Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×

Trusted Computing And You 180

Posted by Zonk from the i-don't-trust-many-computers dept.
sebFlyte writes "There's an interesting look at the Trusted computing initiative running over on ZDNet UK, written by security guru Bruce Schneier. He looks at the suggestions for best practice made in a recent policy document, and Microsoft's 'Machiavellian manoeuvring' to stall said document. He posits their moves are to avoid having to enforce such best-practice when it comes to Vista's DRM and other copy-restriction technology." From the article: "This sounds great, but it's a double-edged sword. The same system that prevents worms and viruses from running on your computer might also stop you from using any legitimate software that your hardware or operating system vendor simply doesn't like. The same system that protects spyware from accessing your data files might also stop you from copying audio and video files. The same system that ensures that all the patches you download are legitimate might also prevent you from, well, doing pretty much anything."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Trusted Computing And You More

Trusted Computing And You

Comments Filter:

  • Love those dups (Score:3, Informative)

    by g051051 ( 71145 ) * on Thursday September 01, 2005 @10:39AM (#13454815)
    http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/31/154 6252&tid=172&tid=109 [slashdot.org]

  • Thanks again! (Score:3, Informative)

    by garcia ( 6573 ) * on Thursday September 01, 2005 @10:41AM (#13454835)
    Well, because the "staff" ignored my duplicate notification, as usual, here's [slashdot.org] a link to the previous story and here's [slashdot.org] my comment there.

    Please note, just because the domain of a news site is different and someone included Schneier's URL [slashdot.org] this time doesn't mean that the story isn't a duplicate.

    Thanks for helping to make Slashdot a better place.

  • Let me be the first (Score:5, Insightful)

    by $RANDOMLUSER ( 804576 ) on Thursday September 01, 2005 @10:41AM (#13454837)
    To say I don't trust "Trusted Computing".

    • Sorry, you're too late (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      You're not the first. You were beaten by approximately 151 others on the last time this article was posted.

      But don't worry, if you hang around long enough here on Slashdot, you may be able to post on a genuine first-run article. I believe there may be one scheduled within the next few weeks.
    • Nor does Trusted Computing TRUST YOU!

    • Re:Let me be the first (Score:5, Insightful)

      by garcia ( 6573 ) * on Thursday September 01, 2005 @11:00AM (#13455037)
      To say I don't trust "Trusted Computing".

      You don't have to trust it. I don't trust the government but I have to put up w/it. Sadly, that's what we have allowed the corporations to become.

      Another layer of governance over us.

    • Interestingly enough ... (Score:5, Informative)

      by vlad_petric ( 94134 ) on Thursday September 01, 2005 @11:19AM (#13455252) Homepage
      In security speech Trusted != Trustworthy. If you say that X is "Trusted", it simply means that the security of the system depends axiomatically on X being secure. So if X is secure, everything is ok, but if it is insecure, it breaks the whole system. "Trusted" doesn't actually say whether X is secure or not (that's what "Trustworthy" is for), it just makes a statement about the security of the whole system depending on the security of X.

      Having learned that, a few companies (I believe M$ was one of them) changed from "trusted" to "trustworthy"

      • So if X is secure, everything is ok, but if it is insecure, it breaks the whole system.

        In this case, I wouldn't say i Trust a MS system in that sense. Sure, it might make MS secure, but the system owner may still not be.

    • > To say I don't trust "Trusted Computing".

      Yeah. The conversation goes something like this...

      Microsoft: We want to build a platform that is totally trustworthy. So I guess the question is, what should be trusted?
      Security Experts: That's actually a good, albeit complicated, question...
      Microsoft: Whom and what should users trust? Whom and what *do* they trust?
      Security Experts: Hmmmm...
      Microsoft: Lesse... First off, they're going to trust Microsoft, obviously...
      Security Experts: Err, good luck wit

  • Ethics (Score:5, Insightful)

    by millahtime ( 710421 ) on Thursday September 01, 2005 @10:42AM (#13454856) Homepage Journal
    Well, trusted computing should start with a trustworthy company. That means good, consistant company ethics and ethical people working and representing the company.

