Coursey on Palladium 542
lrose writes "Check out this story over at ZDNet -- Microsoft is developing a secure operating system to be combined with hardware doing public key cryptography. The DRM aspect reminds me of something I read about an imaginary day in the not-too-distant future, where you can no longer install Linux on your own box because you don't have the necessary rights." Coursey's column is quite interesting, bringing a lot more of the backstory behind Palladium into public view. While geeks have been following and worrying about the TCPA, Microsoft has been working to spin the story with assorted columnists and journalists, so that when it broke it would be in the context that Steven Levy bought into hook, line and sinker: a scheme to protect you rather than one to prevent you from using your computer in unapproved ways.
too late (Score:4, Funny)
I already have a wife to do this for me.
Interesting (Score:4, Insightful)
Which they can. If new systems come Palladium-enabled, don't buy them. Unless you're a hardcore gamer, what would you need an 8GHz system with 2gb ram and 1tb hard drive for anyway?
Re:Interesting (Score:3, Funny)
3d porn?
Re:Interesting (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Interesting (Score:2, Insightful)
You're right. That's the TCPA issue, and what scares me is that Senator Fritz from CA is trying to make this law.
I don't think it'll happen, but they're trying, which is why we must be vigilant.
Re:Interesting (Score:2)
Of course, Feinstein is also a whore for Disney, but at least Disney is in her state.
Re:Interesting (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh wait, arresting you wouldn't mean much. But arresting Linus would.
Don't think that those bastards that like to call themselves congress aren't going to do something like this.
Re:Interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
Rest assured, those of us that build our own systems will rely on Linux and non-DRM'ed Windows (if available). But for the masses, they take what they get, and they use it.
Re:Interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
They didn't buy it.
Re:Interesting (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Interesting (Score:4, Interesting)
But their Macintosh-using friends (c'mon, everyone knows at least one of them) will be constantly singing praises such as "_my_ computer doesn't tell me that those media files are protected". The same will be true for guru PC users; you know, cousin "Joe" who disseminates advice to everyone will tell people to avoid certain computers like the plauge. The DRM machines may very well be established, and Dell (Gateway, HP, blah) may very well exclusivly sell DRM boxes -- but the small guys won't and the savvy buyers won't, and those people have a bunch of influence.
Re:Interesting (Score:3, Insightful)
Linux had better be fully ready for the desktop by that point.
Re:Interesting (Score:3, Interesting)
You won't be able to run software that ignores it.
Just think: who exactly will be in control of the root certificates? I can almost guarantee it won't be anyone who likes Linux.
The biggest danger I see here is that TCPA compliant hardware will eventually refuse to load anything that isn't signed directly or indirectly by one or more of the root certificates. Oh, sure, the spec right now may call for the ability to load untrusted code, with the caveat that such untrusted code won't be able to view DRM-protected files, but come on -- how long do you really think it'll be before the spec is "improved" to remove that annoying feature?
Re:Interesting (Score:5, Interesting)
In the midst of all this, I can't help wondering about Apple. They just started their hardcore 'www.apple.com/switch' campaign with TV ads where people talk about how they switched away from their 'horrid little PCs.' Maybe the timing was not by accident. Perhaps they are trying to gain critical mass so they can facilitate a mass switch at the time they estimate Palladium hardware will appear in real machines.
The strategists at Apple must be following this news very closely -- they are probably working on their strategy right now. Rip/Mix/Burn is probably only the beginning. I expect that they will try to equate MacOS with Freedom while Windows == The Borg or something similar.
Yes, Steve Jobs is licking his lips right now. He and his team are laying the foundations right now in preparation for a possible mass exodus from windows, wanting to make sure Apple's arms are waiting and open and they have critical mass in users so popular opinion and word of mouth will divert former Windows users onto MacOS. (I certainly think that this is more likely than a mass exodus into Linux!)
I think that things are gonna get interesting.
Kneejerk response (Score:2, Insightful)
Microsoft steals OS components from non-GPL sources and never admits it (TCP stack from BSD [essential.org])
Apple develops software to assist you in ripping your CDs, mixing them to your liking and burning them onto new CDs or DVDs (iTunes [apple.com])
Microsoft "patches" software while changing the EULA to allow them to automatically shut off ANY software you might be running that they feel violates their interpretation of DRM (Media Player [slashdot.org])
Hardly seems like parallel tracks to me.
Linux and the desktop front (Score:5, Interesting)
Once businesses change over to a Linux desktop to avoid subscription licensing fees, software lock-in, and improve interoperability (read: open standards), people will learn Linux. They will see how fast, easy, stable and simple it is to use for normal applications.
*Note: before you debate me on these points, please take the time to use a RH 7.x system with Ximian GNOME - install and usage really is simple for the avg. joe. At least it is for my family and friends.
Once employees see this, they'll want Linux at home. And the Linux desktop market will develop, much like it did with Windows in the early 90's. Wal-Mart and Fry's already sell lower-end Linux based PCs. I've heard speculation for a long time that the retailers would never sell a Linux box until a market developed.
