Intel to cut Linux out of the content market

[Teroedni]

check the inquirer
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=24638
](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,)

Any thoughts abot it

[NoTiG]

The problem is that there is no theoretical, practical or implementation benefit of DRM for the consumer. It costs money to develop, costs money to implement, and adds hardware and complexity to a device. This all comes out of your pocket while it takes your rights away.

good article

[sapo]

The funny part is that the scheme is already a failure, but it will hurt you as it thrashes before it dies. Be afraid, be very afraid.

btw.. let me read it all... :-P

[Kvark]

Thats a lot of oppinion. But one thing is surely correct there. In the future all your digital devices, all the data on them and everything you do with them will be controlled completely by whoever you bought it from and not by you.

Is that good or bad? I'm perfectly fine with it as long as there is free alternatives so each can choose for him/herself.

[Teroedni]

thats bad
If the article is corect you will have problems using Ubuntu on future Intel Computer

which have um atleast 80% of the global market
80% cant run linux in future:(
Thats really bad
:mad:

[Kvark]

thats bad
If the article is corect you will have problems using Ubuntu on future Intel Computer

which have um atleast 80% of the global market
80% cant run linux in future:(
Thats really bad
:mad:

No, you got it all wrong, You will be able to run any OS you want on an intel CPU.

But you will perhaps not be able to (legally) use any media player other then windows media player while using your PC together with the "East Fork" home entertainment thingy they will release next year.

[az]

thats bad
If the article is corect you will have problems using Ubuntu on future Intel Computer

which have um atleast 80% of the global market
80% cant run linux in future:(
Thats really bad
:mad:

That is not what the article is saying. The article is about DRM.

Digital media is all about convenience. The DRM proponents think that the convenience you gain by using digital media (mp3, dvd, etc, as opposed to an uadio tape or video cassette - analog) leaves enough room for them to take away some of the convenience by adding DRM restrictions.

In the end, manufacturers will end up using whatever sells the most at the greatest profit. Perhaps free formats will end up being their choice for two reasons:
1- It is what the customers want
2- No royalties to pay.

I think that is the point of the article: The consumners do not have to lay down an be screwed. If we stand up and demand free formats, you will then be able to purchase a media player which supports free and non-drm formats.

[Kimm]

Surely this can only be in the US?
I stronly doubt that the EU will let anylthing like that happen after they just rejected Software Patents with 95.3% of the votes.

Sometimes I wish I was born in the past where these huge monopoly companies did not yet exist and where Unix was the wide spread standard. I can only say that we are going completely the wrong way in developement, when things like this apear they can only slow down developement both regarding to software and technology, if this hits the market it will sure to slow down hardware developement several years.

But wouldnt this be illegal, If Intel does this and cuts everyone else out of the market in this area that will make them a pure monolpoly and violate atitrust laws. So the project in itselfe is simply illegal and cant realy make it anyway, can it?

And I agree, people are stupid! They never take the time to get the facts and simply do what the major corporations tell them ](*,)

[Teroedni]

okey maybe i was wrong there.
But we still get restricted from using other media then drm
Which means that we probably cant play anything on linux in the future
(It would be perfect for Microsoft)
BoycottIntel i say :-x

And noone will get this before its to late:(

[Kyral]

This is why I am an AMD fanboy

[Kvark]

Just wait until our local content provider fan poptones comes here to give us the other side of the story and explain how missinformed that article is and how wonderful the new device will be.

BTW, Teroedni, judging by your reaction I think you would be very interested in this site. (http://antitcpa.com/) If you think that site is fake then it is very easy to google for official technical reports from intel and friends demonstrating that they do have the technology needed to do what that site claims.

[CoriolisSTORM]

Well, I was on the middle of the AMD vs. Intel argument, but now if this turns out to be true, AMD all the way. Not to mention my old Intel processor you could send a certain signal to and lock the entire system ](*,) Yeah, its that old...

[SKLP]

DRM makes me go ](*,) !

[WildTangent]

i think its obvious whats going on here, Intel is M$'s puppet, so are the congressman they buy, and whoever else is benefitting from this. M$ is trying to drive the competition out of the market, giving themselves even more of a monopoly. you folks in EU member countries are lucky. i may just have to move to england if this stuff gets to the point where i cant rip my CDs, or watch my DVDs on linux, or windows for that matter.

-Wild

[super]

i think its obvious whats going on here, Intel is M$'s puppet

Therefore, AMD + Linux/Ubuntu = Me

i burn fire on their DRM, PVP-OPM (Protected Video Path - Output Protection Management), and other such restrictive nonsense!

[Stormy Eyes]

**** Intel, **** Microsoft, **** the RIAA, **** the MPAA, and **** the law. If doing as I please with my property -- including the music I've bought and paid for -- makes me a criminal, then a criminal I shall be.

[Omnios]

This is getting old Ms is building a $600 home $800 pro US$ coffin. Its only a matter of time before web services drop restricted codecs (though this may take years). Linux was estimated to take 1% of the os share but I think Ubuntu hit hard and took a big share in just a few months. If Intel wants to build a coffin then let them go for it it would take a few years (computer replacement time) to have AMD all over the place.

There digging holes and its only a metter of a few years till there holes cave in on them. Mind you they will still be around but they will be hurting hard. Problem is they have been number 1 for so long that they think they can do anything they want and ignore the nature of the computer industry. As for codecs there there to please the consumer not Ms etc.

Already there is big talk about supplying new compters with Linux (though they havent found a suitable canditate for it yet (crosses fingers ( upcomming Ubuntu, Kubuntu look promising). Also there is talk of a Win ME like watered down windows to compete with Linux and possibly that would be bundled with new computers but who in there right mind would pay for a a os code names "crap" (quote varios online periodicals).

Anyways Im not all that worried about things and am now going to look into getting a AMD for my next upgrate in a year or so.

There is already a new mp3 codec with 1/4 compression over the old mp3 thats 1/4 the size of a mp3 and Microsoft cant touch it.

I would like to thank Microsoft for introducing me to Ubuntu. When I heard about the $600 to $800 suggested cost for there next Os I started looking into Linux and after a few months and many suggestions found Ubuntu which I am realy happy with. Hopefully I will have a similar experience with ADM.

This is getting totaly crazzy! If I remember properly the internet was public domate yet individuals keep trying to corner it (codecs). I cant listen Launchcast in Linux but thats ok there still Live365

[poptones]

Fine, here is the other side...

First, I have to say I had a very hard time even reading this article. It seemed the color was off on that page and no matter how many times I reached for the monitor's visual controls the page remained as bright and yellow as the sun. I was nearly blinded by the heat, so much so I am still having trouble adjust my eyes...

The article equates DRM with Microsoft, then points out how "no other platform will be in the box, at least to start."

Well DUH! Don't you think that's because MOST of "this community" is so blinded by the imaginings of "fair use" equating with "if I can do it then it is my right" that no one will take the time to TRY providing an actual open platform for this technology?

If you sit on your hands and hold your breath like a spoiled brat rather than joining in the party, you have no one but yourself to blame when the others get all the cake and ice cream.

DRM can work for every last one of us who is prone to acts of creativity. The same tools that protect the rights of Disney also can protect the rights of me or you. The difference being, Disney actually creates stuff and shares it with the world... have you?

In another discussion right here I have been addressing others who want a reliable and convenient means on their computer of securing their data - of "protecting it" from the instrusions of others. Whether it's an intruder sitting at the console or someone sneaking in via security exploits in a chat client, most of us recognize a "right" to privacy from such intrusions. Well, what if I sneak into your computer and make unauthorized copies of those videos you made of yourself and your girlfriend the other night? And what if I then 'share" them with "a few friends" via bearshare? Would you feel such outrage against this technology to secure information then?

This is definitely about greed. And I am no fan of Disney - I have made thousands of posts at Slashdot and Ars Technica that back up this assertion. But it also seems obvious to me those corporations are not the only voice of greed in this discourse.