    • Re:Ethics (Score:5, Insightful)

      by garcia ( 6573 ) * on Thursday September 01, 2005 @10:48AM (#13454915)
      No, it means that *I* control my computer and content -- not someone or something else that isn't under my direct control.

      They need to stop fucking twisting words around because it's good marketing doublespeak.

      Call it what it is. A fucking privacy and ethics violation.

      • Re:Ethics (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Monkelectric ( 546685 ) <slashdot AT monkelectric DOT com> on Thursday September 01, 2005 @11:14AM (#13455195)
        Yep, and the problem is in the free market you should be able to exercise your dollar votes and not buy their products. However, all the companies who have anything to do with this are all rolling out new hardware at *exactly* the same time so there simply will be no alternative. Longhorn, the new dvd format(s), TCPM compliant motherboards, chipsets, and software, all will be deployed at once. How do you like your omelets now Denver?

        • Re:Ethics (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Bimo_Dude ( 178966 )
          However, all the companies who have anything to do with this are all rolling out new hardware at *exactly* the same time so there simply will be no alternative.

          And that, not coincidentally, will be the same time that I stop buying new hardware, and just keep what I've got. The same goes for software. I guess it may be time for me to stock up on some replacement parts.

      • They need to stop fucking twisting words around because it's good marketing doublespeak.

        You mean like 'Death Tax' and 'Patriot Act'? Business and government are obviously in bed with each other.

    • Nonsense. If you don't let us protect you the way we want to the Boogyman will get you. Then you'll be sorry.

      Signed,
      Big Business & Big Government

      • Re:Ethics (Score:5, Funny)

        by saintp ( 595331 ) <{stpierre} {at} {nebrwesleyan.edu}> on Thursday September 01, 2005 @11:09AM (#13455148) Homepage
        switch ($decade) {
        case "the 50's":
           s/the Boogyman/Communist agitators/g;
           break;
        case "the 60's":
           s/the Boogyman/acid-eating hippies/g;
           break;
        case "the 70's":
           s/the Boogyman/disco/g;
           break;
        case "the 80's":
           s/the Boogyman/mutual assured destruction (and Grenada!)/g;
           break;
        case "the 90's":
           s/the Boogyman/evil hackers and George Michael/g;
           break;
        case "the 00's":
           s/the Boogyman/terrorists/g;
           break;
        }
        • Hold up a second....

          We were RIGHT about Disco. Had we put it in place, we'd never have to have suffered George Michael and DRM to protect his sales.

          Waitasec, am I missing a joke here?

              - Zarq

        • Re:Ethics (Score:3, Funny)

          by LesPaul75 ( 571752 )
          syntax error at funny.pl line 5, near ") {"
          syntax error at funny.pl line 9, near "case "the 60's""
          syntax error at funny.pl line 12, near "case "the 70's""
          syntax error at funny.pl line 15, near "case "the 80's""
          syntax error at funny.pl line 18, near "case "the 90's""
          syntax error at funny.pl line 21, near "case "the 00's""
          syntax error at funny.pl line 24, near "}"
          Execution of funny.pl aborted due to compilation errors.
        • case "the 10's":
                s/the Boogyman/plaid/g;
                break;

          -

    • Re:Ethics (Score:3, Interesting)

      by hungrygrue ( 872970 )

      No, it means complete transparency and standardization. If any company produces a black box which uses rules which I did not set to control what I can and can not do with a computer that I bought and own, then there is a serious problem.

      Trusted computing would be along the lines of "This package is not signed or the signature cannot be verified. Are you sure you want to install it? "

      When it crosses the line to "Sorry, I won't let you make a copy of this file", or "No, you aren't allowed to print thi

  • Will people realize in time? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rob_squared ( 821479 ) <<rob> <at> <rob-squared.com>> on Thursday September 01, 2005 @10:44AM (#13454873)
    I'm seriously wondering this. Will people realize the things that Trusted Computing and DRM can do to them? I'm not talking about the slippery slope of "restricting" anti-government documents or mobsters using Trusted Computing to commit crimes. I'm talking about the loss of rights to use media and information THAT YOU BOUGHT, NOT rented, or licensed.