Honestly, I don't see a feasible market at the moment, besides selling to Linux junkies like myself. Over about 95% of all desktops today are running Windows, a few percent are Macs, and even fewer (desktops, mind you, not total boxen) run Linux. Even so, Wal-Mart, a very large company, is investing in a tiny sliver of the desktop market.
Maybe they're willing to take a greater risk than many of us thought? Maybe their ITs have more insight into the future of the desktop than many of us thought? I can't find any other reason than those -- if anyone has any ideas, please say so.
One thought is that Macs are still around and don't have but a few percent. Although this is comparable to Linux, Linux is new and there is no guarantee of returned money on an investment. Mac junkies have been around for quite some time, and have continued to purchase Macs.
In either case, two years ago, I didn't think Linux was for anyone but developers. Now my mom can use it, and she's not even average when it comes to computer literacy. Linux has come so far in the last 2 years that I don't see how it can't go further. The user and developer bases are growing, and it looks like Linux is here to stay.
Stability and options have been here. Features (e.g. virtual desktops) have been here. Openness and freedom have been here. Ease of use is becoming more common, and the user base is growing. The only thing this Linux junkie sees missing is application/file-type support, but that is coming as well, and quickly.
I forsee Linux busting into the desktop market and becoming a serious contender within two years. Of course it will take time for a large change, but I think it's coming.
Installation vs. Usage - Mac 10 Windows 7, Linux 1 (Score:5, Interesting)
Installation of a Windows or Mac software package is *nothing* like on a Linux box. Flame me if you will, I just don't know what to call this expectation on the part of Linux jocks -egoism, chauvinism- but downloading and manually building a package and its dependencies, sometimes rebuilding the kernel. It's just not the same as an installshield-type GUI installer, and I won't apologize for it.
Debian comes closer on this -this is my daily system. Even though I love it, I could never, ever expect family members or non-tech friends to support their own system. If they lived under the same roof, yes, of course. But to hand somebody a CD and say, go ahead, you can replace your Windows installation, is just silly. Your typical non-tech won't make it past disk partitioning unaided.
Take, f'rinstance, video formats. Yes, there is a package now for viewing AVIs under Linux. But to get it working is another matter. And compare Mac TCP/IP versus Linux -a single, simple dialog box versus the commandline (yes, I know various distros have dialogs too, but they mostly suck, and I'm talking about Linux common denominators here.)
In order for Linux to "rule" the desktop (as many hope it will), there needs to be the same simplicity in setup, maintenance and use as its competition- MacOS and Windows. Otherwise, Linux will never get more marketshare.
Re:Interesting (Score:4, Funny)
What would you need a 2.4ghz system with 256mb of ram and 80gb(!!) of hard drive space for???? My god!
What would you need a for? (Score:3, Insightful)
Then somewhere in the early 90's something strange happened. The "economy" people found that they had enough speed. Newer "economy" users found that they could buy cheaper PCs, and get acceptable performance. Thus was born the sub-$1k PC, and the trend has continued.
I suspect there's a desire to push the "economy" users away from a PC and to an appliance. This seems to have two approaches, the X-Box and Palladium.
Let's hear it for Rhodomagnetism and the Palladium triad.
Re:Interesting (Score:3, Funny)
Microsoft Office Palladium Edition.
Exactly (Score:4, Insightful)
What, do the promoters of Palladium think they can ban motherboards, hard drives, memory, and so on? Good fucking luck on that one.
Note (Score:2)
Re:Interesting (Score:2, Interesting)
If there was ever a need for Linux that time is now. Palladium makes me fear for the future of the free PC. One of the things IMHO that has kept the PC platform alive and vibrant is the fact that the whole thing is (generally) open. Add in what expansion cards/OS/storage system/video/audio you like - the PC is YOURS to use/expand/customise as you like. Micro$oft has forgotten this - assuming they ever knew it.
Re:Interesting (Score:2, Troll)
Questions: What about content creators? (Score:4, Interesting)
What about situations like me here at work? Here I sit using what is, technically, somebody else's computer to do my work (create my content). Do I then have to get my boss to "authenticate" every little thing I want to use for my portfolio (a provision I'm allowed already without additional paperwork under our work-for-hire agreement -- don't start on that, it sucks) or something, f'rinstance? How is that supposed to work?
I mean, protecting the MP/RIAA/et al's content is all very well and good (for them!), but what about the rest of us who aren't bound by their rules?
Seems to me this initiative tars with an awfully broad brush, so to speak. (And fixes to leave a horrible sticky mess in its wake, too.)
DRM is based on seizing the means of production (Score:5, Interesting)
Any successful DRM scheme demands that any holes which connect the computer with the real world be closed. Through watermarking systems, it is theoretically possible that what you see and hear yourself can't be copied.
We are entering an age where each individual has an unprecedented amount of freedom to record and interpret his experiences. Unfortunately, the folks whose job it's traditionally been to do these things are not terribly thrilled about this.
So they're seizing the means of production.
Re:Interesting (Score:2)
50 minutes of uncompressed video (Digital8, NTSC, firewire, captured in P6) equals just about 12 gigs of disk space.
Do some basic editing and rending and you'll see why todays machines still aren't fast enough. I'm on a 1.7ghz machine and I start a mildly complex render....and then leave for lunch.
