Slashdot Log In
Palladium, 'Trusted PCs' in the News
Posted by
michael
on Sat Sep 07, 2002 09:32 PM
from the spin-control dept.
from the spin-control dept.
Reuters is carrying a fairly lengthy article on Palladium and 'Trusted Computing'. Worth reading - remember that what the Reuters/AP wires carry is all that most people will ever know about any particular issue.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
I don't get it (Score:2, Funny)
Considering this as news for the masses... (Score:3, Interesting)
All in all a good article for the masses. Just needs more followup for those interested.
Re:Considering this as news for the masses... (Score:2)
Here is how I understand that Palladium is supposed to defend against viruses. This is based on a presentation I saw a couple of weeks ago by a Microsoft guy.
First, Palladium uses a crypto chip (what some critics call the Fritz chip) which can seal data. This way secure software can lock up data so that if some other software gets infected, the data is still safe. So the virus has to actually infect the secure software.
Second, when the crypto chip encrypts the data, it embeds a hash of the secure application in the data blob. When a piece of software decrypts it, the crypto chip computes a hash of the decrypting software, and compares it with the hash embedded in the encrypted data. If they disagree, it does not allow the data to be decrypted.
Therefore, if a virus infects a piece of software that has encrypted some secure data, it won't be able to decrypt it any more. The virus has changed the executable code and so the hash will change. This will be detected by the crypto chip and so it won't allow the decryption to go forward.
Anyway, that's the theory. Infected software other than a secure module can't get at the secure module's sealed data; and infecting the secure module will change its hash, so already-sealed data will no longer be accessible.
There's also a feature where the crypto chip can report the hash of some secure software to a remote server on the net. This could let distributed applications detect if a remote system was infected with a virus.
more critical than I would have imagined (Score:2)
Maybe there's hope for Palladium being struck down after all?
fairly lengthy? (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm not sure if this is a sign of the sad state of popular media, or the sad state of all populus.
Heh (Score:5, Insightful)
As proof, Anderson points to a patent called "Digital Rights Management Operating System," for which Microsoft has rights
One of the first times a software patent might actually be a good thing. At least stifling competition and innovation in this area will give us a chance to focus our efforts on what is inevitably going to be a fundamentally flawed MS implementation of DRM.
Biddle and a TCPA spokesman deny the assertions, saying that no monitoring, reporting or censoring capabilities are designed into the systems, and people will be able to choose whether they want to use the security features, or not.
Talk about bullshit. DRM is useless if the user can turn it off.
To some, the TCPA plan is reminiscent of Intel's proposal in the mid-1990s to put a serial number on its Pentium chips. Public backlash caused Intel to abandon the plan.
Last I checked, the serial numbers are still there, and even though you can turn them off in the CMOS on some motherboards, software can turn them back on, so I hear.
By contrast, in trusted computing, special security chips and other hardware will work with software to verify the source of data and that it has not been changed, and to create safe zones within the computer for storing information.
Talk about a stupid solution to a simple problem. It doesn't require special hardware to protect the integrity of files, just proper software design. The earlier story on microBSD showed an implementation of software based integrity verification.
Technology companies must carefully balance individual rights and corporate interests, says Bruce Schneier, cryptography expert and chief technology officer at Counterpane Internet Security, a network monitoring firm.
Consumers used to vote with their dollars, no "balancing" was necessary. MS is betting on using monopoly power, and ignorant consumers to pull this one over on the public. Educated consumers are a necessary part of the free market, with technology becoming so complex, and specialization at an all time high, this may point to a larger problem, a complete breakdown of the free market, due to the lack of educated consumers.
"Microsoft wants the Chinese to pay for software," said Ross Anderson, head of computer security at the University of Cambridge in England and a renowned software expert.
Yeah, cause we all know those fucking chinks just leech off westerners. That is a pretty controversial thing to tell an AP reporter. To be fair, it was probably taken out of context.
Re:Heh (Score:2, Insightful)
Unless the software will not function at all without DRM active.
Re:Heh (Score:2, Insightful)
This whole fritz chip thing is designed to force you to use windows on only Microsoft terms. Infact Bill Gates himself called these TCPA chips as bouncers in your system to make sure everything is behaving properly. (bouncers??) THis is why Microsoft is getting a woody over this. For now they can have complete EULA controll with a digital enforcer. Hollywood will only release movies and audio in
Now, where do you get such a certificate to run or release your own programs? Oh from Microsoft only, and to make it worse you probably would have to sign an EULA stating that you will never make any viral gpl programs or make something that would compete agaisnt them!