    We, as computer users see it coming, just like a satellite sees the storm. We just have to keep broadcasting.

    • Re:Will people realize in time? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by garcia ( 6573 ) * on Thursday September 01, 2005 @10:55AM (#13454983)
      Will people realize the things that Trusted Computing and DRM can do to them?

      No, because it's a fucking calculated descision on the parts of hardware and software manufacturers, see here [slashdot.org] for my comments on this yesterday.

      They have known all along that if they do it slowly and under the guise of it being "for your benefit" then people will accept it.

      It's really fucking sad that people are willing to put control of everything into someone else's hands. I'm seriously waiting for the day when a corporation will inseminate a woman for you because it's "easier".

      You think it's funny or tinfoilish now? Just wait, people will undoubtably get lazy enough that they won't even fuck.

      Think of how funny it would have been to you 20 years ago if someone told you that you wouldn't be able to open a document or run a program on your computer because Microsoft didn't give you a code to do so.

      Exactly.
      • "I'm seriously waiting for the day when a corporation will inseminate a woman for you because it's "easier"."

        I could do this for you today if you pay for the bus fare.

      • Re:Will people realize in time? (Score:2, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        I'm seriously waiting for the day when a corporation will inseminate a woman for you because it's "easier".

        I'm seriously waiting for the day when that corporation is hiring.

    • Buying is licensing (Score:2, Informative)

      by jd0g85 ( 734515 )

      I'm talking about the loss of rights to use media and information THAT YOU BOUGHT, NOT rented, or licensed.

      Not to be a troll, but there is no difference between "licensing" something and "buying" it. When you walk into a store and purchase something, you are agreeing to an implicit license. Usually this is along the lines of, "return it here for up to 30 days. If anything goes wrong after that, the manufacture will fix it up to a year. Beyond that, do whatever you want but we're not repsonsible."

      When p

  • The problem with "trusted" computing (Score:5, Informative)

    by WCMI92 ( 592436 ) on Thursday September 01, 2005 @10:44AM (#13454878) Homepage
    Is that YOU, the computer OWNER is not trusted. This is the first step towards taking actual ownership away from the owner and handing it over to the manufacturer after the fact.

    Which is why I do not support Digital Restrictions Management.
    • >Is that YOU, the computer OWNER is not trusted.

      You hit the nail on the head, my friend.

      Most people read the words "trusted computing" and they assume they know what it means. They think it means you, the user, can trust you computer to be secure. So, so wrong.

      One of the seminal papers in the field of trusted computing is called "Programming Satan's Computer" (PDF file) [cam.ac.uk].

      In that paper, the point is, when the user of the computer is as evil as, say, Satan, how do you protect the information on that compute
    • you forget, dear sir, that the EULA is the other major component of DRM.

      DRM is the technical aspect and the EULA is the aspect that is activated when the first fails.

      remember kids, when you support EULAs, you boil a baby frog slowly.
      • The DMCA is the real legal backup to the technical DRM.

        EULAs mean you can get sued.

        DMCA violations can and often are felonies.

        Loss of civil rights for life (many states you can't vote or run for office - politicians will ignore you), 5 years in a prison where the average geek will get violated in 5 hours, illegal to work in certain industries, no one will hire you because of "negligent hiring" lawsuits - people have had multi-million dollar judgements against them for hiring the "wrong people".

        DRM is like a

    • Along that line, I highly recommend reading the new EFF essay on DRM limitations in popular music services [eff.org] (iTunes music store, Microsoft's music store, Napster, and RealNetworks' music store). I forsee this page becoming a reference on why it is a bad idea to do business with these music stores. The license terms on the songs are sufficiently restrictive that I'll never buy anything from them, but to know that I'd have to overcome some technological hurdle to regain a sliver of the rights I have with rec

  • Trust... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Epistax ( 544591 ) <epistax @ g m a il.com> on Thursday September 01, 2005 @10:49AM (#13454927) Journal
    You only trust someone if you have good experiences with it again and again.