Plus, you don't need to be a "hardcore gamer" to need these specs -- even a casual gamer in todays world needs a badass machine. Look at recommended requirements for Neverwinter nights.... you need a powerhouse just to PLAY the thing, let alone be "hardcore" about it and worry about fps. Doom3 is coming out too, and don't expect that to be any easier on your system.
Remember....these games are extremely popular, and not only "hardcore gamers" play games, other people do too.
Re:Interesting (Score:2)
So I can get better than 20 fps in Balmora (Morrowind reference)
Re:Interesting (Score:2)
I think we've already seen as much favorable coverage on it as we're going to, except in the cases where Microsoft has figured out how to buy good press from editors or "journalists".
Add on Card (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Add on Card (Score:2)
Re:Add on Card (Score:3, Interesting)
the question isn't about being able to use linux. it is about being able to connect to things through linux. if your OS does not use the TCPA device it can still use the rest of the computer. but if in order to get access to media files you need something from that device, you cannot use those media files. this is not limited to media / content, but could conceivably be used to authenticate anything. software patches, websites, webstores, email, etc could all potentially be infected with palladium.
where linux loses is that it is built from source. only binaries will be signed, and signing will likely cost money. it isn't really that difficult to understand.
since not so many people use Linux in proportion to Windows users, the minority is screwed if the majority is tricked into accepting this "great" technology. islands of linux users will probably survive, but they will be segragated from the other 91% of PC owners running Windows.
so yes, you can still use Linux if Palladium gets broad implementation. but you won't be able to use it for all of the same things you can now.
there doesn't need to be a great use for Palladium itself in order for it to be widely implemented. all there needs to be is some "great new" form of content that is only available in a Palladium limited, er i mean enhanced, format.
...and Cringeley (Score:5, Informative)
Re:...and Cringeley (Score:3, Insightful)
Remember, IE wasn't the "standard" until one day we all woke up and Netscape's market share had vanished thanks to bundling. If MS makes every Windows client behave just a little bit differently from the norm and pushes it out there, one day we'll wake up and the entire Internet will be a MS-only world.
It's the same with hardware. When your software drives over 90% of the desktops in the world, if you build software that is symbiotic with validated "trusted" hardware the hardware vendors will design for it. Your typical motherboard vendor could care less if Linux runs or not - they want the portion of the market that runs Windows. They'll do what it takes to get that vaunted Windows seal on their box.
done already isn't it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Baz
Re:done already isn't it? (Score:2)
See this link [tuxedo.org]. Or are you the grammar Nazi?
Re:done already isn't it? (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, according to The New Hacker's Dictionary [astrian.net], we have
So depending on your geek level, the plural of "box" is "boxen".
Re:What about Sony? (Score:2, Informative)
And Sony's box doesn't use Digitally Signed executables.
Rather, they just check the disc for authenticity through a corrupted TOC and such.
There's a big difference between the two, and that's why hacks for the PS/2 were available immediately, starting with serial number 1 (the first 1000 PS2s came with some utility disc that, if swapped with a burnt copy of a game at the right time, would allow you to play the CDR).
life on the net in 2004 (Score:2, Informative)
That would be this [aardvark.co.nz] article linked to from slashdot some weeks ago. It is beginning to sound like the voice of prophecy.
Nice on-line FAQ for TCPA/Palladium (Score:5, Informative)
TCPA / Palladium Frequently Asked Questions
Version 0.1 26 June 2002
Ross Anderson
1. What are TCPA and Palladium?
TCPA stands for the Trusted Computing Platform Alliance (TCPA), an initiative led by Intel. Their website is here. Their stated goal is `a new computing platform for the next century that will provide for improved trust in the PC platform.' Palladium appears to be a Microsoft version which will be rolled out in future versions of Windows, will build on TCPA hardware, and will add some extra features. The Palladium announcement appears to have been provoked by a paper I presented on the security issues relating to open source and free software at a conference on Open Source Software Economics in Toulouse on the 20th June. This paper criticised TCPA as anticompetitive. This has been amply confirmed by new revelations over the past few days.
For the rest:
TCPA/Palladium FAQ [cam.ac.uk]
Re:Nice on-line FAQ for TCPA/Palladium (Score:4, Insightful)
Ross Anderson's paper should be required reading. But then that's just my HO.
Just what is so untrustworthy of the PC platform? NOTHING! The platform itself is just fine for what it is supposed to be. It's the software that makes it untrustworthy. Or the people managing that software (who allow breaches through social engineering to occur). So adding a new bit of hardware is going to protect us from irresponsible people?
IBM's computers are not considered untrustworthy. Is it because of special security hardware? NO. It's because the operating systems are written with security in mind from the beginning and not bolted on afterwards. Similarly, other platforms have been considered trustworthy without requiring custom PKI hardware. Wasn't it a system running VMS that resisted all attempts to crack it at the last Defcon? No special security hardware is part of an Alphaserver.
Why has security, all of a sudden, become a hardware problem. Well, Microsoft tries to paint the PC platform as insecure and untrustworthy in an attempt to divert attention from the fact that it's been their software that has been the reason for all the security breaches. The hardware vendors go along with this because of the lure of future CPU and systems sales. IMO, the purpose of Palladium (and TCPA) is to solve an economic problem for some software and hardware vendors.