Don't believe me? Go read the EULA for the
This attempt by Microsoft is extrememly illegal under the sherman anti trust laws and make microsoft's case agaisnt the doj look tiny in comparison. Bill will own %100 of the software industry. Scary scary shit. I do not mean to sound paranoid per say but I take Microsoft's bussiness plans with a grain of salt. Look at theit past behavior? I expect Microsoft to do the worse things imaginable like they have at every single oppurtinity since their inception.
Re:Heh (Score:2)
What if drm is on by default? Could I load Linux on it?
If your distro of linux supports TCPA, then yes. TCPA is an open specification, and there is much chatter about developing open OSS's that conform.
If you are forced to use windows or use your pc as a doorstop
You aren't.
This whole fritz chip thing is designed to force you to use windows on only Microsoft terms.
Bold faced lie. The whole idea of TCPA is use hardware to enforce data partitioning and access control lists.
Infact Bill Gates himself called these TCPA chips as bouncers in your system to make sure everything is behaving properly. (bouncers??)
Yes. This is a good thing. Properly behaved software is a good thing. Unbehaved software contains "bugs". Bugs are bad.
For now they can have complete EULA controll with a digital enforcer.
Yes, that is the exact idea. Someone sets forth a contract, and you agree to it. And then you follow it. Thats what licenses are all about. I download a GPL program, I use it, I follow the GPL. Pretty simple.
It will kill free software even on windows since win32 binaries will require a certificate to run!
Bold faced lie. That is patently false. TCPA does not specify a binary format. Under a typical TCPA implementation (well, theoretical because the full spec has yet to be implemented) the user or system administrator or software vendor or security certification company will define which entities to trust.
WIth 3 every component will need a different key just to work! Yuck.
This is good. Security conscious people will create a list of programs - specified by key - that they allow to run. No other programs will be allowed to run. This is enforced by hardware means. This would for example mean, that even if your webserver contained a buffer overflow (say, like the one Apache suffered a few weeks back) an attacker could not inject code (because it would be unsigned) into the operating environment. This means that a buffer overflow attack would be pointless. This means websites will be more secure. That is good.
Now, where do you get such a certificate to run or release your own programs?
Entities that issue certificates. I imagine Versign will be one. But under TCPA you or your system administrator or boss or vendor will define which certificates to trust. It is very similiar to how SSL works.
Oh from Microsoft only, and to make it worse you probably would have to sign an EULA stating that you will never make any viral gpl programs or make something that would compete agaisnt them!
Bold faced lie. Out and out fabrication.
Don't believe me? Go read the EULA for the
The EULA in question has been changed, and it only applied to cases where you used certain headers for embedded systems.
Bill will own %100 of the software industry.
Out and out lie. TCPA is an open platform, it will benefit many vendors, MS amoung them. It will also benefit consumers.
I do not mean to sound paranoid per say but I take Microsoft's bussiness plans with a grain of salt.
You do sound paranoid. Paranoia is virtue, but not your variety. Your variety is built on mistruths and mal-applications of rumors. Read up on TCPA/Palladium. And then remember correctly that Palladium is vapour.
I expect Microsoft to do the worse things imaginable like they have at every single oppurtinity since their inception.
Thats fine, because chances are they will do bad things. Thats why you should use Linux.
Re:Heh (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Heh (Score:3, Interesting)
The whole point is exactly that. Behaved or not - your software (OS) won't be able to run untrusted code in trusted portions of the system. That means MS could ship a webserver (say, IIS 7.0) with dozens of buffer overflow vulnerabilities and as long as it was run in the trusted area of the system, no untrusted (ie, from attackers) could ever be executed.
This of course vastly helps MS, since they have a track record of buggy software with insecurities.
Re:Heh (Score:3, Insightful)
>> What if drm is on by default? Could I load
>> Linux on it?
> If your distro of linux supports TCPA, then
> yes. TCPA is an open specification, and
> there
> is much chatter about developing open OSS's
> that conform.
If I used your way of replying, I would call this a bold faced lie. I won't, because I reckon you are just ignorant. Microsoft has a patent on "DRM-enabled operating system", which mean they could at any time deny distribution of Linux.
