Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News

Palladium, 'Trusted PCs' in the News 354

Posted by michael 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This discussion has been archived.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.

Palladium, 'Trusted PCs' in the News More

Palladium, 'Trusted PCs' in the News

Comments Filter:

  • I don't get it (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    How does replacing silicon with palladium [chemicalelements.com] transform open hardware into trusted hardware?

  • Considering this as news for the masses... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Nutrimentia ( 467408 ) on Saturday September 07, 2002 @09:39PM (#4214314) Homepage
    I'd say that its a pretty good article. I'm not an extremely savvy computer user, especially compared to the typical /. reader. I do know more than my parents and wife, undoubtedly, and think that the article is a fine synopsis of the two sides. It also seemed to give a bit more column space to the critics and talked more about control of your computer and restriction of fair use than the 'advantages' of virus control. It would have been nice to see a link to the Palladium FAQ and perhaps a comment from a critic pointing out that Microsoft's inherent software inadequacies are the root of the problem.

    All in all a good article for the masses. Just needs more followup for those interested.
  • The article is much more critical than I would have imagined. I've always seen Reuters as being in the pockets of big corporations like Microsoft, but there seems to be more criticism than praise.

    Maybe there's hope for Palladium being struck down after all?
  • Since when was a two page research paper fairly lengthy? Most English Comp 101 classes require 2+ pages on the first assignment...

    I'm not sure if this is a sign of the sad state of popular media, or the sad state of all populus.
    • It's fairly lengthy for an article on a subject that most people don't care that much about. You may lament the ignorance of the public, but I say that the public has better things to do than worry about the tech industry's problems; the tech industry can worry about its own problems. Yes these issues are important, but there are TONS of important things out there to worry about. Believe it or not, many of them are more important than Palladium.

      Reading slashdot tends to give a warped view of issues like these. Think of all the important, weighty issues in politics and business and the environment and so on that you wouldn't bother to read a 2 page article about. Let the politicians and businessmen and environmentalists worry about their problems, and we about ours. It shouldn't be everyone's job to worry about everything.

  • Heh (Score:5, Insightful)

    by GigsVT ( 208848 ) on Saturday September 07, 2002 @09:49PM (#4214350) Journal
    And a nice big ad for MS Visual Studio in the story too, how ironic.

    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)

      by nutznboltz ( 473437 )
      DRM is useless if the user can turn it off.

      Unless the software will not function at all without DRM active.
    • "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",



      Why did ms patent the OS part? Oh ,ya. It was put in to make make linux and MacOSX vanish! The whole reason why palidium was made was to be a digital EULA enforcer and it would make Microsoft always right when it came to deciding who is right during a licensing debate. Even if you kept your end of the agreement, ms would have the power to turn your new pc into a doortstop. The TCPA chip would not be owned by you but microsoft, even though you purchased it. It is illegal to use it under the dmca so in other words Microsoft owns your property! Very clever legal loophole. I will buy a mac as my next pc for sure. I hate apple products but damm. Its my pc and not there's! If I can't legally use it the way I want too then its not mine.

      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 .wma's and .wmv's in a platform that more resembles a cable box then a pc. Microsoft views the MS MEDIA player as a way to turn your pc into a vending machine where they can make a buck off you. They HATE COMPETITION at any level. Sure people will be pissed at microsoft but if they see eye candy and great movies and audio clips only available in Windows then they will switch. Consumers are suckers who like candy being spoonfed to them. Then Microsoft will own a true monopoly and linux will be out of the picture as well for x86. Even if they protest it will be too late because TCPA will be a standard.

      • Um.. what makes you think that Apple products will be exempt, especially once hardware-based DRM becomes legally mandated?? Seriously, how would Apple avoid having to comply along with everyone else who wants to sell hardware in the U.S. (and in any other damnfool countries that join the DRM crusade)

    • Consumers used to vote with their dollars, no "balancing" was necessary

      The problem is that the media and some technology corporations (like MS and Intel) are getting laws such as the DMCA passed that make voting with your dollars moot.