Remember, Microsoft decided that the best way to deal with the security problems with their software was to hire a lawyer to be their chief security honcho and not someone with extensive credentials in computer security. Rather telling, eh?
When They OutLaw Free Operating Systems (Score:2, Funny)
imaginary day (Score:2, Interesting)
Trusted Computing (Score:5, Insightful)
Inability to install linux (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Inability to install linux (Score:2)
Whether this is a reasonable belief, I leave as an exercise to the reader. I am not going to endorse or refute it here.
Re:Inability to install linux (Score:2)
Because this project includes changing the computer hardware to include a PKI chip, it is possible to design the hardware such that it will not boot at all without a Palladium-enabled OS. It is possible to design the hardware such that all of the data on the hard drive is encrypted (transparently, in the background) and even removing the hard drive to a non-Palladium computer won't get you the data. Indeed, moving the hard drive to a different Palladium computer won't get you the data.
it's not a technical issue -- it'd just be illegal (Score:2)
Not legally, no. Microsoft holds patents on the methods necessary to do this.
Re:Inability to install linux (Score:2)
But... remember that Microsoft has a patent applied for (awarded?) for an operating system with DRM built-in. What are the odds that they'll let a competitor sell or distribute a similar product? IMHO, slim to nil.
Palladium will die (Score:2)
The industry knows this and it will turn every company out there except perhaps AMD and Intel who would make the chips against MSFT. No company wants to be dependent on a competitor (especially MSFT) for having their software be seen as 'authorised' on systems in their target market. Even two years from now, ballmer and friends will not be strong enough to fight every other software company in the world united against them. Palladium will die, and MSFT will be pulled down with it if they cling to it strongly enough.
Another John Gilmore quote (Score:5, Interesting)
NAZIWARE (Score:2, Flamebait)
The name associated with this type of hardware/software shuold be called NAZIWARE.
The justification is the potential that it has for controlling the masses. (Just like the Nazi's did)
Promote the term. It would be a PR fiasco.
Re:NAZIWARE (Score:3, Insightful)
I wonder if the law should be updated to include "terrorist"?
Godwin's Law is a JOKE (Score:3, Informative)
Godwins Law is a joke.
Seriously, it was a tounge in cheek joke about USENET flames of its day. It was never considered by its creator to be an actual, accurate commentary on internet speech, much less some deeply wise insight into the human psyche, and certainly not as a new "rule" of debate.
In other words, Godwins Law was never intended to be used as relative newcomers to the net have come to use it today: to make the most potent lessons of modern history offlimits to any discussion that might benefit from contemplating those lessons, not least of which is a discussion of technology that is designed to excersize draconian prior restraint on how and perhaps even when people can use their own property, within their own home, by a large, convicted monopolist.
NAZIWARE is the most appropriate term I've heard for Palladium/DRM since this entire debate began a few months ago. We should not dismiss it because of some misguided references to a tired old joke being bandied about as though they were some kind of deep Internet Wisdom.
Re:NAZIWARE (Score:2)
...
Promote the term. It would be a PR fiasco.
Yeah. Just like the term "tree-huggers" has sooo damaged environmental groups, right? And remember all the flak feminist groups took for that ever-so-clever "Femi-Nazis" quip?
Please.
There are clever, catchy phrases that can seriously damage a group's reputation, and there are trite, sensationalist phrases that make the accusers look like a bunch of freakin' nutjobs.
Which direction do you think the term "Naziware" leans?
If you're going to fight this battle from a PR angle, at least try to come up with something slightly more clever than "Naziware".
Re:NAZIWARE (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:NAZIWARE (Score:2)
Who needs what they give us? (Score:3, Interesting)
I for one would be happy to have a Linux PC made by VA, AlienWare or even Dell if they produce good hardware which works well with Linux.
Besides, who needs the hardware to do the security work? Sure you can use cipher/cryptography acceleration in hardware, but you do not have to be dependent on it. What Microsoft will find is they put all this work into a system which is still insecure because they still have a front door with holes through it. How long before a macro shares your private key with everyone on your Outlook Express mailing list. And when there is a hole that is found, do I now have to install a firmware update? That does not sound reasonable.
This sounds like a joke, but Microsoft is known for making these mistakes. They even released the Nimba virus on their Korean distribution of their development suite.
So instead of complaining that Microsoft, Intel and AMD are going to ruin the world for Linux, go out and build a business on better hardware which does not lock you into Microsoft. A modern BeBox similar to an Apple G4 system would be quite welcome as a Linux or FreeBSD system on my desk.
Redhat and the new Linux partnerships should put their resources together and actually produce something, instead of more spin on Linux. Make something significant.
Inevitable death of commodity PC (Score:4, Interesting)
Even Mom and Pop PC shops are in on these shenangins (one of my old favorites is now becoming a 'technology consulting firm'). If Microsoft tells them to jump, you bet they'll follow..the same goes with small hardware makers like D-Link and Intel.
In a world of increasingly proprietary hardware, the only solution is buying from a company you can trust. I would suggest a Sun box or Mac for your next PC...or you'll probably have to do a lot of hacking just to get it to play MP3s.