If we are to embrace the power of this technology we must recognize the reality that some are going to exploit it in ways that may offend us. The response to that is not to scream they have no right - because they do have that right in any society that offers more than lip service to words like "liberty" and "free speech." If we are not willing to provide a reasoned and productive response in this debate, we have no one but ourselves to blame when Microsoft, Apple, and a tiny select few "favored partners" take home the trophy.

Perhaps the linux community would be more accurately represented if Tux were to be transformed into an ostrich.

[BWF89]

I printed out the article since I couldn't stand to look at my computer screen and read 5 pages of material and I read the page.

But I still don't get exacty what this all means. Could someone list what exactly this means? I won't be able to take files off my purchased CD and put it on my MP3 player assuming I get one?

[Teroedni]

quote:First, I have to say I had a very hard time even reading this article. It seemed the color was off on that page and no matter how many times I reached for the monitor's visual controls the page remained as bright and yellow as the sun. I was nearly blinded by the heat, so much so I am still having trouble adjust my eyes...

So you didnt read it? yellow?? Well in that case its a problem with your computer.
Dont blame inq for it. With me it works great both on my 21 crt and my 17 lcd.
The only colors i see is a white background and red on the side.


When it comes to Drm it is made so that the corporate can controll us.
Why do you think Microsoft is so interested in that. They want to smoke out Linux.
The biggest problem with linux is the proritary software and this will only gets worse with Drm. RIIA AND MPA are getting more and more aggresive now :(
Drm is no good for open source.

[WirelessMike]

Intel kinda has a history of this sort of thing, you know...

See for yourself. (http://www.amdboard.com/amdsuesintel.html)

[az]

Poptones: Ogg (Theora) can do DRM. There are tags in the spec now. So, no, the linux community is not deaf to the needs of the market. The market, however, is not reasonable.

I do not think the majority of linux users think that they are free to crack any system and make off with a ton of stuff, just because they can. I think people are asking "how many times am I supposed to pay for this?"



Teroedni: "Drm is no good for open source"

I think that the DRM we are talking about here is platform independant. It has nothing to do with open or proprietary.

I vehemently agree with you that proprietary software takes away your rights, but this is not what we are talking about here.

[Teroedni]

ahh okay but atleast it is connected;)

If i went offtopic i am sorry for that. :---)

[DarthBagel]

I saw this linked from slashdot the other day.

If I remember correctly an engineer from Intel commented and seemed to think that drivers for linux were in the works, and that linux would not be cut out of the equation. Now was he REALLY an Intel engineer... I dunno, but hopefully he was and hopefully Intel will release the framework and codecs for linux.

[poofyhairguy]

If I remember correctly an engineer from Intel commented and seemed to think that drivers for linux were in the works, and that linux would not be cut out of the equation. Now was he REALLY an Intel engineer... I dunno, but hopefully he was and hopefully Intel will release the framework and codecs for linux.

He also said that "those developers are taking longer on the Linux version because it sucks to develop on Linux (despite its thousand of pieces of free software)" and "the Linux version will be at best 6 months behind."

**** Intel. My next chip will be AMD.

[poptones]

But you are assuming AMD will offer the technology AND offer linux drivers for it! I have an nvidia/amd system right now and I cannot say I am any more satisfied with it than I was with the intel I had before.

"We" don't need drivers, "we" need documentation. But it's likely the licensing folks behind this will put all sorts of roadblocks to obtaining that documentation which will end up putting trustworthy linux drivers for it in the same place as decss. Don't forget the whole point of "TCPA" is "trust." If you can't get trustworthy drivers, the entire platform just becomes a vehicle for legal entrapment of users who defy the hive mind.

[poofyhairguy]

But you are assuming AMD will offer the technology AND offer linux drivers for it! I have an nvidia/amd system right now and I cannot say I am any more satisfied with it than I was with the intel I had before.

No...I assume that AMD is not the market leader, so they have nothing to gain by Intel using this crap to keep their dominance.

Don't forget the whole point of "TCPA" is "trust."

Yep. Except the trust is a one way street. As it is, content makers don't trust US (and they shouldn't). TCPA exists to make our machines trustable.

AKA the beginning of the end for the multipurpose computer. Intel and the like would rather sell entertainment appliances.

[poptones]

Yep. Except the trust is a one way street. As it is, content makers don't trust US (and they shouldn't). TCPA exists to make our machines trustable.

AKA the beginning of the end for the multipurpose computer.

OK, look at this problem: right now if you want to encrypt a folder on your hard drive, there are about a dozen linux tools that will allow it quite readily. A few of them are even fairly convenient. I myself have all my partitions except / encrypted using dm-crypt, and it works great.

BUT: when I am at the computer and /usr is mounted (which, obviously, it has to be in order to use it) then all those encrypted files are exposed. Now, I want them exposed to me and to the OS, but I may not want them exposed to another user... like, maybe a user who has come in form the net. Or maybe I want some of my data to only be made available to certain tools. let's say, for example, I want all my jpegs to be available only to gqview and all my music to be available only to xmms. Thus, all this data is not only "write protected" it is read protected as well to anyone not sitting at my desktop - even if they are another user on my machine... even if they are root.

As linux is now, you cannot do that. If I can get access to a machine and get root permissions, I own all that data mounted to it. TCPA is about creating a machine that can allow fine grained data protection. That it can be used for DRM by others is only one potential use. That the old school publishers have the money and incentive to drive its development is no accident - they get that money from us, who give it to them willingly. Rather than begrudge them the power it gives them we should be embracing the power it can give all of us.

Whether any of this will prove legal in the US is another matter. But it is coming, and the best way to ensure we share in the bounty is to particpate - not to hold our hands over our ears and scream like Peewee herman.

[Teroedni]

sure TCPA does this of cheer godness. Nothing makes them more happy than to secure our rights;)

Seriously. do you really think this technology will bring good to us?



This is all about money and the big software buisness and music buisness want to continue getting high price for their product. Well i want a future where you can buy music at a much more resonable price and actually owne it ,not lease it:(
Therefore DRM is bad :-x

If im offtopic please forgive me :roll:

[poptones]

Again: TCPA is a platform. It is a platform that increases system security through hardware encryption. Do you use encryption? Do you use ebay, go to the bank online, pay bills, shop amazon - any of that? Do you want to make money?

TCPA is the platform that enables DRM, not DRM. If Microsoft uses its brand of DRM to monopolize the market it will only be because the free software community stodd by and allowed it. Nothing is to prevent the folks working on ogg from employing the same platform to provide DRM in its wrapper. Here is the full spec (https://www.trustedcomputinggroup.org/downloads/specifications/TNC_IFIMC_v1_0_r3.pdf) as it is today.

The computer is an extension of the mind. People use their computers like this all the time. As we increasingly rely on computers to augment our intellectual capacity our computers will contain more and more of ourselves. Governments all around the world exploit this weakness evne today - when someone is suspected of being a "child predator" or a "terrorist" or just an old fashioned political dissident the first thing big brother does is haul off the computer and everything related to it for interrogation. And I do not use that word accidentally - when you take someone's computer you are reading a portion of their mind. You are interrogating that person without their consent. You are violating their privacy to a degree which has never before been possible. You know what they have been thinking about, how they feel about what they are thinking, where they go and who they talk to. We have always been able to track down the "who" and "where" part, but never before has it been so easy for a person to put themselves at significant risk simply by engaging their private thoughts.

DRM locks up data from unauthorized use. What if I have data on my computer, that I created, that I don't want anyone else to access? What if you and your partner are having a hot and heavy online romance and swapping pics, but then you break up and that person decides to post them to usenet? Or what if you want to take a relationship there but your partner won't do it because they know it's all too easy for exactly that to happen? But if the two of you could share this data securely and both knew it was very, very unlikely that no matter how bad the breakup you didn't have to fear such a betrayal, you might find more comfort in taking the relationship to such a level.

These are valid uses for DRM that have nothing at all to do with Hollywood or money.

Well i want a future where you can buy music at a much more resonable price and actually owne it

Unless you wrote it and you performed it, you do not "own it" now. All you own is a CD - like a cassette or LP or book. what you are asking for is the abolition of copyright, and that ain't gonna happen. If you just want free music, here ya go (http://magnatune.com).