    Like this story, for example.
  • Would I rather have too much security in IT or too little? I vote for too much. The first day my firm makes the news because of some breach that results in piles of data being released is also the first day that I'm looking for a new job. No thanks. Users are pretty forgiving when they understand why we do things the way we do. Nobody ever got id-thefted by this way.
    • Security is always a balancing act between usability and security. If you want the closest thing to total security then you'll disconnect your computer, lock it in a safe and never remove it. Of course that makes the computer useless. If the amount of time and effort you have to put into jumping through hoops outweighs the security benefits of the system then clearly you have your priorities screwed.

      More importantly, if *I* paid for the computer and *I* paid for the software, why shouldn't *I* choose wha
    • Would I rather have too much security in IT or too little

      A Good question - But DRM/Palladium/TCPA/BacklashControlNameOfTheWeek doesn't even touch the subject.

      This will not make your machine more secure for you - It will make it more secure for Microsoft. For Hollywood. For the RIAA.

      Not you. Not me. Not your clients (unless your clients include members of the above list). We can go pound sand for all they care. Oh, you can't open that critical briefing you wrote last year? Too bad, Microsoft doe
    • Who said anything about security, we were talking about "Trusted Computing" Meaning that the companies don't trust that they will make enough money selling versatile computers, so they want to make a computer's usefullness a function of how much money you give them by restricting the software you are allowed to run.

      It would be like a car manufacturer hobbling an engine so that you can go 5 mph faster for every $10k you give them. Oh and brakes are included in every car but you get charged $5 everytime you
    • Would I rather have too much security in IT or too little? I vote for too much.

      You just fell into their trap. A false choice.

      The argument here is not for or against security. The argument here is for or against ANTI-OWNER "security".

      One side of the argument, Microsoft's side of the argument, the Trusted Computing Group's side of the argument, is for everyong to have computers with the master security keys locked inside a microchip and to forbid owners to know their own keys. Their design is to secure the co
  • Set your comment threshold to -1 and browse the comments on this thread. It's a wasted thread anyway, yet another dupe story. There's some good stuff at -1 on this thread.

  • Is that his name or his mental condition?

    Look, morons, if you can't find an editor that can see a dupe from the previous day, get the fuck out of the business.

    Aside from offering me the chance to insult morons, /. is becoming a fucking waste of time.

  • because of lock in. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by leuk_he ( 194174 ) on Thursday September 01, 2005 @11:04AM (#13455087) Homepage Journal
    As bruce pointed [schneier.com] out MS might have an own agenda.

    I think this is a reason:

    TC faq [cam.ac.uk]

    The second, and most important, benefit for Microsoft is that TC will dramatically increase the costs of switching away from Microsoft products (such as Office) to rival products (such as OpenOffice). For example, a law firm that wants to change from Office to OpenOffice right now merely has to install the software, train the staff and convert their existing files. In five years' time, once they have received TC-protected documents from perhaps a thousand different clients, they would have to get permission (in the form of signed digital certificates) from each of these clients in order to migrate their files to a new platform. The law firm won't in practice want to do this, so they will be much more tightly locked in, which will enable Microsoft to hike its prices.
    • Then all those business entities running OpenOffice already will really be reaping the benefits, and TCO comparisons will be great. Organizations running Linux on the desktop will look to their Windows-running brethren sadly and say, "Told you so."

  • Why Trusted Computing Will Fail (Score:5, Interesting)

    by WombatControl ( 74685 ) on Thursday September 01, 2005 @11:17AM (#13455229)

    Trusted Computing will be DOA. It's a pipe dream, and it will never work.

    Not because it's technically unfeasible, but because the market won't stand for it. Let's say that Microsoft declares that Word 2006 will only open "trusted" documents. Total lock-in. Would any sane business buy in?

    Absolutely not. My company still uses Word 2000 - and many of Microsoft's problems stem from the fact that they have to bend over backwards not to break legacy APIs and file formats. If Joe and Jane Sixpack find that they can't play their old DVDs on their new PeeCee, they're taking the thing back. If their old MP3s don't play, they'll take it back.

