Trusted Computing / Digital Restrictions Management debate
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 11:23 pm
* Moved from one thread to another by popular demand
quote:
Originally posted by Tormentius:
quote:
Originally posted by f00dl3:
Can you point me to the information (URLs), so I may read up on what you say is the actual truth to the matter?
Why don't you just think it through logically. Does it honestly make sense to you that the largest computer and software manufacturers in the world have some secret conspiracy to crush all freedom or does it seem a little more realistic that they want to extend security so that people keep buying their hardware and software? I mean, we aren't talking about just MS here: AMD, Intel, Microsoft, Sun, IBM, HP, and a ton of others are part of this.
If you want to research the technologies and vendors participating in the project you can get the information sans paranoid delusions here.
The problem with that URL is that it links to the site developing the Trusted Computing platform. One thing you don't realize is that, say, if I owned a business, I could say that it's the best in the world - yet rip everyone off and not mention it on my website. It's called marketing. Anyhow, enough of that.
On a Trusted Computing based operating system, the operating sytem and file system would likely be encrypted because of it being on the Trusted side of the encryption. If one were to introduce, say Fedora Core Linux to the picture, Fedora Core would have no access to the "Trusted" side of the machine (yes, some linux kernels already have a TPM compatibility - but there is great debate between the upcoming updating of the GNU public license and the possibility, as MSN reported a while back, that the Free Software Foundation may make a clause that states that any software developed off of the GNU licensed linux kernal must NOT use Digital Restrictions Management), and no access to the file system.
There has also been much talk about this at various Linux user groups - that possibly they could build the Trusted Computing into the BIOS so it would only let a known operating system load when booted up. This could cause Linux to be disfunctional.
Face it, we could argue this day in and day out.
Until the technology comes out on the market, we have now idea what implications the implementation will have on ordinary home users who just want to be able to rip MP3s off of their new Switchfoot CD so they can put it on their iPod or make MP3 CDs that they can play as many damn times as they want, because hey - they paid $19 for the freaking CD. Really folks, that is the true purpose of Digital Restrictions Management. It's not to help the consumer - it's to help the company make more money by any means possible.
We have no idea of what effect TC will have on their privacy while surfing online. No idea if Spyware companies will invest in Trusted Computing to provide spyware that uses DRM to disable users from uninstalling their marketing software.
We also have no idea what implications that the technology will have if someone discovers how to intercept streams of attensation information being transfered between the "victim" and "attacker". If it transmits product keys and hash / binary values in an encrypted format , and how easy it would be to run a packet sniffer to intercept packets intended for one machine. (Packet sniffers are legal, and a valuable network analysis tool, so hopefully they will still be able to run - although they may be able to utilize this Fritz chip so you can't run it on a home user's machine if we're lucky).
One thing is for sure, though. With this Trusted Computing platform, more and more sensitive information is going to be (nearly) constantly transmitted over the Internet. The more information that is being transmitted, the more open you are to having someone see that information, thus the more vulnerable you are to attacks.
I think you fail to realize how powerfull this technology is. Microsoft can't be trusted, as they have constantly been pushing their luck with the Anti-Trust lawsuit ever since Microsoft formed in the early 80s. Their whole operating system was a blatant ripoff of another companies (Seattle Computer Products' QDOS). Just a few days ago a fedral judge started looking at their practices again ( http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f212100/212195.htm )
. They have had to remove their Windows Media Player in Europe.
Can you realy put that much trust into a company that has a history of monopolistic practices? I don't think so.
But like I said, only time will tell.\
quote:
Originally posted by Tormentius:
quote:
Originally posted by f00dl3:
Can you point me to the information (URLs), so I may read up on what you say is the actual truth to the matter?
Why don't you just think it through logically. Does it honestly make sense to you that the largest computer and software manufacturers in the world have some secret conspiracy to crush all freedom or does it seem a little more realistic that they want to extend security so that people keep buying their hardware and software? I mean, we aren't talking about just MS here: AMD, Intel, Microsoft, Sun, IBM, HP, and a ton of others are part of this.
If you want to research the technologies and vendors participating in the project you can get the information sans paranoid delusions here.
The problem with that URL is that it links to the site developing the Trusted Computing platform. One thing you don't realize is that, say, if I owned a business, I could say that it's the best in the world - yet rip everyone off and not mention it on my website. It's called marketing. Anyhow, enough of that.
On a Trusted Computing based operating system, the operating sytem and file system would likely be encrypted because of it being on the Trusted side of the encryption. If one were to introduce, say Fedora Core Linux to the picture, Fedora Core would have no access to the "Trusted" side of the machine (yes, some linux kernels already have a TPM compatibility - but there is great debate between the upcoming updating of the GNU public license and the possibility, as MSN reported a while back, that the Free Software Foundation may make a clause that states that any software developed off of the GNU licensed linux kernal must NOT use Digital Restrictions Management), and no access to the file system.
There has also been much talk about this at various Linux user groups - that possibly they could build the Trusted Computing into the BIOS so it would only let a known operating system load when booted up. This could cause Linux to be disfunctional.
Face it, we could argue this day in and day out.
Until the technology comes out on the market, we have now idea what implications the implementation will have on ordinary home users who just want to be able to rip MP3s off of their new Switchfoot CD so they can put it on their iPod or make MP3 CDs that they can play as many damn times as they want, because hey - they paid $19 for the freaking CD. Really folks, that is the true purpose of Digital Restrictions Management. It's not to help the consumer - it's to help the company make more money by any means possible.
We have no idea of what effect TC will have on their privacy while surfing online. No idea if Spyware companies will invest in Trusted Computing to provide spyware that uses DRM to disable users from uninstalling their marketing software.
We also have no idea what implications that the technology will have if someone discovers how to intercept streams of attensation information being transfered between the "victim" and "attacker". If it transmits product keys and hash / binary values in an encrypted format , and how easy it would be to run a packet sniffer to intercept packets intended for one machine. (Packet sniffers are legal, and a valuable network analysis tool, so hopefully they will still be able to run - although they may be able to utilize this Fritz chip so you can't run it on a home user's machine if we're lucky).
One thing is for sure, though. With this Trusted Computing platform, more and more sensitive information is going to be (nearly) constantly transmitted over the Internet. The more information that is being transmitted, the more open you are to having someone see that information, thus the more vulnerable you are to attacks.
I think you fail to realize how powerfull this technology is. Microsoft can't be trusted, as they have constantly been pushing their luck with the Anti-Trust lawsuit ever since Microsoft formed in the early 80s. Their whole operating system was a blatant ripoff of another companies (Seattle Computer Products' QDOS). Just a few days ago a fedral judge started looking at their practices again ( http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f212100/212195.htm )
. They have had to remove their Windows Media Player in Europe.
Can you realy put that much trust into a company that has a history of monopolistic practices? I don't think so.
But like I said, only time will tell.\