[poofyhairguy]

OK, look at this problem: right now if you want to encrypt a folder on your hard drive, there are about a dozen linux tools that will allow it quite readily. A few of them are even fairly convenient. I myself have all my partitions except / encrypted using dm-crypt, and it works great.

BUT: when I am at the computer and /usr is mounted (which, obviously, it has to be in order to use it) then all those encrypted files are exposed. Now, I want them exposed to me and to the OS, but I may not want them exposed to another user... like, maybe a user who has come in form the net. Or maybe I want some of my data to only be made available to certain tools. let's say, for example, I want all my jpegs to be available only to gqview and all my music to be available only to xmms. Thus, all this data is not only "write protected" it is read protected as well to anyone not sitting at my desktop - even if they are another user on my machine... even if they are root.

As linux is now, you cannot do that.

Wait till SELinux matures. It does all that without ruining the computer.

Hardware DRM sucks. Always has, always will for the home consumer. If you are a business and you have to protect important docs maybe its good for you, but for those that still believe that fair use is more than a fantasy it sucks.

And it doesn't matter what we all scream. Those with the say in the matter will do what they want. With only a duopoly of cpu makers on the x86 front, there is a definate downside.

Those old PPC macs will look like tempting Linux boxs when they are dumped un mass...

[poptones]

Wait till SELinux matures. It does all that without ruining the computer.

What on earth are you talking about? How does adding features, that you are in no way obligated to use, "ruin the computer?"

SELinux, ZE linux, it doesn't matter - it's not secure unless it employs hardware security as well. It is arguable that meaningful DRM isn't even possible (at least until we move encryption into the quantum domain), but it's stupid to say "we can't do it so why even try." If truly trustworthy DRM is possible then making that technology widespread is provably a good thing for liberty.

Right now no one has a reasonable expectation of privacy. If you use your computer to catalog your thoughts, to communicate with others, to immerse yourself in private fantasy - in other words, if you use your computer to do the things computers were meant to do - then you have absolutely zero expectation of privacy and no effective means of enforcing it.

And so long as you have pure software trusting pure software, any illusions of security are both ill founded and potentially dangerous.

Hardware DRM sucks. Always has, always will for the home consumer.

Always has? There has never been any effective hardware DRM technology available to the consumer. Any DRM that has existed to this point has been so narrow in focus as to be unusable in a personal context. The fact is, at this point no one can say exactly what the implications are of spreading effective DRM across the globe. Until now this sort of technology was considered a munition by the government. Now we are talking about putting that tool in the hands of every person on the planet. If the pen truly is mightier than the sword, what happens when each of us can command a secret army?

[poofyhairguy]

What on earth are you talking about? How does adding features, that you are in no way obligated to use, "ruin the computer?"

Its not ruined at first. Its ruined when I lose the choice to NOT have a "trusted" computer to do basic things such as play whatever media disks are availible or connect to the internet. Forcing me to bear the costs of what I dislike. I'm scared of sliding down that steep slope. You argue that compatibility with old devices makes that impossible, but I'm more worried about 15 years instead of 15.

SELinux, ZE linux, it doesn't matter - it's not secure unless it employs hardware security as well. It is arguable that meaningful DRM isn't even possible (at least until we move encryption into the quantum domain), but it's stupid to say "we can't do it so why even try." If truly trustworthy DRM is possible then making that technology widespread is provably a good thing for liberty.

why is that stupid? If something doesn't work, why waste time on it? why not spend time plugging the biggest hole in the system (the user) with some basic training?

Right now no one has a reasonable expectation of privacy. If you use your computer to catalog your thoughts, to communicate with others, to immerse yourself in private fantasy - in other words, if you use your computer to do the things computers were meant to do - then you have absolutely zero expectation of privacy and no effective means of enforcing it.

Its called unplugging the internet. Or ****, getting a firewall. A good one. Then you got some privacy. Computers don't need the internet to work, there is a disadvantage to the public network.

And so long as you have pure software trusting pure software, any illusions of security are both ill founded and potentially dangerous.

DRM hardware has no greater chance of success than software hardware. It does increase the cost needlessly for those that don't want it, and make a tempting target for lawmakers (who could make the penalties for breaking it rediculus).

Always has? There has never been any effective hardware DRM technology available to the consumer.

Effective, as in doesn't stop people? I agree, thats why its dumb to make it.

Effective as in reached the mass market? Apple and their iPod army have something to say about that.

[poptones]

Its not ruined at first. Its ruined when I lose the choice to NOT have a "trusted" computer to do basic things such as play whatever media disks are availible or connect to the internet.

And you are talking about 15 years from now? It's a ridiculous notion from the start. That "planned obsolesence" some complain about is a basic fact of technolgy, and this technology is marching on like no other ever has. The compact disk itself is now more than 20 years old... but how many 20 year old CDs will even play? I have a TDK from '95 that sort of still works but there's nothing on it that I want or need.

Forcing you to bear costs? Computers are cheaper now than ever, and the more that are made the cheaper they become. The cost of this technology is absolutely nil to you or me. In fact, if it makes the publishers more forthcoming with stuff people will buy then that means it will help sell even more hardware, and that just makes it cheaper still.

No one is forcing you to support Britney Spears. If you don't want to pay her, spend your money on something else.

why is that stupid? If something doesn't work, why waste time on it? why not spend time plugging the biggest hole in the system (the user) with some basic training?

"Training the user" means nothing in a security context. I know exactly what I am doing but all my knowledge won't stop someone from coming into my house and installing a keylooger on my machine. I can take steps to detect such an intrusion, but that still doesn't protect everyone I may contact. Your argument is that people do not deserve seecurity or privacy unless they are willing to commit to an detailed knowledge of a technology. That is, at the very most generous, an elitist line of thought. Given the utility this sort of tool could have in defense of liberty, one could even call your line of thinking treasonous.

Its called unplugging the internet. Or ****, getting a firewall. A good one. Then you got some privacy. Computers don't need the internet to work, there is a disadvantage to the public network.

Again, this is absurd. If you ever connect the computer to the network then it is vulnerable. Firewalls are nothing but a lock on a door - easily picked and they often are. Firewalls do nothing to address privacy of my desktop, only privacy from the network. Even in the US the authorities can, without a special warrant, sneak into your home when you are away, install monitoring devices in your home and eavesdrop on your activities. Firewalls do nothing in this regard.

DRM hardware has no greater chance of success than software hardware. It does increase the cost needlessly for those that don't want it, and make a tempting target for lawmakers (who could make the penalties for breaking it rediculus).

As I already pointed out, it doesn't increase the cost at all. But for those laws... those same laws that prevent you from distributing cracking tool so everyone can rip DVDs also help protect my data on my own computer. Those laws help protect my privacy. If defending my privacy interferes with your ability to listen to Britney Spears without tithing to her record label... tough.

Effective as in reached the mass market? Apple and their iPod army have something to say about that.

Apple's DRM has been cracked. And Apple's DRM, like Sony's, is so specialized as to be useless. It's also a great proof of the ineffectiveness of software DRM. Software alone is not a trustowrthy means of security. Hell, you can't even generate a proper random number with software alone, how can you expect software to lock down the hardware it's running on? It's an impossible task. It's like asking a psychopath to gauge his own sanity.

TCPA is a first step in the right direction. If it can be proven reasonably trustworthy then its pervasiveness can have all sorts of yet unseen secondary effects. The romantic and egalitarian notions of John Perry Barlow (and all those still under his influence - as you seem to be) ignore several realities of our geolpolitical existence - to wit: (http://homes.eff.org/~barlow/EconomyOfIdeas.html)

...all the goods of the Information Age--all of expressions once contained in books or film strips or records or newsletters--will exist either as pure thought or something very much like thought: voltage conditions darting around the Net at the speed of light, in conditions which one might behold in effect, as glowing pixels or transmitted sounds, but never touch or claim to "own" in the old sense of the word.