    Look at the failure of Divx (the self-destructing DVD format). It had some major studio support, and yet it was practically stillborn. Users drive technology, and users don't like to have to deal with jumping through hoops. The only reason XP's Product Activation crap didn't result in a backlash is because 99% of users never had to deal with it since they got XP with their new PC - preinstalled and pre-activated.

    That's why Trusted Computing will fail, even though parts of it are a good idea. Microsoft can't force people to accept it. The real world of economics doesn't work that way. They can't force people to upgrade, and as long as they have to support legacy data, they can't totally lock down the system.

    I dislike Microsoft as much as anyone, and for all the clout they have in the market, they can't do everything. Trusted Computing will either be full of holes (likely) or a major flop depending on how much security they apply.

    • all it takes is to built in the rules that before playing/openning any file, the file has to be converted from a DRMless format into the DRM supported format. The conversion operation can be implemented as part of the application that needs to play the file or it can be a webservice for example and the app in question will simply use the MSN for example to convert from one format to another. This does not solve all DRM adoptation problems for MS and CO, but it is a simple natural step in the direction tha

    • Flawed Argument (Score:5, Insightful)

      by DreadSpoon ( 653424 ) on Thursday September 01, 2005 @12:38PM (#13456028) Journal
      Your whole argument is based on the assumption that Windows would only allow use of locked formats.

      Of course it won't work that way, it'd be corporate/product suicide.

      However, only Windows will be able to use these locked formats. Which means that once locked formats come into circulation, you will always forever after have to use the Microsoft-mandated access method. Your old DVDs will still play on your new PC, and your new DVDs will still play on your new PC, but they won't play on your Linux box or your OS X box and so on.

      Locked formats will be rare for years to come. It has to wait for market uptake. You won't see locked DVDs released right away, because that means that all existing electronics will be broken, which again would be corporate/product suicide. It'll be years after DRM is already integrated into those electronics, when a large quantity of the user base has those DRM-capable electronics, that you'll see locked formats released on a large scale. Years after people have seen no detriment form DRM and have already accepted their DRM-capable electronics has standard. Years after, for the vast majority of the populace, the DRM actually doesn't hurt them in any way, because it only stops the real thieves and the Free Software nerds.
    • You completely missed the way it works. Nothing will cease to work. The new "trusted" content simply won't be accessible by old PCs (carrot). It's like they don't meet the minimum specs. To finish the job you stop providing interoperability, you only provide migration (stick). It's like having a friend who'll open your document in a newer version of Office, edit it and then you can't open his version.

      You mustn't forget that the primary goal of Microsoft isn't to piss off users. They want to make sure everyt
    • that's why they learned from their "mistakes".

      DIVX boiled the frog too quickly and made it too obvious that it would primarily benefit the corporations.

      now they found out the right temperature and to make sure it looks like it benefits you, the public.

      artificial restrictions against the owner of the product is pure evil. maybe i'll use that as my sig, even though i abhor them.

    • Re:Why Trusted Computing Will Fail (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Alsee ( 515537 ) on Thursday September 01, 2005 @04:03PM (#13458312) Homepage
      While I certianly hope there is a public backlash against Trusted Computing, almost everything you said is wrong. Unfortunately the "common understanding" of Trusted Computing is completely wrong.

      Let's say that Microsoft declares that Word 2006 will only open "trusted" documents.

      Wrong. It will be able to open both Trusted and Untrusted documents. It will be able to save both Trusted and Untrusted documents. An Untrusted loads can become Trusted saves, but Trusted loads can never become Trusted saves. It has a tendancy to encourage a movement from Untrusted to Trusted and prohibits any movement from Trusted to Untrusted.

      The new software can open and save anything. If you have the new software then eveything "just works".

      Any normal wordprocessor can only read and save Untrusted documents. A normal word processor cannot touch Trusted documents at all. A normal word processor doesn't work when anyone gives you a Trusted document.

      If you have Trusted software it always works, and tends to move more things into the Trust zone. If you have Untrusted software then sometimes it spits out error messages at you.