      If it was not illegal to circumvent digital copy protection mechanisms, then there would be more such programs and devices available, and more people would have a taste of what will be taken away by something like palladium.

      As it is, the DMCA makes it difficult to distribute mechanisms to bypass current DRM, so the huddled masses will see less of a difference when palladium arrives on their desktops. Most non-technical users already can't copy DRM-protected materials. Palladium will not mean much difference to them, so why should they bother voting against it with their dollars.

      In addition to that, certain content will only be available on palladium, so in many cases, average non-technical users may actually have a reason to prefer it.

      Ironically, it may be corporations who end up balking at palladium and potentially turning off some of the "security" features. Companies are likely to be very concerned with the idea of outside organizations having any type of "enforcement" accesss (or any other kind of access) to their computers.

    • Turn it off (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Snover ( 469130 )
      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.

      I speculated about this a bit, and realised that it's probably the same kind of thing that the MPAA is trying to do to consumer home entertainment systems. From what I know, it means that if you choose NOT to use DRM features, you either lose the really high-quality (high-quality as in resolution, not high-quality as in content) stuff, or you are denied from viewing certain things.

      • Re:Turn it off (Score:2, Insightful)

        by GigsVT ( 208848 )
        Then it's still a bullshit statement...

        It's the same logic behind social security numbers and immunizations.

        Sure you don't HAVE to get your kids a social security number, but you would have a whole lot of trouble getting them into any school without one, they would have a whole lot of trouble ever getting a job or passport without one, etc.

        When the alternatives are a ton of hassles, you really don't have much choice at all.

  • interesting choice of words... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by shadowsong ( 132451 ) <shesajarNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Saturday September 07, 2002 @09:57PM (#4214376)
    could be either the salvation of electronic commerce or the bane of consumers, who view the Internet as their digital information playground.


    *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?
  • of people, so it's easy to imagine, in the future, the argument on the senate floor, "Since basically everybody uses Trusted Computers, why not just make untrustworthy computers illegal? they'only empower terrorists/drug dealers/kiddie porners/etc..."

    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 ;-)

    • 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 ;-)

      It isn't a tough call at all, as there are already ways [spamassassin.org] of freeing yourself from SPAMMERs that don't require you to give up your basic freedoms.

      Besides, do you really think Palladium is going to 'free' you from SPAM. Given the track record of Microsoft's email services (hotmail, etc) I think it is more likely you are going to be receiving SPAM adverts from Microsoft "strategic" partners, and perhaps anyone who pays the piper appropriately, and with 'trusted' computing, maybe what won't be trusted won't be the SPAM, it will be the SPAM assissin software that otherwise would have let you filter the crap out of your inbox.

      One thing is absolutely certain. Whichever way that particular battle on your Palladium Trusted Computer goes, it won't be your choice. It will be Microsoft's choice.

  • Fair and well balanced article. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Chemical ( 49694 ) <nkessler2000@hotma[ ]com ['il.' in gap]> on Saturday September 07, 2002 @10:13PM (#4214422) Homepage
    remember that what the Reuters/AP wires carry is all that most people will ever know about any particular issue.

    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.

    • It's like "fair abd balanced story" about, say, KKK. Some things just should be never encouraged.

      • Re:Fair and well balanced article. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by gilroy ( 155262 ) on Sunday September 08, 2002 @01:35AM (#4214912) Homepage Journal
        Blockquoth the poster:

        It's like "fair abd balanced story" about, say, KKK. Some things just should be never encouraged.

        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.

        • The problem is, trying to be write something "balanced" when talking about something that evil ends up being just a mouthpiece for them. There is nothing at all that can justify "Palladium" (or KKK if that matters) without saying a lie.
          • I think you're totally off-base on this one.

            You're implying that whoever wrote the article should not have been attempting to write it in an unbiased manner. Ergo, you're saying the writer should be biased. Biased towards your personal ideas on the topic, that is.