Re:Inevitable death of commodity PC (Score:2, Insightful)
And (barring their joining the TCPA at some later date) that appears to be Apple at the moment.
No death of commodity PCs (Score:5, Interesting)
If the chips/BIOS are set up in such a way as to literally prevent the installation of a non-MS OS onto the bare machine, then there will be enough market demand for machines without this restriction that the market will fork. I'm not claiming that it will fork half-and-half, just that there will be enough demand in the world to create a market. The market may be too small or politically sensitive for the likes of Dell or HPAQ, but some Asian manufacturer(s) could make a good living off that market.
More likely, the existence of the extra crypto hardware can be accommodated by new designs in Linux/*BSD/etc. and might actually become quite useful to a user with complete personal control over its capabilities.
Re:Inevitable death of commodity PC (Score:2)
"Commodity" generally means that there isn't much profit in an industry.
Also, RDRAM is an example of an attempted hardware hijacking of the industry (by Intel & Rambus) to de-commoditize PCs and reclaim profits on selling them. It didn't quite work out as planned.
Re:Inevitable death of commodity PC (Score:2)
More Bad Patents. (Score:2)
Um, where in the hell does this leave everyone else? Microsoft is asking motherboard makers to include public-key crypo on the board, and Palladium by law is the only OS able to talk to the mb?
Can you say monopoly, boys and girls?
Anyone who buys into this crap should be given free knee pads.
Re:More Bad Patents. (Score:2)
Just one thing. All the motherboard makers are in Taiwan and also sell to Asian and European markets. It's possible the RIAA, MPAA, MSFT, et al have the political clout to force TCPA and Palladium on the US market, but what country in their right mind would willingly cede control to Microsoft of the crypto keys that let their computers run? I predict a healthy supply of gray-market import motherboards.
PK Crypto (Score:3, Insightful)
Naturally, this is not an argument for an anti-crypto position. It is merely a caution for overreliance on the secure technologies of today.
I believe... (Score:2)
Now if they make an operating system that is very secure, and has all kinds of fancy features. But it will not function properly depending on what I want to do with it, or it will not allow me to do what I want with it, even though it's mine. Isn't that equally illegal?
If it's not, it should be.
Fair use laws anyone? (Score:5, Informative)
Specifically there are limits to Copyrights in the following scenarios:
LIMITATIONS ON THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS
The copyright owner's exclusive rights are subject to a number of exceptions and limitations that give others the right to make limited use of a copyrighted work. Major exceptions and limitations are outlined in this section.
Ideas
Copyright protects only against the unauthorized taking of a protected work's "expression." It does not extend to the work's ideas, procedures, processes, systems, methods of operation, concepts, principles, or discoveries.
Facts
A work's facts are not protected by copyright, even if the author spent large amounts of time, effort, and money discovering those facts. Copyright protects originality, not effort or "sweat of the brow."
Independent Creation
A copyright owner has no recourse against another person who, working independently, creates an exact duplicate of the copyrighted work. The independent creation of a similar work or even an exact duplicate does not violate any of the copyright owner's exclusive rights.
Fair Use
The "fair use" of a copyrighted work, including use for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. Copyright owners are, by law, deemed to consent to fair use of their works by others.
The Copyright Act does not define fair use. Instead, whether a use is fair use is determined by balancing these factors:
* The purpose and character of the use.
* The nature of the copyrighted work.
* The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole.
* The effect of the use on the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work.
But nothing in this specification speaks of how you will still be able to maintain your fair use rights. If they build it, people should proactively sue them because its a rights violation for it to exist at all.
Re:Fair use laws anyone? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's like car stereos: Ford can't prevent me from swapping out the junk stereo they put in my car with a nice non-ford model, but if they don't put a DIN opening in the dash, it's gonne be really inconveniet for me to do so. Nobody says they have to make it easy, just that they can't sue you.
Re:Fair use laws anyone? (Score:2)
IANAL but I believe fair use only applies to copyrighted works that you have purchased. Software is licensed. I believe Hollywood also considers DVDs to be software because it has a small amount of scripting on it. This means that you have to abide by the terms you and the owner of the copyright agreed to, what ever they may be. Unfortunately in the real world millions of people don't get an opportunity to negotiate the EULA (or even see it) before they purchase the product.
Re:Fair use laws anyone? (Score:2)
That might be a good idea. But there's no way in hell that Congress is going to pass anything that creates fair use rights, when thay haven't even bothered to repeal DMCA. They've already taken a stand, and it's on the other side.
Welcome to Micro$oft (Score:2, Offtopic)
I think the buying one says it all. Looking at the numbers I really don't think it's completely unpractical for M$ to buy up some island nation and change the name. You know President Gates would try to work his way onto any number of international organizations (M$ is already more influential than many countries) and by pumping in cash via M$ to keep the standard of living high could demonstrate how the M$ homoculture and draconian IP laws are good for people and everyone should follow their utopian example. Sure it would make their dealings with other corporations a little more cumbersome but that's nothing that video conferencing wouldn't fix and you can't beat literally making your own laws (anti-trust? never heard of that).