      If Joe and Jane Sixpack find that they can't play their old DVDs on their new PeeCee, they're taking the thing back. If their old MP3s don't play, they'll take it back.

      You have it backwards. Old stuff always works on the new computers. The new Trusted Computers "just work". Old DVDs and old MP3s play just fine on the new DRM lockdown computers.

      What will happen is that Joe and Jane Sixpack find that they can't play the NEW DVDs and NEW CDs on their OLD PeeCee. Joe and Jane Sixpack will take little Tyffani and Tyler through the McDonalds drive through and get a pair of McHappymeals. And in the pair of McHappyMeals will be a pair of FREE CDs! One CD will be free Britteny Spears Trusted music and the other one will be a Trusted Spongebob Squarepants game. When they get home they will find that the new trusted CDs DON'T WORK in their old obsolete Untrusted computer. Litte Tyffani will yell and scream that she can't play her Britteny Spears CD and ask what's wrong with their crappy old computer... that the CD works just fine on the shiny new computer at her friend's house. Little Tyler will yell and scream that his Spongebob Square pants game doesn't work on their crappy old broken computer... that it works just fine on the shiny new computer at his friend's house. The kids will be whine city: What's wrong with our compyuooooter? Why doesn't it work on our compyuooooter? Why do we have such an old crappy compyuooooter? We need a new compyuooooter!

      Joe and Jane Sixpack will go out and buy a new Trusted Enhanced computer just to get the bloody FREE CDs to work and shut the brats up.

      Mark my words, there will be all sorts of free crap givaways that only work on the new Trusted Enhanced computers.

      Old stuff works on the new computers. New stuff does NOT work on the old computers. If you do not but a Trusted compliant DRM lockdown computer then you're screwed and none of the new stuff works. You get locked out of everything new.

      as long as they have to support legacy data, they can't totally lock down the system

      Wrong. They *DO* support legacy data. It is all of the NEW data that gets totally locked down. It is all of the NEW software that gets totally locked down, but it can still real old unlocked data. It's the NEW websites that will be totally locked down, unviewable unless you have a Trusted Browser. A Trusted webbrowser can see all of the websites, it is normal old webbrowsers that get locked out of the new websites.

      Yes, at first very few websites will be willing to lockout everyone with a nonTrusted browser, but there are MANY reasons for them to do so and the number of such sites will only increase as more of the public is handed Trusted compliant machines. One of the primary reasons for websites to do this is to lock out anyone from using pop-up blockers or ad-blocke

      • You have it backwards. Old stuff always works on the new computers.

        While I agree that the GP was over-optimistic about the immediate public reaction, it might be worth clarifying that your description applies only at the initial stage of the TC rollout. The initial stage could be accurately termed the "Embrace" stage, because, in effect, legacy music, video, and document standards have to be re-embraced by the new system so as to convince people to move to the new platform. Once enough people have move

  • This effort to put hardware in front of the OS to protect the OS is mostly because Microsoft won't fix their OS to limit its crackability.

    There are some cases where you absolutely must have physical security, but for the most part, this whole thing is about forcing new hardware changes, new upgrades, new $$ for Microsoft, and new restrictions on what users can do on Windows.

    They, Microsoft, also get to restrict what OS/filesystem gets installed on the system too. So while the number of GNU/Linux users is st
    • They, Microsoft, also get to restrict what OS/filesystem gets installed on the system too. So while the number of GNU/Linux users is still ONLY in the 10-20 Million, their voices need to be pretty loud on this one. IMO.

      That MS may restrict what can be run under their OS might be problematic enough, though possibly within their rights. Just look at their X-box. Of course, what will happen is that the developers will start using and advocating other platforms to an even larger degree.

      And we can expect th

  • Mac (Score:3, Informative)

    by Mr_Silver ( 213637 ) on Thursday September 01, 2005 @11:23AM (#13455287)
    The same system that ensures that all the patches you download are legitimate might also prevent you from, well, doing pretty much anything

    Which is why I'm looking forward to getting a Intel based Mac which can happily dual boot XP and OSX until a certain point when I'm fine with formatting the XP bit entirely off.

