Is this true?

[insane_alien]

i was browsing around and came across this http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html

 

it basically says that if microsoft and intel and all that start using this software/hardware then they will have full access and control over you PC. if they don't like a file on your PC then they can just delete it. if they don't like what your putting out on the internet then they can cut you off and tell other computers to not open files made on your PC.

 

Wouldn't this be extremely illegal and an infringement of rights?

[Sayonara]

Apparently Richard Stallman has never heard of public relations.

[1veedo]

I think I know what you're talking about without even looking at the site. It's called like tcpa or something, and although the bills are there and technically could be abused by microsoft or whoever, I think everybody's turning it into a bigger deal than it actually is.

[YT2095]

well if it IS true, as worded in the op, then I can`t imagine them selling many units!

 

is there such a term as "Corporate Suicide" ?

[mooeypoo]

I have a serious flashback to "The Net"

 

I wonder - could our computers ALREADY have this in them? not much we could do to overcome this, if we do...

 

~moo

[insane_alien]

XP has parts of it in it already. and its apparently being marketed as a security program against viruses and spyware.

[mooeypoo]

Anything we could do to control or prevent this?

[insane_alien]

boycotting the software would be a good way to go about it.

[mooeypoo]

Can we be sure it only happens with WinXP? Is there a way to prevent it from happenning?

 

This is quite frustrating. In order to defend my computer, I need to use outside programs (like firewalls) that I can't be sure completely I can trust...

 

How.. utterly frustrating, and quite alarming.

 

~moo

[insane_alien]

There will be more of it in vista and the whole shebang will probably be bundled with the version after. it was supposed to be released with vista but the pulled it, although personally i'm not trusting them at all about that. the ironic thing is that they are calling this 'trusted computing'

[kaos]

I can't believe these people. Corporations have no respect for their customers. Clearly all they care about is money and power. The power to have complete control over every computer running their software. Pathetic. Guess I won't be using Vista.

[insane_alien]

i'm just not gonna put my copy of windows online anymore.

[1veedo]

They can do this without "Corporate Suicide" for two reasons.

 

1) Most people don't know about it

2) They're a bunch of companies that together are practically unavoldable in computing. Even if you dont run Windows, some of your hardware was probably made by a company in the tcpa.

[Sayonara]

1) Most people don't know about it

How long do you think that will last?

 

2) They're a bunch of companies that together are practically unavoldable in computing. Even if you dont run Windows, some of your hardware was probably made by a company in the tcpa.

At the moment, maybe.

 

If this worst case scenario does emerge, it can't avoid encouraging tcpa-free competition.

[CanadaAotS]

First of all, I'll never use windows vista if I can help it... (of course I said that about windows xp... lol). And if they start bringing in more of this software with updates, it will eventually become more noticeable, thus more of an outcry to such a blatant abuse of privacy. I think this should be against the law actually...

 

I think they were planning on installing a similar chip into the HD-DVD players, that would give Sony access to it or something vague like that lol. I cant remember exactly, anyway once people found out about it, that "feature" of the players was immediately scrapped.

[Klaynos]

First of all' date=' I'll never use windows vista if I can help it... (of course I said that about windows xp... lol). And if they start bringing in more of this software with updates, it will eventually become more noticeable, thus more of an outcry to such a blatant abuse of privacy. I think this should be against the law actually...

 

I think they were planning on installing a similar chip into the HD-DVD players, that would give Sony access to it or something vague like that lol. I cant remember exactly, anyway once people found out about it, that "feature" of the players was immediately scrapped.[/quote']

 

win XP compared to win Vista in terms of things like this and DRM is scary, vista is FAR FAR worst...

 

As for the Sony HD-DVD thing, Sony don't make HD-DVD players and are infact one of the main contributers to the competition to HD-DVD, so do you mean the HD-DVD coallition is doing this or Sony is doing it with Blu-Ray, or are they both doing it?

 

And I shall never install Vista on one of my machines out of principle due to things like this :'( Shame avoiding the hardware isn't as easy, but I shall try...