Of course this isn't something that would ever happen over the next few years but it isn't entirely inconcievable that they may move towards it in the long term (a good bludgeon to hold over the supreme courts head if MS doesn't like the lastest round of hearings). But then again it's not like they're doing to bad in the US, I mean they more or less own a good chuch of the legislators as it is and it's not like they pay taxes or anything:)
so let them (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the buying one says it all. Looking at the numbers I really don't think it's completely unpractical for M$ to buy up some island nation and change the name
So let them. Why do you care? It wouldn't change any fundamentals. Nobody is forced to buy their products. Actually, if they buy their own country, you could slap tariffs on them.
Re:so let them (Score:2)
As far as i know Terrorists use MS products (MS Flight Simulator for example)
on their computers to coordinate there planning,
lets start the bombing
Re:so let them (Score:2)
a monopoly attempt that's fundimentally flawed (Score:2, Insightful)
i envision a future where this 'palladium' enabled operating system will ONLY run on "M$ certified" (read: kickback) hardware. how's that for grabbing the hardware vendors by the privates? "want our new stuff? pay us first, or your competitor will." they'll justify it to the hardware vendors easily - "hey now, if someone wants to get the new OS, they have to buy a new machine! it's win-win! (for us, and you, not the consumer)."
sadly, at the core of the debate, is a fundamental flaw - relying on hardware to provide security to software. hardware still has to be interfaced with software, and therefore can be hijacked at that level. like dongles for high-end 3d programs? dongle emulators are written.
the future of virii wil simply have to usurp the functionality of this protected 'hardware' and tell the operating system "hi, i'm the palladium chip. yes, it's okay to run this
this sounds a lot more like a 'make people touch-feely that their privacy is being protected so they ignore the glaring security flaws in our software' PR move.
In other news today... (Score:5, Informative)
Two more reasons:
You have to remember that this is the same company that used the ominous variable "NSA_KEY" in some of its security software...
Not that I believe the NSA was responsible of this particular blunder... =)
Another reason to go to Apple and OS X (Score:2, Informative)
Seems another reason to switch [apple.com]
"That story you read somewhere" (Score:5, Interesting)
So what? Go to non-WinTel hardware (Score:2, Insightful)
Mandatory Upgrades? (Score:3, Interesting)
My 2 cents.
But what if... (Score:2, Insightful)
ShaunDon
"I swear I way more than half-believe it when I say that somewhere love and justice shines" - The Weakerthans
As long as my current batch of machines run... (Score:2)
Microsoft Patent (Score:4, Informative)
A digital rights management operating system protects rights-managed data, such as downloaded content, from access by untrusted programs while the data is loaded into memory or on a page file as a result of the execution of a trusted application that accesses the memory. To protect the rights-managed data resident in memory, the digital rights management operating system refuses to load an untrusted program into memory while the trusted application is executing or removes the data from memory before loading the untrusted program. If the untrusted program executes at the operating system level, such as a debugger, the digital rights management operating system renounces a trusted identity created for it by the computer processor when the computer was booted. To protect the rights-managed data on the page file, the digital rights management operating system prohibits raw access to the page file, or erases the data from the page file before allowing such access. Alternatively, the digital rights management operating system can encrypt the rights-managed data prior to writing it to the page file. The digital rights management operating system also limits the functions the user can perform on the rights-managed data and the trusted application, and can provide a trusted clock used in place of the standard computer clock.
Even David Coursey?! (Score:2)
EU knows what Microsoft is up to! (Score:2)
Here [google.com] is a translation using Google.
Quotable Commentary (Score:4, Insightful)
MICROSOFT PROMISES--and I believe that they're serious--that users will control their own personal information.
Since when? Since when do people trust M$, the company that has time-and-again said that software is secure when it's not, that they provide customer support when they don't, that they're not trying to be a monopoly when they are, that they're not strong-arming 3rd party manufacturers when Craig Barrett is clearly wincing? If the EULA doesn't scare you yet, you aren't paying attention.
But how this plays in the real world, where users often have very little power, remains to be seen.
Ah, maybe in your little world of sheeple, but folks like me give ourselves power through OSes that don't patronize.
Microsoft has one key factor in its favor: the growing realization among its customers that we must do something, and that tomorrow's digital devices--and I'm talking much more than PCs here--need the trustworthiness that Microsoft claims Palladium will offer.
I think he's missing the boat on this one. Users don't give a rats banana about trust, or they wouldn't be using passwords like "mypassword" when checking Hotmail. They simply don't care about that. What they care about is the *big*bad*unknown* screwing up their ability to email, type letters to their friends, and have cybersex on AIM. If their OS provides that, they're fine. Trust is marketing B$ for "we're gonna cuddle you like a foster parent and shield you from the big bad world."
But is the world ready to trust Microsoft on something it has such a hard time explaining? and implementing, and supporting, and documenting, and....
Holy smoke-n-mirrors, Batman.
if you can run some Turing-compatible code.. (Score:2, Interesting)
for example)
Step 2: port Linux to that virtual machine...
But will it be worth it?