>> For now they can have complete EULA
>> controll with a digital enforcer.
> Yes, that is the exact idea. Someone sets
> forth a contract, and you agree to it. And > then you follow it. Thats what licenses are > all about. I download a GPL program, I use > it, I follow the GPL. Pretty simple.
Again, if I used your method of arguing, I would call this a blatant lie. Since I don't, I just suspect you are ignorant, and tell you the truth:
You don't have to accept anything to use GPL-based software. Not a thing, zilch. The only time you have to accept the GPL is if you distribute the software (or derived software), something you cannot legally do with Microsoft software.
I'm ok with you disagreeing with the original poster, but calling him/her a liar is pretty offensive. Microsoft is a proven criminal monopoly that has misused their power on numerous occations. Are you actually so naive that you except all of this is just good intentions?
Re:Heh (Score:2)
One of the first times a software patent might actually be a good thing. At least stifling competition and innovation in this area will give us a chance to focus our efforts on what is inevitably going to be a fundamentally flawed MS implementation of DRM",
Why did ms patent the OS part? Oh
MOD UP PATENT! I only dissagree with you on the first point. I think a score of 0 is inappropriate.
My other guess is why ms wanted to patent a drm os was to prevent apple and ultimately quicktime from viewing movies. MS wants to monopolize the audio/video market. This is apple's core market right now. Why should hollywood create a movie in quicktime or the RIAA sell some mp3's when they can use drm protected
interesting choice of words... (Score:5, Interesting)
*emphasis mine
I think the implicit meaning here is that consumers think the internet is theirs. when in fact it is not.
What will happen when corporate america convinces the world that it owns the internet?
Re:interesting choice of words... (Score:5, Insightful)
What will happen when corporate america convinces the world that Pi equals exactly 3? Well, a lot of shoddy engineering. But they can convince all they want, it won't make it so.
IP is IP. TCP/IP is something else entirely.
Parent
sometimes stupid things are acceptable to millions (Score:2, Interesting)
And to most people, it makes total sense then to ban those anonymous, crime-friendly pc's. I suppose the silver lining is, we could at least free ourselves of spammers. So it's a tough call ;-)
Fair and well balanced article. (Score:5, Insightful)
Is that such a bad thing? You wouldn't see a story that well balanced on TV. TV news offers nothing except one sided stories. Then of course you have specialty news sites like Slashdot or The Register. Can you tell me with a straight face that The Register offers fairly balanced articles?
Reuters, the Associated Press, and local newspaper staff writers are the last bastion of fair reporting. You have to admit that this article was very fairly written. It offered no opinions of it's own, and reported both sides of the argument without trying to say which one was "right". If Joe Sixpack were to read this, he would be free to make his own opinion based on the facts, not have one shoved down his throat. I think we should be thankful that fair reporting still exists in this corporation dominated society.
Re:Fair and well balanced article. (Score:2)
Re:Fair and well balanced article. (Score:4, Insightful)
Ah, another person whose commitment to a free press is only skin deep. Of course reporting about Palladium -- or the Klan, for that matter! -- should be "fair and balanced". That's the unflinchinhg goal for honest jounralism. Show a little faith that maybe, just maybe, when John Q. Puublic or Jane Sixpack gets the actual facts in a fair and balanced matter, he/she will make the right choice.
Stop trying to save the peoples of the world from themselves. Give them the facts and let them save themselves. If your position, after an admittedly "fair and balanced" presentation, cannot survive, then it doesn't deserve to
It's called democracy, people.
Parent
Rewarding those who put content on the 'Net (Score:3, Insightful)
Ugh, Dave, the majority of people who put content on the 'Net are getting their reward: they're sharing their thougths, dreams, ideas, projects, photos, songs, etc. with the world. And the vast majority of them, virally enough, aren't charging for it. Go figure.
Damn Straight (Score:3, Insightful)
What do I get in exchange? I get hundreds of thousands of programs as part of my Linux distrobution on my server.
Is it a good arrangement? I think so.
Re:Rewarding those who put content on the 'Net (Score:3, Funny)
I'll tell you what - here's the deal - you don't put your content on the "'Net", and I won't bother with DRM. How does that sound ?
Erm yeah, OK (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, Palladium has absolutely nothing to do with DRM. Microsoft just patented it by accident. And if DRM happens to be built in to your OS, well it's just 'unfortunate'.
