, it is going to become more of a problem for your friendly neighborhood cracker.

  • Can you hear me now? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @06:32PM (#8854005)
    Person: I think that I would like to buy some stock.
    Broker: Well chip maker ***STATIC*** is doing well, you should buy them.
    Person: What company? I could not hear you.
    Broker: ***STATIC*** you know they compete with Intel?
    Person: Oh AMD, are they doing well?
    Broker: What did you say? I could not hear. Did you say ***STATIC***?

  • Thank god for AMD (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I'm certain we'd be seeing DRM built into our computer CPU's already as well if it weren't for the competition from AMD. I dread the day that both companies get together and say "ok, let's do this thing." Then we'll be fucked.

    • Re:Thank god for AMD (Score:3, Interesting)

      by cpghost ( 719344 )

      If the i386 platform mutates into something that will enforce DRM, other platforms will probably gain momentum. That's not as bad as it might seem. As Unix (Linux, BSD, Mac OS X) community, we can easily adapt to this scenario...

      More interesting is the aspect of non-proprietary CPU architectures. It would be great if the OSS community were joined by a new ODH (open design hardware) community, so that we could get a fully open, non-restrictable architecture for our favorite OSes, apps, and playback devices

    • Then I switch to a mac.
  • Of course we can always `vote with our feet' and just not buy their product, but as always with the slashdot BOYCOTT $insert_company, it is doomed to fail because the non tech crowd just dont get it.

    Indeed instead of talking about it on slashdot (or other geek media) as I am now, we really need to talk to the MASS media about these things. When the EU version of the DMCA came out (EUCD) I put up stickers around my home town entitled `NO EUCD'. Perhaps people to whom this REALLY is worrying, ought to consid
  • if the wintel cartel is still in business, then Intel's DRM may also be a way to prevent linux on PDA's. Luckily, if that were the case, I'm hoping that Sharp would complain (enuf to force intel not to implement the anti-linux portion of their conquest) as their PDA's use an OS based on Linux.

  • Why is DRM bad? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by rnd() ( 118781 )
    I know this comment will be modded down, but really why is DRM frowned upon by Slashdotters? Suppose DRM were required to prevent abuses of the GPL -- would it be OK then?

    If DRM enabled devices will make content creators feel comfortable making more content available, then I'm all for it. Also, since theft won't be an issue (unauthorized copying) they won't have to try to recover their losses by charging more for the content.
    • No, it wouldn't be okay then.

      Right now DRM is fine and dandy. I've realized that the only restrictions opposed on me by Fairplay (iTunes DRM) is restricting things that are illegal anyhow.

      The problem lies in what's to come. With DRM in hardware, slashdotters can choose to say no. However, when the general masses eat this up (and they will), that means that DRM hardware will prevail. Soon all the major motherboards will ship with DRM'd BIOSes. We won't have a choice as to what to buy.

      And if you think this

    • Re:Why is DRM bad? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ealar dlanvuli ( 523604 ) <froggie6@mchsi.com> on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @06:45PM (#8854194) Homepage
      Copyright doesn't grant you anything resembling the rights granted by DRM.

      Assuming it does is philisophically/economically/legally bankrupt.
    • Well thats an absurd question, but of course the answer is no. Open Source is freedom, DRM is the antithesis of that.

      "Beware of those who deny you information ... for in their hearts they dream themselves your master"

      • I don't see the connection. DRM is just a way of enforcing through technology the same thing that the GPL is intended to enforce via the honor system and via the courts.
    • I know this comment will be modded down, but really why is DRM frowned upon by Slashdotters?

      Are you serious? Have you read any of the other posts in this thread, or any of the other DRM threads? DRM is for many many reasons. The biggest ones for me is that it prevents me from fair use of material and content that I have legally paid for. Another reason that DRM is bad is because it is a method of control over what sort of content I'm exposed to. For other reasons that DRM is bad, please read some of
      • What is the difference between using DRM to enforce a EULA vs using the courts to enforce it? If widespread violation of the GPL began to occur, couldn't DRM be used to prevent abuses?