Some might argue that information will still require some physical manifestation, such as its magnetic existence on the titanic hard disks of distant servers, but these are bottles that have no macroscopically discrete or personally meaningful form.

What this poetry leaves out of the picture is that those "physical manifestations" absolutely and indefagitably do have a "macroscopically discrete and personally meaningful form" - especially if you happen to be the one found in possession of a piece of "illegal information." That "illegal information" could be plans for a freedom march or it could be harmless pictures of your kid playing naked at the beach - you are completely at the mercy and whim of your local government. Only now, because your thoughts can be given physical form, the thought police have an open doorway right into your mind.

You may see the downside as that data can be protected as a physical object. The reality, however, is that data - your thoughts - already has a physically quantifiable manifestation. Leaving that manifestation indefensible is not a friend to liberty and freedom of speech, but an open doorway to tyranny.

Good fences make for good neighbors.

[poofyhairguy]

And you are talking about 15 years from now? It's a ridiculous notion from the start. That "planned obsolesence" some complain about is a basic fact of technolgy, and this technology is marching on like no other ever has. The compact disk itself is now more than 20 years old... but how many 20 year old CDs will even play? I have a TDK from '95 that sort of still works but there's nothing on it that I want or need.

I have plenty of old cd rom games from near that time period I still play.


Forcing you to bear costs? Computers are cheaper now than ever, and the more that are made the cheaper they become. The cost of this technology is absolutely nil to you or me. In fact, if it makes the publishers more forthcoming with stuff people will buy then that means it will help sell even more hardware, and that just makes it cheaper still.

Illegal P2P sells the hardware and bandwidth. the only reason this dream of yours hasn't come to pass is that the bandwidth companies know people will download more (and therefore want faster internet) if the content is free.

Economics defy you on that one.


No one is forcing you to support Britney Spears. If you don't want to pay her, spend your money on something else.

Screw Britney. I haven't stolen music in years. Now, TV shows I can watch in my area.....



"Training the user" means nothing in a security context. I know exactly what I am doing but all my knowledge won't stop someone from coming into my house and installing a keylooger on my machine. I can take steps to detect such an intrusion, but that still doesn't protect everyone I may contact.

It been known for a while that the easiest way to hack a network is to hack the people on it. What good is all this nw stuff when people don't know to give their password over the phone to a person claiming to be an IT specialist.


Your argument is that people do not deserve seecurity or privacy unless they are willing to commit to an detailed knowledge of a technology. That is, at the very most generous, an elitist line of thought.

Its a reasonable line of though. Security takes effort.


Given the utility this sort of tool could have in defense of liberty, one could even call your line of thinking treasonous.

LOL. I'm treasonous? Well, after that tripe anything else you say is crap. Treason is betraying your country. Supporting Intel and AMD plans are betreying the personal computer.

I was wondering how you believed what you did, but now I see I'm dealing with another luddite, ignorant conservative (many here in Texas, yall give us real conservatives a bad name). You are saying "I want my computer to protect my from myself." Thats the attitude that will turn computers into appliances, but you want that obviously.



Again, this is absurd. If you ever connect the computer to the network then it is vulnerable. Firewalls are nothing but a lock on a door - easily picked and they often are. Firewalls do nothing to address privacy of my desktop, only privacy from the network. Even in the US the authorities can, without a special warrant, sneak into your home when you are away, install monitoring devices in your home and eavesdrop on your activities. Firewalls do nothing in this regard.

I would love that- "we tried to install a keylogger, but his system wouldn't run an exe file!"

The difference is that its hard for me to get caught be a planted keylogger, but it would be easy to gt caught if the COPS IN MY BOX cause it is my box! They don't even compare.



As I already pointed out, it doesn't increase the cost at all. But for those laws... those same laws that prevent you from distributing cracking tool so everyone can rip DVDs also help protect my data on my own computer. Those laws help protect my privacy. If defending my privacy interferes with your ability to listen to Britney Spears without tithing to her record label... tough.

I guess we have to agree to disagree. We will see what wins in the market...



TCPA is a first step in the right direction. If it can be proven reasonably trustworthy then its pervasiveness can have all sorts of yet unseen secondary effects. The romantic and egalitarian notions of John Perry Barlow (and all those still under his influence - as you seem to be) ignore several realities of our geolpolitical existence - to wit: (http://homes.eff.org/~barlow/EconomyOfIdeas.html)

What this poetry leaves out of the picture is that those "physical manifestations" absolutely and indefagitably do have a "macroscopically discrete and personally meaningful form" - especially if you happen to be the one found in possession of a piece of "illegal information." That "illegal information" could be plans for a freedom march or it could be harmless pictures of your kid playing naked at the beach - you are completely at the mercy and whim of your local government. Only now, because your thoughts can be given physical form, the thought police have an open doorway right into your mind.

You may see the downside as that data can be protected as a physical object. The reality, however, is that data - your thoughts - already has a physically quantifiable manifestation. Leaving that manifestation indefensible is not a friend to liberty and freedom of speech, but an open doorway to tyranny.

Good fences make for good neighbors.

TCPA isn't a good fence, and it isn't a replacement for basic computer security training.

[poptones]

Illegal P2P sells the hardware and bandwidth. the only reason this dream of yours hasn't come to pass is that the bandwidth companies know people will download more (and therefore want faster internet) if the content is free.

Illegal p2p doesn't drive the home appliance market. Illegal p2p is only part of the bandwidth side of the equation. That has nothing to do with Tivos and PDAs and PCs. If anything, having more fat pipe appliances with tcp/ip connectivity in people's home will further the advance of those fat pipes, so here is yet again a place where the content industry can help us all.

There is plenty of "free content" and more coming all the time. The old school publishers want to sell you DVDs and music downloads, but they give away plenty of "free samples" to tempt you into it. If DRM works then they will offer even more in the form of online radio stations (which they fight now only because they know they cannot protect the content from further unauthorized distribution) and even website goodies. Even the very mainstream Alicia Keys has a page of free goodies on her corporate Sony site. The music industry gives away music every day and by the buttload - just turn on the radio. When they are able to get over this fear (and DRM will aid that) you can bet there will be dozens of sites scrambling to put together the most accurate demographic collecting streaming site on the net. Amazon and Google and Yahoo and MSN will be battling to see who can get the most content online the fastest to the most users. Again, that will help drive broadband adoption as well as hardware sales.

Your argument is that people do not deserve seecurity or privacy unless they are willing to commit to an detailed knowledge of a technology. That is, at the very most generous, an elitist line of thought.

Its a reasonable line of though. Security takes effort.

It's not reasonable at all. If you believe in the positive potential of a future mankind enabled by "augmented intelligence" and all that cyberpunk stuff, then it is not reasonable at all. I do not have to "learn" to protect my thoughts or my memories - all I have to do is keep my mouth shut.

Here's a simple example relayed to me by a friend who is an established child photographer: Kids do all sorts of "socially unacceptable" stuff - they're kids. If he is shooting a child and that child, acting completely on her own, does something that a minority in our society might consider offensive - spreading her legs or making sexual gestures, for example - he could be imprisoned for taking a picture of the event. Yet, if the child were to go so far as to strip and begin masturbating he would not be breaking any laws at all by standing there and watching. So long as he's not coercing the child to this behavior, he's done nothing wrong in the eyes of the law. But point a camera at the event and press a button - bang, now you're a "sexual predator."

I don't know if this came from a real experience he has had or if his example was just conjecture, but it really shocked me when he told me and I like to repeat it because it does shock people (which may be the reason he told me in the first place). But shocked or no, it's factually accurate and a real good example of just how screwed up the government can be regarding the collection and storage of information. You can be imprisoned for what you "know" if your memories are given physical form. And yet, giving "memories" physical form and allowing us to process and collate them is the very thing computers were designed to do.