Seth Schoen's Palladium Summary (Score:5, Informative)
White box computers? (Score:3, Funny)
Then again, I'm known for my xfiles style paranoia.
it's pointless (Score:2)
The only serious threat is legislation or legal precedent: if running your favorite OS on an embedded chip becomes defined as "circumvention" under the DMCA, then there is real trouble. But then we'd be heading for the technological dark ages anyway: a DRM world simply cannot support a rapid pace of technological innovation.
A Bit Bland... (Score:2)
"While Palladium is still a long way off, an uproar has arisen over how technologies might be used to curtail consumer "fair use" rights to make personal copies of movies and music and to more tightly control software use."
Why on earth did they put the term "fair use" in quotes? It sounds almost like they're trying to discredit the notion.
Other than this one glaring exception, not a bad piece. Not a good piece, but not bad either.
BlackGriffen
Re:A Bit Bland... (Score:3, Insightful)
An industry push to tighten security on personal computers could be either the salvation of electronic commerce or the bane of consumers, who view the Internet as their digital information playground.
Like the other poster pointed out, this implies that the users do not control the Internet, rather large corporations do.
The "playground" reference seems to discredit users as credible creators of content, they are just kids playing; the corporations are the ones doing the important stuff. By extention of their generally condescending tone, this "fair use" thing is silly too.
What may be perceived as minor intrusions in a Western corporate setting might have Big Brother consequences for computer users in countries with more controlled environments like China and Saudi Arabia.
In other words, "of course our government is benevolent, but in other countries run by evil people, it may be a problem, but not here".
I wouldn't call this article balanced at all.
Does Taiwan Count as Chinese? (Score:5, Interesting)
And what happens when America locks down its computers? Does Taiwan sit back and say, "Yeah, okay" - or do they start building boxes without the Palladium hardware and maybe even their own CPUs and start selling them worldwide (and smuggling them into America will be the next big "Drug War" issue!) and take over the computer industry from Intel? While Linux is taking over the software market from Windows by ignoring the issue?
Go ahead, Bill! Feel free! Don't let the door hit your butt on the way to the poor house!
MS will lose on this one. (Score:2, Insightful)
Great... my future looks like Hiro Protagonist now (Score:2)
Interesting, I thought that the CIC handled that...
response to a quote from the Palladium FAQ (Score:5, Interesting)
You know what I say? LET IT. Let's face the facts:
PC sales have leveled off. The market is at saturation. There is no "killer app" that will make anyone who does not presently own a PC go out and get one. If they don't own a PC by now, they DON'T want one and nothing will change that. The majority of PC sales are now replacements for existing obsolete/older machines and machines for new population members. It's the same situation the car manufacturers face, and they're used to it. The IT companies are just freaked because it's no longer a growth market and they're having to adjust.
Interactive TV, network appliances, video phones and flying cars. All ideas that sound good and futuristc, all without mainstream acceptance. It is quite possible "The PC as an entertainment appliance" is just as doomed to becoming a niche market as any other anticipated "killer app" that awaits over the horizon.
Tivos aren't exactly flying off the shelves. Yes the Tivo is a neat geek toy. The public at large doesn't care. They already own a VCR.
I don't want to wait for a movie to download that I can only watch on one PC. I want the DVD that I can play in my DVD player, my friend's DVD player or bring it with me and watch it on the TV in my boat.
I don't want to wait for an entire album to download that I can only listen to on one PC. Just like DVDs, I want the actual disc.
There is a place I can already get what I want, and it's nearby where I shop for food and they also sell clothes - it's very convienent, it's called the local department store. If the digital intellectual property the media companies are so interested in protecting was only less expensive, they wouldn't have to worry about protecting it. I'd much rather buy it.
Shooting themselves in the foot (Score:5, Interesting)
Taken a step further, how many people actually feel good starting up the ol' P2P client and ripping the media companies a new one?
I'm not advocating piracy, what I'm merely pointing out is that maybe the increase in piracy is due to the fact that all this digital rights stuff is making people feel a little bit better about not paying for music and movies. Instead of decreasing piracy, all they (the media companies) might really cause is MORE rampant piracy and the rise of prices of "open" hardware on eBay.