        DRM doesn't necessarily have to be draconian, all it does is allow the content provider to enforce whatever terms the consumer would be agreeing to accept at the time of purchase.

    • Re:Why is DRM bad? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by PoesRaven ( 623777 ) on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @06:55PM (#8854330)
      DRM is frowned upon for many reasons. Personally, I find it distateful because it erodes our property rights (i.e. the ability to control the computer I payed a substantial amount of money for) and that it operates under the basic assumption that we are all criminals, which I find offensive. I have yet to see copy protection that didnt hinder honest users more than those who steal it. The people who crack software are barely slowed down, and so really its the person who payed for it that gets bitten by the copy protection (and this holds true for all copy protected content.)
      • So you don't differentiate between the concept of DRM'ed material being subject to a EULA defined by the creator? The DRM is just a way of enforcing the EULA, and nothing more. If you purchase the product and violate the EULA, then the courts could be used to enforce the license just as DRM is.

    • Re:Why is DRM bad? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Cid Highwind ( 9258 ) on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @07:02PM (#8854411) Homepage
      "I know this comment will be modded down, but really why is DRM frowned upon by Slashdotters?"

      Mostly it's the notion that hardware is a tool, and we should be able to use a tool that we bought however we want, even if that use isn't specifically intended by the manufacturer. Also, DRM's big backer is Microsoft. Given their history of anit-competitive behavior, it seems reasonable to assume that DRM would be used to keep the commodity x86 hardware we like so much from booting an unsigned (read: non-commercial) operating system. Lastly, it seems like a futile effort. We think Intel should be designing better and faster processors, instead of wasting time trying to handicap their users.

      "Suppose DRM were required to prevent abuses of the GPL -- would it be OK then?"

      No. Nobody should be able to tell people what software they're allowed to run on hardware they bought and paid for.

      "If DRM enabled devices will make content creators feel comfortable making more content available, then I'm all for it. Also, since theft won't be an issue (unauthorized copying) they won't have to try to recover their losses by charging more for the content."

      They wouldn't *have* to, but they would keep prices high anyway. CD and DVD prices aren't high to compensate for piracy, they're high because the market will bear that price. If all illegal copying stopped tomorrow, there would be no reason for the record labels to lower their prices, because music isn't a commodity. No two labels sell the same music, so there is little competition between them to drive down prices.

    • I can see that you're not a troll by reading your comment history. This is a common question that has a simple answer:

      Read the above two links, and see if you don't get the idea. It's not about the content, or access to it. It's about freedoms that we're not willing to give up. Hardware-controlled DRM for content distribution is just one step away from hardware-level control over what software you can and can't install on your machine. Imagine a future whe

    • DRM is by nature, designed to disallow people rights. It's a positive spin on a bad thing. Think about it, it's not like Rights need to be "managed"... the people who have the right to legally use something already can... it's the people who don't that you want to deny. So perhaps "Denying Right to Mankind" would be a better description. And in fact, it's 100% the opposite as to what the GPL was meant to do, give rights and freedoms.

      Speaking of putting a positive spin on something negative (time for a
    • Because in order to protect their DRM secrets (or that's what they'll tell you) you'll be offered with the operating system/environment of the choice of the companies backing up these systems. Take it or leave it. Ok it's not an issue with phones (most probably wouldn't run your favourite free operating system with it anyway) but the thing is quite different when these schemes are made mendatory on general purpose devices. No more Linux (or similar, just an example) since it's not "trusted". That's why you

    • Re:Why is DRM bad? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by whydoyouask ( 683253 ) on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @07:18PM (#8854603)
      The fact is that DRM is not designed to protect content creators. It is designed to protect the profits of the publishers and distributors that have a near monopoly on the channels of distribution. This gives them the ability to say take it or leave it to both consumers and the artists. This also allows them to keep the vast majority of talented artists out of the distribution channels artificially keeping supply out of balance with demand and inflating their profits. Their biggest fear is the loss of control of the distribution channels not that the artists will be cheated. Here At Roland we are awash in talented musicians that can't make a living at their art because the channels are controlled so tightly. Most of them don't expect to become rich, they just want their music heard.