Don't worry, kids. (Score:2, Insightful)
But that doesn't mean computers won't exist to hack on for amateurs. Did the CD eliminate HAM radio, or the amateur musician? Does an electronics geek bemoan the fact that he can't put together his own DVD player, or does he spend his time doing more interesting things? When computers become appliances, they will become boring.
It also doesn't mean that professional computing will go this way. To use the same analogy: do you think a radio broadcasting station uses an off-the shelf CD player? Do you think they go to Best Buy, see the low-end consumer hardware sold there, and say "Damn, I need something better, more customizable, but I guess I just can't buy it anywhere." Professionals will use professional products, and that means many things: high quality, no frills, and expensive. Microsoft will NOT be able to convince any computer professional to use this "Palladium" crap for a server. They won't even try. They will probably have a server OS which can serve Palladium-enabled content; but that won't be the only option, unless it's so good that it's all professionals want.
The readers of Slashdot are all amateur computing enthusiasts, and many of them are computer professionals as well. We may end up using a commodity computer appliance, just like the rest of the world; but our Linux boxes will always be around to hack on.
Re:Don't worry, kids. (Score:2)
Just like they were never able to convince any companies to use that crap IIS server, right?
Until we get better trained and more experienced Sys/Network Admins in the work force, MS servers will remain a player in the field.
Ask Steve Jobs... (Score:3, Insightful)
--NBVB
Many Linux Boxes are old Intel Machines (Score:2)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't a great deal of Linux servers run on old hardware? If this is true, then the impact of Palladium wouldn't be a total disaster for Linux. It would not be favourable, by any means, but not a total disaster.
Smaller companies that run Linux servers on old hardware would not be forced to make the changeover, at least not for several years. Unless you're a large company that needs the latest technology, you could get away with not upgrading to a Palladium machine.
Microsoft in the War Against Terrorism (Score:3, Insightful)
Another terrorist attack or two, and Americans will be begging for this stuff. Hopefull that won't happen.
I was at first reluctant into saying this technology is all bad. Its easy to get into an anti-Microsoft jihad.
But this technology is all bad.
I can't believe that MSN article, I really can't. Its a silly spin on this technology that isn't going to last. Here's some stuff from the MSN article on what this stuff is going to do:
"Tells you who you're dealing with--and what they're doing. Palladium is all about deciding what's trustworthy. It not only lets your computer know that you're you , but also can limit what arrives (and runs on) your computer, verifying where it comes from and who created it."
We already have this, its called Public Key Encryption or alternatively Symmetric Encryption. Free Software users already have GNU Privacy Guard at our disposal.
Of course, the downside of this technology is that it isn't too useful over the internet without creating a rather large web of trust -- a very difficult task. I'd like to know how Palladium would rectify this?
"Protects information. The system uses high-level encryption to 'seal' data so that snoops and thieves are thwarted. It also can protect the integrity of documents so that they can't be altered without your knowledge."
First, we already have high-level encryption. And most anti-virus programs 'innoculate' your files anyway. This only sounds like Microsoft is targeting the anti-virus next -- by integrating them into the operating system.
"Stops viruses and worms. Palladium won't run unauthorized programs, so viruses can't trash protected parts of your system."
I haven't used Windows since Windows 95, but I know Unix-like systems have had multi-user security since practically forever. Its heavily suggested to new users to set up their own accounts on their system to use. "protected parts" os a Unix-like system is whatever root owns, which is quite a lot.
"Cans spam. Eventually, commercial pitches for recycled printer cartridges and barnyard porn can be stopped before they hit your inbox--while unsolicited mail that you might want to see can arrive if it has credentials that meet your standards."
So basically digital signatures for real this time...
"Safeguards privacy. With Palladium, it's possible not only to seal data on your own computer, but also to send it out to 'agents' who can distribute just the discreet pieces you want released to the proper people. Microsofties have nicknamed these services 'My Man.' If you apply for a loan, you'd say to the lender, 'Get my details from My Man,' which, upon your authorization, would then provide your bank information, etc. Best part: Da Man can't read the information himself, and neither can a hacker who breaks into his system."
This may sound interesting, depending on how its implemented. But what can this Palladium technology offer that a sane encryption policy can't? And whats going to prevent users from screwing up the security?
(side note: "My Man" sounds really funny)
"Controls your information after you send it. Palladium is being offered to the studios and record labels as a way to distribute music and film with 'digital rights management' (DRM). This could allow users to exercise 'fair use' (like making personal copies of a CD) and publishers could at least start releasing works that cut a compromise between free and locked-down. But a more interesting possibility is that Palladium could help introduce DRM to business and just plain people. 'It's a funny thing,' says Bill Gates. 'We came at this thinking about music, but then we realized that e-mail and documents were far more interesting domains.' For instance, Palladium might allow you to send out e-mail so that no one (or only certain people) can copy it or forward it to others. Or you could create Word documents that could be read only in the next week. In all cases, it would be the user, not Microsoft, who sets these policies."
And we're back to digital rights management. Does anyone know how to implement what they say with the Word document with the technology we have now? It almost sounds like an Actually Useful Feature. "This email will self-destruct," kind of thing.
But really, this thing is about enforcing what some people consider an unconstitutionally unlimited copyright system. Not to mention what kind of havoc would be caused if trademarks were decided to be under the umbrella of digital rights.