Must...tear this...apart...aarrgh (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, this is such a problem. I mean, right now, the Internet contains more content than me or even a large group of people could possibly hope to consume in a lifetime. And don't even start to say that most of the content now is garbage. That's (one) very much a matter of personal taste and (two) ignoring the fact that an essentially infinite amount of good information plus an essentially infinite amount of garbage still supplies you with plenty of good content...and search engines help us tune out the garbage.
media companies complained they wouldn't release high-quality versions of their published content to personal computers because of piracy concerns
Books and movies are available from libraries. I'm sure they hate that too. But I think the reason they complain about the Internet so much is it's an unbelievably large library without even so much as a librarian to regulate the usage of anything. Corporations want to start commercializing the information content of the Internet, instead of settling for selling physical products online. They are blinded by the opinion that if there is a way they can make money, then they have a right to make money that way. Thus they feel we must start to regulate all the information on the Internet. Bastards.
"I like to call this controlled computing rather than trusted computing," said Chris Hoofnagle
I like to call this crippled computing rather than controlled computing.
What may be perceived as minor intrusions in a Western corporate setting might have Big Brother consequences for computer users in countries with more controlled environments like China and Saudi Arabia.
Huh? WTF does this mean? That we can trust the Western corporations not to abuse power? That Western citizens are apathetic to the notion of a Big Brother? Any way that I read this it makes no sense.
"[DRM is] not something that really is part and parcel of what Palladium is," Biddle says, adding that it is related to optional add-on features that customers could elect to use.
This is tantamount to saying here is our new computer product, which you can use with this set of optional handcuffs. Go ahead, try them on, you'll like them. What? You don't want to use them? Hmm. Okay guys, bring in the service pack! Now it's mandatory.
"Security is more social than technical," Schneier said. "There are a lot of good technical controls in Palladium, but it's unclear whether they'll be used to protect personal privacy or limit personal freedom.
Finally someone with a clue. I might add that convincing the general public that the Internet lacks content, that they need Palladium, that they should use the "optional" features -- is all social engineering. There is no technical justification for any of it, but since the gap between someone who understands the true potential of a computer and someone who just uses email is so huge, it may not be that difficult for them to convince Joe User that his computer should be "secured" for his own protection. If people are ignorant of what they're losing, they won't cry foul when they lose it.
*Sigh* Back to searching for the scarce crumbs of useful content on the Internet...
Re:Must...tear this...apart...aarrgh (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh, they do, they do. Don't think the Content Cartel isn't aiming for the effective elimination of public libraries through the imposition of increasingly restrictive access control mechanisms. And don't think that dead-tree publishers are any more moral or public-spirited than bit-pushers. To quote Ralph Oman [washingtonpost.com], former US Registrar of Copyright, under whose regime the expansion of intellectual "property" rights occured,
As we can see, public libraries are no more than thieving "special pleaders" who scavenge off the public domain without ever returning anything to society. Oh, wait, that's more a description of Disney, but oh, well... The Registrar of Copyright himself apparently dismissses public libraries. You don't think the Content Cartel drools over the prospect?
Parent
DO YOUR PART! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm serious, talk to your less-geeky friends and family. This is not a rant. Spread the word in plain english, then the common folk know they don't need to upgrade to an operating system that will simply restrict what they do.
Right (Score:3, Funny)
The Digital Rights Divide.... (Score:3, Insightful)
With all thios effort to constrain creativity and innovation, there needs to be effort and work being done to create laws (plenty of licenses are already available) that protect our right to be creative and innovative with what is the most versatile tool we have yet created, the computer.
The constraints being proposed in DRM and such are a contridiction of such creativity and innovation freedom, not to mention the taking away of far use. But if these constraints are chosen to be applied by such a collective, then as product producers they have every right.
HOWEVER, They DO NOT Have the Right to Suppress Competition for Comsumer Choice. It is wrong to try and shut out open systems which contribute to creativity and innovation, not to mention far use.
I should have a choice, not be forced to buy one or the other but have a choice as to whether I am buying a genuine computer or some constrained to the level of dedicated applicance, device.
These are two different items!!! And it should be made clear, made very clear.
On one hand you have appliances and that which will only run on such appliances. On the other hand, the choice of versatility open for being creative and innovative with, limited only by not being able to access products designed specifically for the constrained appliances.
TWO different general Lines of Products.
One Constrained, the other NOT.