            The thing that differentiates news from editorial is that in an editorial, the writer's opinion is offered. Regardless of the views of a newswriter, they should attempt to provide the facts, lest they turn news into editorial (as happens so very often on Slashdot).

            You seem to suffer from an all-to-common disease: you think that your personal views are what are "right" and "good", and views that aren't in line with yours are "wrong" and "evil". I, for one, am thankful that you are not a news reporter!

  • Rewarding those who put content on the 'Net (Score:3, Insightful)

    by burgburgburg ( 574866 ) <splisken06.email@com> on Saturday September 07, 2002 @10:31PM (#4214469)
    In the article, Dave Farber, Internet engineering pioneer (?), computer science professor at the University of Pennsylvania and independent consultant to the TCPA, says "If we're going to get content on the 'Net, somehow we're going to have to reward the people who put it on there".

    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)

      by SHEENmaster ( 581283 )
      I give my time to 5-7 different projects at once, most of which have my name on the about dialog or -v switch.

      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.
    • If we're going to get content on the 'Net, somehow we're going to have to reward the people who put it on there

      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)

    by Salsaman ( 141471 ) on Saturday September 07, 2002 @10:34PM (#4214477) Homepage
    As proof, Anderson points to a patent called "Digital Rights Management Operating System," for which Microsoft has rights. However, Microsoft's Biddle says the patent title is "unfortunate" and downplays its significance to Palladium.

    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)

    by pberry ( 2549 ) <pberry@mac.GAUSScom minus math_god> on Saturday September 07, 2002 @10:45PM (#4214498) Homepage
    When Microsoft came to talk to us [eff.org] about Palladium, Seth took some notes and did this write up [loyalty.org].
    • * Peter Biddle at Microsoft began thinking around 1997 about how to protect his bits when they were on someone else's computer.

      Fails at the first fence. If they're on someone else's computer, they're not his bits anymore...

      Cheers,
      Ian

  • White box computers? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Saint Mitchell ( 144618 ) on Saturday September 07, 2002 @10:48PM (#4214507)
    So, what about the screwdriver-shack white box PCs? Is Intel going to make CPUs only for the new "trusted" computers? If so then will we have only HP and crew to make our hardware? Please tell me VIA isn't on the list. If they are not, then all is ok, we'll still have the DIY computers. I'd take a slow CPU Cyrix/Via made over one that sends my keystrokes to the feds "just in case". And even worse, what if some cool-arse-must-have-new-game comes out that only runs on this new crap from MS. May the flees of a thousand camels come to nest in the genitalia of the people responsible for that mess.

    Then again, I'm known for my xfiles style paranoia.
  • Trying to impose digital rights management through a consortium is bound to fail. Even if Intel, Dell, Compaq, IBM, Microsoft, and Apple collude fully to control digital content, there are thousands of chips out there thay any small and innovative company can turn into a computing platform, using Linux or BSD as the OS. The only thing Microsoft achieves by crippling their OS is to give open source a leg up.

    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.

    • Re:it's pointless (Score:2, Interesting)

      by plierhead ( 570797 )

      Trying to impose digital rights management through a consortium is bound to fail

      If you mean that other alternatives will always be available (ignoring absurd legislation) then you're right, it will fail - but if you mean that people will reject the DRM-ized technology and shift wholesale to Linux or BSD, that ain't going to happen.

      Its already been demonstrated that the bulk of the world will happily continue using the monopoly OS even after years of blue screens of death and countless security exposures trumpeted loudly. Why should they switch to a better solution just because of some (to them) obscure argument about privacy ??

      Then again, when they find they can't rip their buddy's CDs maybe that will start to focus their minds...

      • Blockquoth the poster:

        Then again, when they find they can't rip their buddy's CDs maybe that will start to focus their minds...