    (assuming, of course, that Apple doesn't go into this too, in which case I'm stuffed)

    • Hell man, why dual-boot when Virtual PC can run it in OSX. You'll pay the same. Also, I agree that Apple is the direction to go. You could stick it out with Linux or XP and boycott Vista all together but it will be difficult on new purchases. I don't think Apple is not going to jump on this ship just yet. Curiously, Apple is not a member of the Trusted Computing Group. I wouldn't imagine Apple would implement this technology wholeheartedly without being in the loop from the onset. The may wait a few years a
    • how ironic that you can install xp on a mac but cannot install osx on a pc...

      and how does that help you if ms were to introduce "protection" preventing you from lawfully using your purchased copy of windows?

      people are sheep... but what excuse do geeks/nerds have?

  • Response to "Dupe!!!one111" posts (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Red Flayer ( 890720 ) on Thursday September 01, 2005 @11:31AM (#13455364) Journal
    I'm going to apologize in advance for this slightly off-topic metapost, but here goes:

    Look, I understand that you don't want to waste your time reading something you already have formulated an opinion about, and that you might have some knowledge about.

    But just because there has been one article published about a certain topic, does not mean that there is not valuable information and/or insight in another article covering the same topic.

    You don't want to spend the time to review a related story? Fine, then don't.

    But don't waste your time posting "It's a dupe" posts or "Editor sucks" posts just because you read something similar yesterday -- then you're just compounding your own problems.

    Plus, you're wasting my time by posting duplicate posts to a duplicate article.

    Have nothing valuable to say about an article, dupe or not? Then don't say anything. Just move on.

    Knowledge of a subject is not a boolean variable. I, for one, welcome the opportunity to learn more about topics that interest me.

  • Features of Vista (Score:4, Funny)

    by SEWilco ( 27983 ) on Thursday September 01, 2005 @11:47AM (#13455524) Journal
    Vista allows you to:
    • Play Minesweeper.
    • Download trusted security updates for Minesweeper.
  • If a platform is closed to the user (for example, it uses secret private keys to decrypt entertainment multimedia content), it can't be extensible in any manner the user likes... and people like their computers to be extensible. Control should *always* remain with the owner unless voluntarily delegated.

    Now, that does not have to apply to specific-purpose devices, like TV sets, or set-top boxes, even though they might permit some degree of user estensibility (the downloading to authorized code-signed new f

  • Solution: Owner Override (Score:3, Informative)

    by CodeBuster ( 516420 ) on Thursday September 01, 2005 @12:11PM (#13455744)
    The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has posted numerous articles concerning the subject of DRM and trusted computing which carefully and thoroughly explain to the user the promises and potential problems with these technologies. There is one article in particular which suggests "Owner Override" as a solution to the problem of policies being enforced against the owner of the computer as if the owner was an adversary. The article is linked below:

    Trusted Computing: Promise and Risk [eff.org]
  • For all the noise made, nothing will happen. There is no content compelling enough to force a whole new generation of hardware. Mostly, people are happy with CDs & DVDs.

    Without this hardware changeover, the content sellers are stuck. They might make offerings only in some new format, but it will limit their market terribly. Their cost of sales lots to illicit copying is much smaller than the sales lost because customers don't have hardware.

  • It never ceases to amaze me how utterly offended ./'ers get when yet another story runs about DRM.

    1. Microsoft OS users don't -own- their operating system. They bought a license to USE it according to Microsoft's terms. Crying about it now because they are monetizing content just reflects indifference nearly everyone (including /.'ers) has towards their OS.

    2. All consumers, I'm guessing most /.'ers included, have been buying DVD's under the similar draconian conditions. It doesn't seem to bother anyone t
    • neither do apple users own osx.

      that they are expressly forbidden to install on any hardware they don't approve of (and have been doing it for years) just seemed to slip your mind.

      i'll overlook it this time.

      manufacturer: i'll sell you this hammer but only if you use it according to my wishes.

      sheep: sure thing, benevolent corporation.

Slashdot Top Deals

"jackpot: you may have an unneccessary change record" -- message from "diff"

Close