Right now any computing device is not a trustworthy tool - and those who know the most about security know this most of all. That doesn't mean a reasonable security from the molestation of one's "augmented mind" is impossible, it just means the tools do not presently exist. But if we do not work to evolve them, they never will exist and all that poetry and prose about the bright future of technological singularity is just so much romantic fantasy.. If someone is walking down the street and a mugger leaps from the curb and runs off with their wallet do we as a society shrug it off and say "well it's your own fault, you should have learned about security?" The reality is we need this technology, every one of us. If we are unable to invent it, then that romantic future leaves us looking a lot more like the Borg where there are no secrets and "anomalies" are cast into the recycle bin.


LOL. I'm treasonous? Well, after that tripe anything else you say is crap.

Wow, I didn't say you were treasonous, I said that's one potentially valid argument - and it is. If you stand against technology that can aid the defense of liberty.. well, that's not a stand that would have been taken by Jefferson or Franklin. Do the math.

I was enjoying our discussion and I thought you were, but I seem to be sensing some anger now. Please don't take my references to "you" personally, most of the time the "you" I am addressing is all of you not you alone. I have no idea how you feel about Britney, I employed here only as an example - a symbol of the collective "you" whom I address.

I'd really like to continue the debate if you care to actually debate, but calling me a luddite... dude, that's absurd. Would you like me to post a screencap? Right now on my desktop I have two documents open - one is the spec for TCPA and the other is a bash script I have been refining in the hopes of contributing it to the next revision of the wiki page on encryption. I am all about trechnology - only, unlike you and most others, I do not let the hive mind (http://www.lessig.org/blog/) do my thinking for me.

follow that link. read the most recent posts. Seriously, it's very relevant. It's all about information aggregation and how both information and ignorance cascades through crowds.

It seems most of the people who criticize TCPA don't even know what the heck it is. Most seem to theink it's DRM, and it isn't. TCPA alone won't even get you DRM. But it is a first step toward meaningful security. The arguments you and most others I have read make are either "it won't work" or "it will let them lock everything up." Well, if it doesn't work then it hasn't locked anything up, has it? And if it DOES work then it lets ME and YOU lock stuff up too. Stuff WE choose to lock up.

Maybe that's not important to you; maybe you don't care if anyone with a decent set of cracking skills can access everything in your computer and post it to whom they please - or that the government could do the same thing, to a potentially much more devastating end.

I'm not boasting and I would love to see you prove me wrong by pointing out some significant weaknesses in the details of the implimentation, but I'm pretty sure I already know more about this technology than you - and I'm the one who's not afraid of this new technology. So...who would be the luddite (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=luddite) in this equation?

[poofyhairguy]

Illegal p2p doesn't drive the home appliance market. Illegal p2p is only part of the bandwidth side of the equation. That has nothing to do with Tivos and PDAs and PCs. If anything, having more fat pipe appliances with tcp/ip connectivity in people's home will further the advance of those fat pipes, so here is yet again a place where the content industry can help us all.

There is plenty of "free content" and more coming all the time. The old school publishers want to sell you DVDs and music downloads, but they give away plenty of "free samples" to tempt you into it. If DRM works then they will offer even more in the form of online radio stations (which they fight now only because they know they cannot protect the content from further unauthorized distribution) and even website goodies. Even the very mainstream Alicia Keys has a page of free goodies on her corporate Sony site. The music industry gives away music every day and by the buttload - just turn on the radio. When they are able to get over this fear (and DRM will aid that) you can bet there will be dozens of sites scrambling to put together the most accurate demographic collecting streaming site on the net. Amazon and Google and Yahoo and MSN will be battling to see who can get the most content online the fastest to the most users. Again, that will help drive broadband adoption as well as hardware sales.

If people have to pay for content, or they can't use it as much or as easily as the illegal content (streaming vs. mp3s) then people will consume less content. Basic Economics.


Here's a simple example relayed to me by a friend who is an established child photographer: Kids do all sorts of "socially unacceptable" stuff - they're kids. If he is shooting a child and that child, acting completely on her own, does something that a minority in our society might consider offensive - spreading her legs or making sexual gestures, for example - he could be imprisoned for taking a picture of the event. Yet, if the child were to go so far as to strip and begin masturbating he would not be breaking any laws at all by standing there and watching. So long as he's not coercing the child to this behavior, he's done nothing wrong in the eyes of the law. But point a camera at the event and press a button - bang, now you're a "sexual predator."

I don't know if this came from a real experience he has had or if his example was just conjecture, but it really shocked me when he told me and I like to repeat it because it does shock people (which may be the reason he told me in the first place). But shocked or no, it's factually accurate and a real good example of just how screwed up the government can be regarding the collection and storage of information. You can be imprisoned for what you "know" if your memories are given physical form. And yet, giving "memories" physical form and allowing us to process and collate them is the very thing computers were designed to do.

If congress didn't exist, I would mind the TCPA less...


Right now any computing device is not a trustworthy tool - and those who know the most about security know this most of all. That doesn't mean a reasonable security from the molestation of one's "augmented mind" is impossible, it just means the tools do not presently exist. But if we do not work to evolve them, they never will exist and all that poetry and prose about the bright future of technological singularity is just so much romantic fantasy.. If someone is walking down the street and a mugger leaps from the curb and runs off with their wallet do we as a society shrug it off and say "well it's your own fault, you should have learned about security?" The reality is we need this technology, every one of us. If we are unable to invent it, then that romantic future leaves us looking a lot more like the Borg where there are no secrets and "anomalies" are cast into the recycle bin.

The problem is that increasing the security of a computer decreases its versatility. I understand why many people hate computers- for them they are unsafe, confusing devices. Many would prefer an appliance for word proccesing and internet browsing.

ME on the only hand gets the most out of computers how they are NOW. I'm like the cowboy in the old wild west- I don't want law and civilization because that will decrease my power. Is that elitest? YES! But do I care? NO!

Wow, I didn't say you were treasonous, I said that's one potentially valid argument - and it is. If you stand against technology that can aid the defense of liberty.. well, that's not a stand that would have been taken by Jefferson or Franklin. Do the math.

Its an arguement, but not a valid one. Thats along the lines of a "if you dislike George Bush you hate America" type of reasoning- lets leave that kind of **** at the door please. Thats dime store debating.


I was enjoying our discussion and I thought you were, but I seem to be sensing some anger now. I'd really like to continue the debate if you cared to actually ebate, but calling me a luddite... dude, that's absurd. Would you like me to post a screencap? Right now on my desktop I have to documents open - one is the spec for TCPA and the other is a bash script I have been refining in the hopes of contributing it to the next revision of the wiki page on encryption. I am all about trechnology - only, unlike you and most others, I do not let the hive mind (http://www.lessig.org/blog/) do my thinking for me.

follow that link. read the most recent posts. Seriously, it's very relevant. It's all about information aggregation and how both information and ignorance cascades through crowds.

Umm...I know you really aren't a luddite. I was trying to prove a point. Anyone on the Ubuntu forums is not a luddite. But I am not treasonous, and anyone who would use that arguement to defend any kind of thing like TCPA IS a luddite. I was fighting fire with fire on that one, to show that I can make (wrong) assertions as well. Basically- can we keep the cheap name calling out of this? I will if you will.

It seems most of the people who criticize TCPA don't even know what the heck it is. Most seem to theink it's DRM, and it isn't. TCPA alone won't even get you DRM. But it is a first step toward meaningful security. The arguments you and most others I have read make are either "it won't work" or "it will let them lock everything up." Well, if it doesn't work then it hasn't locked anything up, has it? And if it DOES work then it lets ME and YOU lock stuff up too. Stuff WE choose to lock up.

Sure I can see your point. The idea is sound, it just that the concept has TONS of space for abuse. I mean, you have to admit, TCPA is the first real step towards ending the little "all the free **** you can download" party that Napster started. Even if that is whats "fair" I don't give a damn because life is not a fair thing. When you have an advantage you hammer on it....you don't happily give it up...

Maybe that's not important to you; maybe you don't care if anyone with a decent set of cracking skills can access everything in your computer and post it to whom they please - or that the government could do the same thing, to a potentially much more devastating end.

There we go. It comes down to our priorities. For me, the "right" (I know its not one) to download Family Guy on torrents is worth more to me than the right to protect my data (the only thing I have to hide is my infringment). You go the other way. Both our viewpoints are valid...I can understand your side easily. Can you understand mine?