        Bingo. When my sister (former assistant DA and a total law-and-order type) and my mom (retired do-gooder public school teacher) both start to ask me about ripping CDs to hard disk and space-shifting music, then I know that the Content Cartel is doomed. People are getting used to this whole musical frededom thing, and taking it away hits them a lot closer to home than, say, the Microsoft monopoly.
  • It's a bit bland, but that's about all you can expect form mainstream. I just loved this paragraph, though:

    "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)

      by GigsVT ( 208848 )
      As other people have pointed out, it is loaded in other ways.

      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)

    by Master of Transhuman ( 597628 ) on Saturday September 07, 2002 @11:04PM (#4214538) Homepage
    Excuse me, but this "Chinese" that Bill wants to pay for his stuff, does that include the Taiwanese who manufacture half the hardware used to run his stuff?

    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!

  • IMHO, Microsoft is going to lose with Palladium big time. Consumers, even non-tech savy consumers, don't like crippled products. As soon as Joe User installs a new version of Media Player or what have you, and finds out he can't play his mp3 collection, that software is outta there. Bells and whistles notwithstanding.
  • "If we're going to get content on the 'Net, somehow we're going to have to reward the people who put it on there"

    Interesting, I thought that the CIC handled that...

  • response to a quote from the Palladium FAQ (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 07, 2002 @11:47PM (#4214644)
    If entertainment is the killer application, and DRM is going to be the critical enabling technology, then the PC has to do DRM or risk being displaced in the home market.

    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)

    by Powercntrl ( 458442 ) on Saturday September 07, 2002 @11:53PM (#4214655) Homepage
    How many people are actively boycotting the MPAA/RIAA because of this shit?

    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.
  • Before reading this article, I knew little about Palladium. Since reading this article, I know little about Palladium. It was a whole lot of nothing. Like .Net, I still don't know what Palladium is, and suspect that I won't want any part of it when I do. It is probably part of the dark conspiracy to spy on us, and bring about the New World Order with things like webcams, [uncoveror.com] bugged ceiling fans, [uncoveror.com] the V-chip, [uncoveror.com] and mind control software. [uncoveror.com]
  • I don't doubt that the DRM is going to cause a crime of some sort. Making it impossible to run software, play your own stuff, or what ever.

    Now the question is if RICO statutes could be applied. Then every one involved with the damn thing could lose big bucks. Really big bucks.

  • Must...tear this...apart...aarrgh (Score:5, Interesting)

    by unsinged int ( 561600 ) on Sunday September 08, 2002 @12:30AM (#4214754)
    "If we're going to get content on the 'Net, somehow we're going to have to reward the people who put it on there," said Dave Farber

    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)

      by gilroy ( 155262 ) on Sunday September 08, 2002 @01:52AM (#4214943) Homepage Journal
      Blockquoth the poster:

      Books and movies are available from libraries. I'm sure they hate that too.

      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,

      A long list of special pleaders now gets free use of copyrighted works, including small businesses, veterans' groups, bars, scholars, restaurants, fraternal groups, marching bands, Boy Scout troops, nursing homes, libraries, radio broadcasters and home tapers. [emphasis added]

      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?
  • ...remember that what the Reuters/AP wires carry is all that most people will ever know about any particular issue
    No. What the wires carry is all the people who read newspapers or other mediums that carry the unadulterated Reuters/AP stories will ever know about a particular issue.

    Most people don't like to read serious newspapers... they don't have enough pie charts and they use big, headache-inducing words like "president" and "Gorbachev." So a lot of people read USA Today or tabloids which use catchy, easy-to-swallow words like "prez" and "Gorby." Those papers dumb the news down and cut out critical information their readers don't want to think about anyway.

    A far larger portion of the population gets its news from television, which is not news at all. It's entertainment, soundbites, hype, ads and then one to four sentences about the news. Even the most well-intentioned copy writer cannot encapsulate "Trusted Computing" fairly in four spoken sentences, so everyone who watches the broadcast will be very poorly informed.

    Then there's the largest group: the people whose news consists of the watered-down, telephone-game-tainted rumors they hear from the people they know. They don't watch/read the news because they don't want to.