    • Real digital rights management would be a useful tool to track the nuances of many rights of all parties and not get into the always-flawed provider-biased enforcement at all. As such, there are many good applications of it.

      But in the industry, it is a euphemism for copy protection, which has never, that I am aware of, been used to accurately manage digital rights, other than the DMCA's argument that whatever right the copy protection condescends to give you is all the right you should ever have.

  • Not the end of the world, folks... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Weaselmancer ( 533834 ) on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @06:37PM (#8854080)

    From the article:

    To provide system and application engineers the ability to fully utilize the features of the Intel PXA27x processor family, Intel is providing the Intel® Compiler and Intel® Integrated Performance Primitives, as well as optimized board support packages with drivers and power management software. Key OS vendors and ISVs like Sony Music Entertainment* have utilized these tools to create a comprehensive library of applications optimized for the new processors.

    The way I read that, is that this processor has a few commands built into it that help make or validate keys. Notice how the DRM is built into the application and not the OS. The article also says this:

    The Intel 2700G multimedia accelerator delivers DVD-quality video playback on VGA displays and supports a wide range of video formats such as MPEG-2, MPEG-4 and Microsoft* Windows Media Video9.

    I take that to mean that it can do some key-type checking, but again - it's not part of the OS. In fact, the article also says this:

    The phone platform supports full-featured operating systems from companies like Microsoft*, PalmSource*, Symbian* as well as MontaVista* Linux and Java* environments.

    It runs Linux, so...DRM is already optional.

    So, unless there's other documentation somewhere stating otherwise, I don't believe this is true "trusted computing" big-brother-knows-best DRM. I'd guess that the CPU has a few custom instructions that help doing RSA or something like that.

    Weaselmancer

    • So, unless there's other documentation somewhere stating otherwise, I don't believe this is true "trusted computing" big-brother-knows-best DRM. I'd guess that the CPU has a few custom instructions that help doing RSA or something like that.

      DRM has always been supposed to be optional. The catch is that you won't get to any of the media that utilizes it unless you use it and when all your games/applications/movies/music suddenly require it, you can either deal with it and not use them or budge and use DR

  • Hah!!! Yet another "feature" from Intel (Score:4, Funny)

    by l0ungeb0y ( 442022 ) on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @06:39PM (#8854118) Homepage Journal
    In my office I'm the guerilla marketer. I buy the latest and greatest and most useless tech and hype it up while I swagger around the cubes all day.

    It's done like this:

    "hey Fred, nice laptop!"
    "You betcha Bob!!! This is the latest thing, it has DRM"

    "ohhhh really!?!?" -- looks confused.
    "Really Bob." ...A week later...

    "Gee nice laptop Bob, looks like one of those new DRM models"
    "Yeah, but none of my MP3's work!"
    "But you got more features Bob... and besides, MP3's are illegal."
    "Really???"
    "Really Bob."

    • "But you got more features Bob...
      What new features, specifically? Being told what devices I can use to play music is not a feature.

      and besides, MP3's are illegal."

      The MP3 format is not illegal. I own many CDs which I have ripped to MP3 to fit on one CD-R to take to work. I own the license to those CDs, do not share them, and use them at only one place at a time. This is fair use.

  • What's the point? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by HolyCoitus ( 658601 )
    DRM on a cell phone? Was there a lot of ring tone pirating going on? Were people downloading MP3s and playing them when they received phone calls? Jogging along listening to the tinny phone speaker? Who's market did that effect and what's the point of having DRM on a cell phone?

    I don't even see the point of DRM on a computer besides to kill the market. With music, it's always been easily obtainable. To make it the hardest to get and use on a computer is stupid. People will pick what is easiest for

  • Great, better then the 8-track (Score:3, Interesting)

    by zakezuke ( 229119 ) on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @06:40PM (#8854128)

    8-tracks were so cool from a sales standpoint because as soon as the players were no longer made, you had to buy a new media player and new media.