I'm not boasting and I would love to see you prove me wrong by pointing out some significant weaknesses in the details of the implimentation, but I'm pretty sure I already know more about this technology than you - and I'm the one who's not afraid of this new technology. So...who would be the luddite (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=luddite) in this equation?

I'll admit to you, on paper the TCPA don't look bad. Unabused its a good system. I fear the abuse (aka a law being made fifteen years after its out that anyone not using it is considered to be a terrorist or some **** like that).

And let me admit something else- for content producers the TCPA is fair. Right now the system is set up so that they have a HUGE disadvantage. I like that, for the same reason Forbes like benefits given to rich people....the status quo is better for me as it is...

[Knome_fan]

Just wanted to say thanks to some special people for not taking this thread off topic and for not polluting this thread with senseless drivel

Wow, I didn't say you were treasonous, I said that's one potentially valid argument - and it is. If you stand against technology that can aid the defense of liberty.. well, that's not a stand that would have been taken by Jefferson or Franklin. Do the math.
(my favorite, by far).

Amazing. :grin:

[panickedthumb]

"Wow, I didn't say you were treasonous, I said that's one potentially valid argument - and it is. If you stand against technology that can aid the defense of liberty.. well, that's not a stand that would have been taken by Jefferson or Franklin. Do the math."

Jefferson and Franklin would have probably said TCPA, not to mention computers in general, were the work of witchcraft.

Listen, I'm not saying either of you are wrong or right, you both have great points for both sides of the issue, but what Jefferson and Franklin would have thought is irrelevant. We're in different times here. Jefferson and Franklin would probably hate a lot of things that have been done to protect liberty as well, but again, it's irrelevant. You are both making good points, and this discussion is interesting, quite interesting, but lets keep things relevant to the current situation, and try not to make things black and white, because there's a lot of grey.

[dataw0lf]

Maybe that's not important to you; maybe you don't care if anyone with a decent set of cracking skills can access everything in your computer and post it to whom they please - or that the government could do the same thing, to a potentially much more devastating end.


Oh brother.

I give security talks with more and more frequency, and this type of attitude is what cracks me up. Here are a couple basic rules:

1) If you don't bother to learn nor apply security, yes, you're vulnerable.

2) 99.999999% (i.e., the ones you're worrying about) of 'attacks' from 'hax0rz' are opportunistic and unskilled. Meaning, if you DO bother to learn or apply a small amount of security, you're relatively, and generally, safe.

3) No, no computer is safe. In a theoretical sense anyway. But this is often misconstrued by people (as evidenced by our friend poptones) to mean 'OMGZ NOTHING IS SAFE YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING DON'T TRUST TEH COMPUTER BECUZ YOU ARE GOING TO GET HAXXXED'. Jesus. Gimme a break.

I _do_ trust my computer security. Not implicitly, of course. But, I'm pretty damn sure that what I want private on my computer is going to stay private. In the same sense that, say, my social security information, banking information, etc, in my desk at home, locked, is safe. Is there a (very, very small) chance someone could grab it? Sure. But would it be worth the effort and risk?

The magic eight ball says no.

Go stand on your fanatical and theoretical soap box somewhere else poptones, you're just spreading FUD.

[panickedthumb]

Holy hell. We've awakened the BOFH.

[poptones]

Go stand on your fanatical and theoretical soap box somewhere else poptones, you're just spreading FUD.

This is about as stupid as someone calling me a luddite. I'm the one defending the technolology. I'm not the one spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt about it.

Is there a (very, very small) chance someone could grab it? Sure. But would it be worth the effort and risk?

"Effort and risk" for what? To protect it? To use it online? To NOT use it online? To NOT protect it?

It should NOT take any more effort to keep the information on your computer secure than it should take to keep the information in your head secure. That is not FUD, that is a position based on the promise of the democratization of information. One of the fundamental tenets of our democracy is the right to property - it's what drives our entire culture. Within that is the right to freedom of thought and of association. If our personal spaces are to include "cyber" then that cowboy mentality is no more conducive to liberty now than it was in 1850.

[dataw0lf]

This is about as stupid as someone calling me a luddite. I'm the one defending the technolology. I'm not the one spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt about it.


Sure you are. By stating that nothing is safe, you're spreading fear, uncertainy and doubt. By stating that 'computing tools' are completely untrustworthy is spreading fear, uncertainy, and doubt. By insinuating that there's no correlation between training a user how to use a computer properly with security in mind and actual appliance of security, you're spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt. Just because you're 'defending' technology doesn't mean that you can't spread FUD. C'mon, guy. Get it together. And stop acting so pompous (thus the mention of a soapbox).


It should NOT take any more effort to keep the information on your computer secure than it should take to keep the information in your head secure. That is not FUD, that is a position based on the promise of the democratization of information. One of the fundamental tenets of our democracy is the right to property - it's what drives our entire culture. Within that is the right to freedom of thought and of association. If our personal spaces are to include "cyber" then that cowboy mentality is no more conducive to liberty now than it was in 1850.


Wow. How quaint. And naive. Not going to happen. I won't even bother commenting on this, it isn't worth my time. And, remember, this is a global forum. Not everyone has the luxury of our 'democracy' here in the US (to which I assume you're referring... US Democracy *snicker*).

Try again.

[poofyhairguy]

It should NOT take any more effort to keep the information on your computer secure than it should take to keep the information in your head secure.

Impossible. Freaking impossible.

That is not FUD, that is a position based on the promise of the democratization of information. One of the fundamental tenets of our democracy is the right to property - it's what drives our entire culture.

Your democracy? Where do you live? Here in the U.S. , where I live, we have a republic not a democracy....and thats off topic anyways.


Within that is the right to freedom of thought and of association. If our personal spaces are to include "cyber" then that cowboy mentality is no more conducive to liberty now than it was in 1850.

In the 1850s the cowboys had a sense of freedom that no modern American has. They had the freedom to do what they please, and try what they could. They had the freedom to succeed big or fail miserably and die. There was no big brother watching over them, telling them that they could and couldn't do, protecting them from themselves. They were on their own, to defend and protect themselves. They had a freedom that you can't even imagine. And many of them went a died in a Civil War in an attempt to stop the rise of a powerful national government that would eventually take many freedoms away (hit of weed anyone?).

Again this is off topic. Where is my reply...I thought I was articulate enough...

[poptones]

If people have to pay for content, or they can't use it as much or as easily as the illegal content (streaming vs. mp3s) then people will consume less content. Basic Economics.

But for the second time now you ignore the fact they won't necessarily be required to "pay for it" - at least not with money. "Paying for it" can mean simply listening to an "officially presented" stream - one where you have a web cookie and perhaps a registered username.. just like this site. If such a demand for certain priviledge is ok here, why is it not OK for them?

If congress didn't exist, I would mind the TCPA less...

I think the point should be clear from my example that congress is part of the reason TCPA (or at least something like it) is needed in the first place.

The problem is that increasing the security of a computer decreases its versatility.

No, it doesn't. Turn it off. Ignore it. Subscribe to an internet provider that doesn't require you to have a "secure gateway." Or pay 200 bucks for one of those "secure gateway appliances" and funnel it into a public wireless gateway.

I understand why many people hate computers- for them they are unsafe, confusing devices. Many would prefer an appliance for word proccesing and internet browsing.

But these are tasks only associated with "the internet" as it exists now. As the platform moves closer to the appliance level that won't matter. But in order to trust those appliances what do you do? No one is going to buy an IP enabled TV if it ends up in the shop for a week every six months because of all the crap it picked up while you were watching TV.

ME on the only hand gets the most out of computers how they are NOW. I'm like the cowboy in the old wild west- I don't want law and civilization because that will decrease my power. Is that elitest? YES! But do I care? NO!

The cowboy is dead.. shot in the back by Billy the Kid.