    Reuters is often trash compared to the AP or a good newspaper reporter's story, but it's far better than what most people will hear about this issue.

  • DO YOUR PART! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Eric_Cartman_South_P ( 594330 ) on Sunday September 08, 2002 @01:04AM (#4214843)
    Get off the computer and TALK to your little brother or sitster. Talk to your parents. Talk to your neighbors. Talk to the idiot browsing magazines in Borders while you sip your chai. Let everyone know that Microsoft is about restricting rights, and there is no need to upgrade. Let people know that office 98 is FINE. They will like hearing that from a "geek". If you can keep one person in doubt when MS starts hitting the cover of Time magazine with their Palladium propoganda when it comes out (2005?) you've done your part.

    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.

    • I do talk to people. I talk to friends, family, customers, coworkers, etc. At best I get a passing interest. The best I usually get is a passive responce that the gubment knows best and won't let the corps really screw us over that bad.

      And the public slowly cooks, just like a frog.

  • Right (Score:3, Funny)

    by aztektum ( 170569 ) on Sunday September 08, 2002 @01:30AM (#4214906)
    We all know it's Al Gore's Internet

  • The Digital Rights Divide.... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by 3seas ( 184403 ) on Sunday September 08, 2002 @02:00AM (#4214959) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • Shrug (Score:2, Interesting)

    by buffer-overflowed ( 588867 )
    I don't see what the big deal with palladium is. Maybe I haven't become as scared[dual meaning, rule] as your typical /. reader over the years, but I personally have the following view: If MS seeks to control every aspect of the desktop, the masses will rebel. Unless, of course they do it in such a way that a great majority are happy with it. In which case it comes down to best tool for the job. If that's MS, use MS, if that's linux, use linux. If more people just thought that way, instead of MS is evil, Linux is great, or MS is good, Linux is too hard to use... etc. etc. then I think we could put all these wars to rest. It all comes down to that... best tool for the job.

    Then again, *nix is an OS by developers, for developers, so I'm just a weee bit biased towards those variants...
    • The masses? What about business users? My guess is that a lot of corporate IT departments would like the notion of only allowing approved programs to run, for the sake of security. No more of those pesky MP3 players and other bandwith-eating crap, ripe with virii.

      And before anyone starts: by "IT department" I do not mean the average digital-rights-advocate geek sysadmin who actually administers the servers, nor do I mean the rare IT manager with a clue about the implications of DRM. I am talking about the average CIO's and managers of the larger IT departments. And they, my friends, have pointy hair.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • From the article:
    ... after media companies complained they wouldn't release high-quality versions of their published content to personal computers because of piracy concerns.
    Exactly what "high-quality content" are they talking about here? Last I checked, I could play (and rip) DVD movies and CD music on my personal computer just fine. What high-quality content is being withheld from the computer world, hmm Mr. Biddle?

  • The worst of all is that people will be forced to use Palladium or TCPA machines, when laws like CBDTPA (the former SSSCA) will be passed.

    Thus, sooner or later, the right to share will be outlawed, and people will no longer be able to "turn DRM off".

    When no TCPA-free or Palladium-free hardware will be available and the ISPs will only allow TCPA machines to be connected to the Internet, there will be no alternative.

    The worst of all, most of the people are totally unaware that many of their freedoms are about to be stolen.

    For an introduction see:

    http://action.eff.org/tinseltown/ [eff.org]

    http://www.eff.org/IP/SSSCA_CBDTPA/ [eff.org]

    TCPA / Palladium Frequently Asked Questions

    http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/rja14/tcpa-faq.html [cam.ac.uk]

    "The Right to Read" by Richard M. Stallman.

    http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html [fsf.org]

    (The important thing about this story is that it was written before the DMCA was even proposed!)

    "What's Wrong With Copy Protection" by John Gilmore.

    http://cryptome.org/jg-wwwcp.htm [cryptome.org]


Slashdot Top Deals

"The great question... which I have not been able to answer... is, `What does woman want?'" -- Sigmund Freud

Close