    Now that we won't fall for that again... if you buy a spiffy new media player what assurance do you have that it will play your old media, not because it's not compatable but because you only bought the rights to play on your old one.

  • Even if this could detect all copyrighted movies and songs (which I don't think is possible because how can an intel chip know the difference between a dvd movie I ripped and turned into divx and my home movies) I still am not scared. Just think of all the encryption out there that gets broken. The more companies try to restrict something the greater the challenge of breaking it.

    Am I missing something, can someone tell me what to fear (I RTFA)

  • Will not "prevent hackers from wreaking havoc" (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Dr. Zowie ( 109983 ) <slashdot@defores t . org> on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @06:44PM (#8854168)
    I have that kind of misreporting. The implication in both the article and the press release is that wireless networks (such as cell phone networks) will be more secure because of these untrusting CPUs. But anyone seeking to hack the cell phone network won't work at the cell phone level -- they'll work at the transport portion of the protocol, sending bogus packets straight to base stations. The "secure CPU" won't have anything to do with it.


    One may also entertain serious doubts about the airtightness of the CPU lockout. Other DRM platforms, such as Xbox, haven't exactly stood the test of time.

  • Apparently the "Choose your own Adventure" series of books will also be implementing a form of DRM in their E-book series so that readers cannot just read all the way through. They will be forced to go to page 118 if they want to fight the DMCA in court or flip to page 62 if they want to download PlayFair. This, the authors say, was the "intended" use of the works and not to just be carelessly reading in a way that would violate the authors "rights" ..


  • DRM could be a boon for China (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    If Hollywood continues to influence hardware in its
    country, perhaps this can make 'off-shore' hardware
    even more popular. Along with 'off-shore' everything
    else. Its very ironic that Joe Sixpack might need
    a Chinese DVD player to actually do what he wants with his machine.

  • At this point (Score:2, Interesting)

    by iminplaya ( 723125 )
    most people don't know what DRM is. As more folks buy this junk, they will realize the restrictions being put on them, and believe me, they WILL react negatively.(At least, that's the way it is in my fantasy). One of the reasons the laser disc never sold well is because it couldn't record.(Plus 12inch discs aren't too portable, which probably explains why DVD's do sell so well). Anyway, Let's spread the word, and hope for the best.
  • The response to that one made it optional.

    Are we too worn out to to do it again, or is everyone trying so hard to be honest (not steal) that they're helping *AA to pretty much lock out new technologies in the service of those who know more about tech than they do (MS).
  • The DRM + security features are those of the Group [trustedcom...ggroup.org] formerly known as the TCPA [trustedcomputing.org]. TCPA has frequently been discussed on Slashdot [slashdot.org].

    From http://www.intel.com/design/pca/prodbref/253820.ht m>: [intel.com]

    "The Intel PXA27x processor family incorporates the Intel® Wireless Trusted Platform that is designed to provide platform trust and robust security services required for today's wireless devices. Built around the concepts developed by the Trusted Computing Group* (TCG) industry forum..."

  • IP Controls today, Content tomrrow (Score:3, Insightful)

    by nurb432 ( 527695 ) on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @07:29PM (#8854718) Homepage Journal
    This would open things up to content control.

    If you have 'unapproved information' on your pc, ( that just happened to be approved the day before ) *poof* it goes up in digital smoke... possibly even notifing the authorities of the transgression of knowledge.

    And in this case, you cant do anything abut it since its at the chip level.

    Sure, *we* may find a way, but the general public will have its core knowledge controlled and restricted.

    Don't count on buying others chips.. they will all follow suit to 'keep up' with markets.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • This is the future no matter what the platform be it pda's, phones, pc's, etc. and there's a really simple fix. Buy, if you don't already have, the previous generation's hardware and milk it for all it's worth. I'm sure that'd work for some years until there's a clear winner on the "hacked" side of things.

Slashdot Top Deals

Two can Live as Cheaply as One for Half as Long. -- Howard Kandel

Close