Sure I can see your point. The idea is sound, it just that the concept has TONS of space for abuse. I mean, you have to admit, TCPA is the first real step towards ending the little "all the free **** you can download" party that Napster started. Even if that is whats "fair" I don't give a damn because life is not a fair thing. When you have an advantage you hammer on it....you don't happily give it up...

So it only took four pages to finally get you to admit your agenda is just the same as everyone else? it's not about freedom, it's about a free ride. It's about defending information anarchy.

The same tools that allow you to hijack Paramount will allow others to hijack your own hard drive. It's easy to argue "I don't care about criminals" but that's only because they haven't outlawed something you hold dear.

Oh, but wait... they have! Doh!

BTW.. dude... napster didn't start any of that. By the time napster came about I had a 20GB hard drive full of MP3s. When it was getting so much press I decided to check it out and I deleted it within days (and yet even in that time I managed to get targeted in the Metallica lockout.. in spite of the fact I didn't have any Metallica).

The stuff Napster had sucked. It was nearly all pop music and the quality was terrible. You could never be sure you were getting a riip from someone who actually could hear, or someone who didn't have the first clue about how to "rip" a CD.

Usenet 0\/\/\|\|Z0rZ p2p... at least for music downloads.

There we go. It comes down to our priorities. For me, the "right" (I know its not one) to download Family Guy on torrents is worth more to me than the right to protect my data (the only thing I have to hide is my infringment). You go the other way. Both our viewpoints are valid...I can understand your side easily. Can you understand mine?

I understand it.. except your position is based on defending your right to continue doing illegal stuff, whereas mine is based on... defending our right... to do illegal stuff.

Look: nothing that is out there now is going to go away. If your aim is to foster a culture of free expression and sharing, you don't back that up by clunking madonna on the head, dragging her home and making her dance for you. If you want a culture that embraces freedom, give your money and support to artists and publsihers who also embrace your ideals. This isn't Robin Hood - music isn't currency, it's culture. Whether it's by consent or by force, sharing Madonna just gives Madonna more influence on culture. If Madonna doesn't play fair, why would you help spread her message? it's self defeating.

I'll admit to you, on paper the TCPA don't look bad. Unabused its a good system.
So is nuclear energy, electricity, democracy, capitalism....

I fear the abuse (aka a law being made fifteen years after its out that anyone not using it is considered to be a terrorist or some **** like that).

How ironic. Les than a decade ago cryptography like this was jealously guarded by the government. Their argument then was "this will help the terrorists win."

Technology is neutral. And technological progress doesn't evolve from luddism.

[poofyhairguy]

But for the second time now you ignore the fact they won't necessarily be required to "pay for it" - at least not with money. "Paying for it" can mean simply listening to an "officially presented" stream - one where you have a web cookie and perhaps a registered username.. just like this site. If such a demand for certain priviledge is ok here, why is it not OK for them?

Ok. My angle is that trusted computing will be the beginning for the end for the Pirate Web (what Bill Gates calls the dark net). If trusted computing gets big, part of its purpose is to make copyright infringment stop. how? Simple- your computer won't be trusted if it scans itself and finds that stuff on it. Downloaded the last episode of the simpsons? No iTunes for you, maybe one day no internet for you. At the worst, you computer might be turned into a snitch that turns you in.

The "pay for it" is having to pay for the content to use it how you want. My way might not be the moral high ground, but it is popular (millions of P2P users).


I think the point should be clear from my example that congress is part of the reason TCPA (or at least something like it) is needed in the first place.

Why? So they can regulate it into whatever they want it to be? So they can use it as a "foot in the door" on your computer?



No, it doesn't. Turn it off. Ignore it. Subscribe to an internet provider that doesn't require you to have a "secure gateway." Or pay 200 bucks for one of those "secure gateway appliances" and funnel it into a public wireless gateway.

What happens when NONE of the ISPs will not let untrusted computers on? What happens when the trusted device I just bought won't let my old computer on...

If it was written in stone that "trusted computing will always be an option, you can ignore it and do things how its done now" then I would have no arguement. Problem is, many who want it INTEND to use it to stop how things are done now. Trusted computing is not being made so that YOU can trust your computer. Its made so that the content providers can trust your computer.

I'm scared of the day when the choice is "use this crap or never get on a public network again." You might say I'm paranoid, but its possible.


But these are tasks only associated with "the internet" as it exists now. As the platform moves closer to the appliance level that won't matter. But in order to trust those appliances what do you do? No one is going to buy an IP enabled TV if it ends up in the shop for a week every six months because of all the crap it picked up while you were watching TV.

You falacy is that internet=broken. All those internet radio devices work fine, my mom's online printer/fax machine works fine. The internet does not break things, stupid users do...Trusted Computing won't protect your info, constant vigilance on your part will.



The cowboy is dead.. shot in the back by Billy the Kid.

I disagree. The Cowboy is alive and well on the internet. Its just that you don't see him- you see a "warez kiddie."



So it only took four pages to finally get you to admit your agenda is just the same as everyone else? it's not about freedom, it's about a free ride. It's about defending information anarchy.

Yep. Its about keeping the free **** party going. I'll be up front about it- my goals aren't noble, they are just human.


The same tools that allow you to hijack Paramount will allow others to hijack your own hard drive. It's easy to argue "I don't care about criminals" but that's only because they haven't outlawed something you hold dear.

Oh, but wait... they have! Doh!

Fun part is they can't enforce it now. Not enough cops in America to bust every P2P users. Trusted Computing (and hardware such as this) allows for a future where a cop is in every box...then they can win. I don't want them to win.


BTW.. dude... napster didn't start any of that. By the time napster came about I had a 20GB hard drive full of MP3s. When it was getting so much press I decided to check it out and I deleted it within days (and yet even in that time I managed to get targeted in the Metallica lockout.. in spite of the fact I didn't have any Metallica).

The stuff Napster had sucked. It was nearly all pop music and the quality was terrible. You could never be sure you were getting a riip from someone who actually could hear, or someone who didn't have the first clue about how to "rip" a CD.

Usenet 0\/\/\|\|Z0rZ p2p... at least for music downloads.

I agree...Napster is just when it hit critical mass...and you still didn't answer my question- Can't you at least concieve the possibility that Trusted Computing could be the first step to end this good time?



I understand it.. except your position is based on defending your right to continue doing illegal stuff, whereas mine is based on... defending our right... to do illegal stuff.

Well, at least we can agree on something.


Look: nothing that is out there now is going to go away.

At first maybe. But....I say that Trusted Computing is the first step in that direction.


If your aim is to foster a culture of free expression and sharing, you don't back that up by clunking madonna on the head, dragging her home and making her dance for you. If you want a culture that embraces freedom, give your money and support to artists and publsihers who also embrace your ideals. This isn't Robin Hood - music isn't currency, it's culture. Whether it's by consent or by force, sharing Madonna just gives Madonna more influence on culture. If Madonna doesn't play fair, why would you help spread her message? it's self defeating.

Acually...now I get the best of both worlds. I get the content of the companies AND I don't support their bottom line. You say I increase their marketshare....but their marketing departments do a million times worse damage then me. Funny thing about breaking the law...you usually don't go bragging about it in public...I'm an exception.

And let me be more honest- most of those that fight DRM often don't actually care about compatibility or fair use, they care about unfair use. They care about what they feel they are entitled to- all of that wonderful illegal content.

And I'll admit something else- I can barely imagine better. Better is a bigger illegal network with more tasty content on it. I guess better would also be if people would consume Libre content instead....but I don't think that such a future is very likely.


So is nuclear energy, electricity, democracy, capitalism....

And in every case its been abused. So I assume Trusted Computing will be the same way. When you assume the worst in people, you are never surprised.



How ironic. Les than a decade ago cryptography like this was jealously guarded by the government. Their argument then was "this will help the terrorists win."


Some of the higher ups STILL believe that.


Technology is neutral. And technological progress doesn't evolve from luddism.

You are correct. Technology is neutral. but Intel, Apple, and the Media Companies aren't. I already admitted that on paper it looks ok- its just that the implementation has a CHANCE to end the "download all the content you want for free" party. That is not a threat I take lightly. I might have no right to do what I do, none of us MILLIONS of pirates do. But we have been doing it long enough to feel entitled to it.