One thing the Coursey article confirmed is that Microsoft does have a patent on this technology -- it seems logical they would license this under the CIFS (no GPL or copyleft) pretty much excluding free software from implementing this.
Because this stuff was leaked so early, there is still time (they are saying like four or five years) for someone to build up a response to this. Or it will simply flop because the market won't like it. Or what I think is likely is that DVDs will only be allowed to play on Palladium-approved machines. Then we'll have a mix of Palladium and non-Palladium machines, one with a superset of the features of the other.
Which one will Mr. and Mrs. Ignorant want to buy for their son?
I still don't get it (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem is that a PC is a general purpose computing platform. It's not a DVD player, or a CD player or even an email station. It's anything the software makes it. And it has lots of free CPU cycles these days for things like emulation. If the software never invokes the CPU functions or uses a software protocol stack instead of the hardware stacks, you can do anything you want.
You can hack the firmware (like what's been done to DVD players), you can even patch the CPU with hacked microcode. If you can't, then you need to upgrade your hardware when Palladium 1.1 comes out. And 1.2, and...
Why not simply prove that the design is faulty before it gets out of the gate?
Who has the control? (Score:3, Insightful)
I must admit, this is a masterful stroke. It appears to give users additional control over their computer's security, while limiting the options in such a way that it actually concentrates that control into others' hands.
[NOTE: Since real information about Palladium is pretty fuzzy right now, I'm theorizing a bit about its capabilities for now. Only time will tell...]
It can remove my power to choose what's authorized to run on my computer. It can prevent usage of "untrusted" or "unauthorized" code. Lovely turn of phrase, that. Notice how it uses the passive to avoid any implication of *who* is trusting or authorizing the code? "Palladium is all about deciding what's trustworthy. It not only lets your computer know that you're you , but also can limit what arrives (and runs on) your computer, verifying where it comes from and who created it." The implication is that the user is in control, but who decides?
I have not yet seen anything saying how programs are authorized. It would be logical to set up a coalition to do this, and use membership agreements to control the behavior and competitiveness of its members, and exclude undesirables. We can see prior art in the way the DVD-CCA controls access to the CSS keys and uses that control to enforce region controls and lack of digital output.
It can remove my power to access information, since Palladium "can limit what arrives" on my computer. In other words, the authorization control can extend beyond code to data. If a site does not have a valid Palladium authorization (however those are issued), then Palladium may be able to prevent access to it (and tell me that it has saved me from an "unauthorized site"). Again, the key to this control rests in the authorization process.
It can remove my power to customize my computer. No, I'm not talking about case mods, I'm talking about OS and program configuration. In order to maintain a "trustworthy" system, it will have to limit access to the configuration system. Assuming they keep something like the Windows Registry, I can see two options here. They may refuse to authorize regedit, et al., and remove OS authorization from any registry touched by those programs. Or they may remove the my ability to change anything "critical" (by some definition or other) in the registry.
Ultimately, it can force a choice between "all-Palladium" and "no-Palladium". If it can refuse to run unauthorized programs or access unauthorized sites while any authorized programs are running or authorized sites are being accessed, then I cannot work in both realms at the same time. I must either choose "Palladium" ("safe") or "non-Palladium" ("dangerous"). It could also deal with these realms asymmetrically: if I try to use Palladium resources, it could automatically close all non-Palladium resources (and tell me that it has saved me from danger), but if I try to use non-Palladium resources, it might refuse to load them until I had manually closed all of my Palladium resources, and perhaps rebooted.
Faced with this choice, how many users will be willing to give up some useful non-Palladium resources rather than giving up all Palladium resources? Immanentizing the false dichotomy, anyone?
I sure hope I'm wrong about this, and that I'm just being too paranoid. Unfortunately, recent history seems to show that we need a really healthy dose of paranoia when dealing with things like this. Again, only time will tell for sure.
and thats why macs failed (Score:2, Troll)
If Microsoft goes that route i think they will soon become as relevant as apple.
Re:Microsoft..... (Score:2)
Procreate and consume. (And especially the latter.)
Re:Cringely weighs in... (Score:3, Interesting)
I was surprised to see that somebody didn't pick up on Cringely remarks here, seeing as they support the enlightened opinion of skepticism of Microsoft, and document how Palladium is using Microsoft's security weaknesses as an excuse to make all internet technology closed proprietary Microsoft Technology.
A fairly damning read, and it lays it all out
The Microsoft solution to the problems caused by Microsoft is to give control of everything to Microsoft.
Usually, I thought the answer was to remove the sdource of the problem, not to strengthen it.
2002-06-29 01:24:55 Cringely On Palladium (articles,news) (rejected)
Re:Failure to market (Score:4, Insightful)
Other hardware vendors aren't going to incorporated that code into non-updatable hardware chips. It'll either be software or the chips will be flashable. In either case somebody will hack it.
Re:Will it fail like DIVX? (Score:3, Insightful)
Give it a little more time. I don't think that many XP users have gotten to the point where they've attempted to add or change the hardware on their PC and triggered the XP `you must reactivate' process. Once that starts to happen, I bet you'll hear more users begin squawking.