Those pursuing constraints need the hell to stop infringing upon genuine computers system which were here before they came up with a lessor systems. They need to make it clear to the buying public that they are not taking away consumer choice, but making a different product.
The Consumer has a right to have choice!!
Why has this difference not been identified and made clear to the general public?
It seems very clear to me that there is a great deal of consumer deception going on here.
Yup (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Is AMD in on this? (Score:2)
National Semicinductor, Novell, Nvidia and AMD are members along with 180 other spineless companies.
Notably absent are VIA and Sony
Re:Is AMD in on this? (Score:3, Flamebait)
Unfortunately, you some how believe that being on it is "spineless".
Let me make it clear: trusted computing is good. Its good equally for all OS's, and all hardware architectures.
It isn't just MS. Its virtually every major maker of hardware.
Why?
There is demand for it. Data matched to specific individuals is very important for thousands of legitimate reasons. Software alone - ever the absolute *best* software - can't do security properly. Even the most most secure, most well researched, tested, and stable platform in the world (NetBSD) has security flaws, vulnerabilities, and mistakes.
"Trusted computing" is the 'final solution' to many, many, many common problems. Isolation of data to specific users *only* is a major leap forward in computing.
The only sticking point now is control. Who will control the technology and the usuage.
What people like yourself miss, is that this *good* for fair use. Yes, that's right. This is *good* for fair use. How? Because when people realize that Holywood wants and can effectively control exactly what they do, they will shut off the wallets. Right now, copy control measures in place are largely transparent. The uproar about copy-broken CD's caused pause for music distributors.
As soon as masses realize that they can't do what they want because someone else (Hollywood) says so, well, that will be the end of that persons spending.
I will never buy crippled media. I gave up DVDs because it was crippled. I do not subscribe to crippled media. I do not buy CDs. I do not buy music online. I do not buy "copy protected" software.
The only reason more people don't do this now is that frankly they don't know/can easily get away with casual piracy. As soon as they can't away with it - and thats coming - the wallets shut down.
Why buy something when you cant do what you want with it?
The bottom line is that "trusted computing" has many valid uses. In addition, it has a lot of nefarious uses - namely complete content control by media producers. The effect though will be that people simply will not consume digital media until the terms are right. Trusted computing will be used in some cases to deny fair use rights. People want their fair use rights. Companies who insist on restricting legitimate rights will fail in the market place.
Also, in the future I imagine that you will see a bill introduced that affirms fair use rights - and forces distributors/software/hardware vendors to actively accomodate it. And that's the real goal we should be going for.
Re:Is AMD in on this? (Score:2)
The industry that is stifleing the tech industy, content producers, is barely a 30 billion dollar a year industry.
The content producers are leveraging legislation to raise their profits at the expence of the technology companies.
That is not legitimate. If the content producers double their profits while the tech industry gets theirs cut in half, the economy has lost 220 billion in revenue.
Kill the computer to save Mickey Mouse.
Bullshit
Re:lengthy? (Score:2)
Re:Quote (Score:3, Insightful)
But China has Sourceforge blocked.
China has Sourceforge blocked.
So China is pushing a non GPL Fork of Linux that we will NEVER see the benifit from except as a retail product from IBM.
Re:Quote (Score:3, Insightful)
They have passed some intellectual property laws [china-laws-online.com] in order to join the world trade organization but have a long history of simply using other people's patents and copywritten works. 4 years of laws do not break 50 years of history.
So they have found another way: They have blocked sourceforge. How do they publish source? Interestingly, IBM's Linux development center is not blocked.
Yes, by copywrite law, any fork of a GPL product is automatically a GPL product. But only by law.
For instance, China is a full democracy by law. But there is only one candidate in any election.
Bill's Quote (Score:4, Interesting)
Needless to say, this is extremely offensive to the Chinese for historical reasons (think Opium War). Lol, between Gates and "Our products just aren't engineered for security" Valentine, I wonder how Microsoft stays in business...
Parent
Re:Bill's Quote (Score:2, Funny)
M-O-N..
Any way they can..
O-P-O..
Oh you'll pay sooner or later..
L-Y-Yessiree!
G'night folks!
Re:Bill's Quote (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Quote (Score:2)
Re:Happily, a balanced article (Score:2)
I must have been entirely too used to reading articles on CNN, Salon, etc. which look entirely too much like press releases for Microsoft
Salon?!?
Does this [salon.com] look like a Microsoft press release?