In the end, a debate is pointless. The market will decide. And probably your side will win. This stuff will be snuck in SO gradually that it might take 20 years before the party is over...and then its too late. Then "only terrorists and traitors want to go that the pirate party."

Then I don't get my Family Guy on a torrent. Then I have to pay for it. Then the Wild West of the internet will be dead, and the cowboys will again be extinct.

Hip hip horay! At least then I'll be trusted.

[panickedthumb]

Flat out, illegal activity can be stopped using TCPA, but they could also use this to stop us peaceniks from visiting moveon.org because its not a "trusted site." An extreme case, but a possible one. The potential is there to make computers "Big Brother." If it was just going to be used for our protection and to stop illegal activity, then fine, but you can't say that this will happen. The chance for corporate corruption of this otherwise brilliant idea is immense. The chance of civil liberties being removed for security-- security for the users AND the corporate stronghold-- is immense. To quote Thomas Jefferson, "Those who would give up liberty for security deserve neither."

[poofyhairguy]

If it was just going to be used for our protection and to stop illegal activity, then fine

Not fine with me. Everytime Congress comes together something new is made illegal. Much of the law sucks...

[poptones]

Poofy... have you read your own tagline? I mean, seriously... what are the "beliefs of linux?" That it's OK to take what you want when you want it and by force? That we should all just ride the prairies toting six guns and shooting anyone who dare wake us in the night by snoring to loudly? The GPL totally depends on Copyright, and you are pretty zealously defending your "liberty" to infringe those rights of others simply becayse they do not share your ideology. I'm not trying to lead off with an attack, the fact is I was just about to press "submit" when I looked up and noticed it. The irony, given the direction this conversation has headed, is as heavy as a lead zeppelin!

Anyway...

TCPA is not DRM. TCPA is a way of protecting my machine by making it so difficult for an attacker to gain control of it via software that, for all practical purposes, it can be trusted. Does TCPA prevent a user from clicking the big red button that says "click here to let us own all your data?" No - but that's the point: if the user wants to give ownership of their system to a remote administrative service, they have that choice. and they can then "trust" that, so long as that remote admin is trustworthy, their machine cannot be altered by anyone else without the consent of that remote admin. Whether or not any of us should trust certain remote admins is a matter NOT directly related to TCPA.

There is no DRM in TCPA. The platform provides hardware encryption technology to aid in auditing and limited system integrity checks while running. Texas Instruments attempted this exact same thing years ago with a platform that crammed two CPUs, two hard drives, two system images in one box with one system dedicating all its time to monitoring and controlling the operational state of the other. It worked, sort of, but died because it was a proprietary nightmare to administer.

If you don't want TCPA, nothing to stop you from turning it off. If you want TCPA but don't trust someone else's root certificate, nothing to stop you from generating your own keys. Will the system then be "trusted" by the corporate machines? No. Can you turn it on again? Ayup.

TCPA alone will not prevent execution of code. TCPA will work with allowing the cpu to capture and securely store some machine states so it can be reasonably sure, for example, that when it gets to the point it's showing a BIOS screen that it's actually running the BIOS it was running last time it booted.

TCPA provides a secure storage area for encryption keys... that's it. It's an open specification and any DRM made possible by these encryption keys is totally a user choice - ie you don't have to consent to Microsoft's WMP license if you don't like it, and they in turn won't be sticking their key in your key safe.

TCPA provides a way to lock up keys securely by generating the private keys in the machine and storing them in the machine. Remember Al gore's Clipper? This is the key escrow - you are the escrow agent. You hold the private keys (or, actually, the CPU or motherboard does). Does this mean the machine alone can be trusted? No - because of that whole "physical embodiment of thought" thing. In the US there are laws protecting one from being forced to reveal incriminating information, but there are no laws protecting your computer from giving up said information. And it holds your private keys, so once authorities have possession of the machine...

That doesn't mean all this is for naught; I can still lock up my data using any encryption I wanton top of that. But because the platform itself is now "trustworthy" not only can I be reasonably assured it's still running the same code it was running yesterday. others can also trust that, for example, if I am running Supergoldcash2010 that my computer has proven itself trustworthy to them and is running unmodified Supergoldcash2010 code. If the person I am dealing with in the transaction is a thief that thief can still rip me off, but at least the folks at supergoldcash have a reliable means of disabling his account when I tell them about it.

Cowboy justice is fine if you wanna be a cowboy - but there is nothing preventing you from being a cowboy on TCPA. If you want to isolate yourself in the world turn the damn thing off and enjoy the silence. Or, if you want to form a cult, generate your own CA and convince your followers to trust it. You can form your own little subnet of encrypted exchanges and if anyone pisses you off you can press the button and banish them from your little community. TCPA is a technology - it's not a corporation and it's not big brother.

See, it really comes down to this: you're not defending "the right to be a cowboy" so much as you're trying to defend your "right" to practice cowboy justice in Beverly Hills.. and the good folks of Beverly Hills may not care at all for the notion of a dusty loner riding up and down their hallowed streets while carrying a pair of loaded six shooters and helping himself to the services of the local dance hall entertainers.

Cowboys may have enjoyed all kinds of freedom, but they were still just one lone voice. It's easy to destroy when you're one lone voice, but cowboys created little beyond their own legends. A cowboy is just one lone voice - and one lone bullet is all it takes to silence that voice. A cowboy ain't superman, he's human like the rest of us. And while it was one lone cowboy that launched the kernel of the code we're running here, if it was still that one lone cowboy cracking the code it's not likely Ubuntu (or Redhat, or Debian or any of the rest) would even exist now some two decades later. there comes a time when the cowboy has done all he can and it's time to ride off into the red sky sunset.

You want the freedom to be alone and separate from society; TCPA doesn't take that away. If you don't want to be trusted, no one is twisting your arm. But in order for this technology to progress those of us who choose to interact in a community need a reasonably reliable means of telling those who are trustworthy from those who are not.

Saddle up, cowboy... there's plenty of wide open spaces out there. The internet does not begin and end at Dodge City.

[Teroedni]

Poptones heres one of the reasons i dont like tcpa

In the USA there's a planed bill, the so called CBDPTA (Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act). First it was callen SSSCA (Security Systems Standards and Certification Act). The new name reads much more harmless. Looks like the first name made it too easy to discover the purpose of this bill.
This bill plans to legally force secure (TCPA-conform) systems. So in the USA it would then not be allowed to buy or sell systems that are not TCPA-conform. Passing this law would be punished with up to 5 years of prision and up to $500.000 fine. The same would apply for development of "open" software. Open means that it would work on systems that're not TCPA-conform.
Even if this bill would only valid in the USA it would have catastrophically effects worldwide. Because US companies are not allowed to develop and sell "unsecure" software, others would have to jump onto the TCP-train, so they would give total control over themself to the TCPA (USA?), or they would have to live completely without software and harware from US-companies. No Windows, Solaris, MacOS, Photoshop, Winamp or to say it short: The largest part of all software that's used on this planet would not be usable.

[poofyhairguy]

This bill plans to legally force secure (TCPA-conform) systems. So in the USA it would then not be allowed to buy or sell systems that are not TCPA-conform. Passing this law would be punished with up to 5 years of prision and up to $500.000 fine. The same would apply for development of "open" software. Open means that it would work on systems that're not TCPA-conform.

Well....after much thinking I have to admit Poptones is correct. Not that TCPA is good, I still very much disagree there. Screw what Hollywood wants. Jsut that the industry needs it.

Why? Because if Intel doesn't make it by themselves, congress will make them. If the industry does not soon regulate itself, it will be regulated.The only reason it isn't illegal for a minor to own a rated M (for mature) video game is because the rating system was created. Either the industry creates a medium bad solution, or the government forces a REALLY bad one.

Someone once said "the interent boom was due to the fact that it moved faster than the government could regualte it." I beleive this is true.

[drizek]

I hope AMD rapes em hard in the upcoming lawsuit.