[insane_alien]

i read something else about blu-ray or hd-dvd disks that the current ones wouldn't be allowed to read any movies produced in the future in the format. (the link is lost to the bin) as far as i can tell its because the ones today are lacking a capability to support DRM as they want to implement it in the future.

[Ndi]

DRM enforcement is virtually impossible to achieve in real life.

 

These attempts are as old as recording itself. VHS had out-of-sync lines that were invisible to a TV but would keep a recorder form correctly dubbing a VHS. A filter was devised that could rule that out.

 

All other media had, at some point, some kind of protection. But you can't keep anyone out. After all, a movie can be camcoded off a screen. A plan was devised to invent the DRM monitor. The monitor would blur the image if the signature of the media wasn't correct. The dvd drive would not read the dvd if it would be non-signed and so on. What did they get? Everyone needed to buy a new computer. Then a new DVD/CD/whatever. Let's face it. You can't stop digital data from being copied.

 

DRM is, as is in newer phones, doomed to fail at any challange beyond the average user. Now phones don't allow sending of "possible" copyrighted data, such as sounds. What did that get them? Tons of tech support calls that complained about not being able to share something with other people. If the technology is restricting, nobody will buy it. Another maker will manufacture and sell devices. What is the point in playing 800Eur for a device that shoots photos, records and plays music, makes movies if you can't share with anyone?

 

There is no way to keep things secret. All these conspiracy theories make me sigh every time. People. Windows might be closed source, but that doesn't make it a mistery. Your favourite cracked program is not only closed source, but highly protected against attacks. Can you name one software product that is in use for more than 1000 users that does not have a crack? How do you think these things are done if nobody can peek into it?

 

There is no such thing as hidden, no such thing as "closed". Whatever Windows will ever pop up will be a Kit and that kit can be expanded and decompiled. Whatever protection a computer may offer, it still has to allow data to be read. And data will be read and understood. The best anyone can do is make it harder. At a last resort, the OS will be ran in a virtual machine where every bit it moves will be logged and interpreted. Or debugged from outside.

 

99% of the time I hear Windows is secretly giving away information it's some Unix/Linux user bent on world domination. 99% of the time copyright is in question, some panic installs, everyone forgetting this is attempt nr 5001.

 

The page you asked for makes some valid claims, but guides the reader to a different, aimed outcome. Let's tackle a few:

 

"downloaded videos and music can be played only on one specified computer"

Yes, so the owner of that copy can intercept the stream like any other filter does and "rip" it onto a non-DRM format. Like AVI. Just like all other videos on the share today. If it plays, then it can be recorded. You can't record with their software. Well you can't save a PDF using Acrobat reader either. Point? Games have a serial on the cover. They can only be played with the CD in the drive. Haha. Please.

 

"Imagine if you get an email from your boss telling you to do something that you think is risky; a month later, when it backfires, you can't use the email to show that the decision was not yours. "Getting it in writing" doesn't protect you when the order is written in disappearing ink."

 

"Ink" doesn't dissapear from a burned CD. And if you don't have a backup, things dissapear as we speak. No change here. It's up to the IT guy to back ebery thing up and keep track of everything. And if he does what the boss said, well, let's just say I can't tell the difference from that scenario and today's real life. Or last year's.

 

"If Word encrypts documents using treacherous computing when saving them" then losing the key would lock you out of your property and the pile of claims would bury Microsoft within weeks. You can change format to keep ahead of free processors, but not encrypt. Also, encryption is useless since any other Word must decrypt. It's just silly. If you can encrypt and decrypt then it's just another file format. Also, I thought DOC files already had passwords. It's enforced at word-processor level. Point?

 

"Programs that use treacherous computing will continually download new authorization rules through the Internet, and impose those rules automatically on your work"

 

That would require the planet to be online. That would also require getting through a firewall someone set up, which is also impossible. And last but not least, all conspiracies aside, any non-MS router/firewall/computer/whatever would immeditely see the packets being sent and withing 24 hours half a planet would block them. Also, trust computing doesn't work that way. Those rules have local interpreters and those are responsible for enforcing them, not some site.

 

Look, the whole planet is devising new antivirus software, new updates, live definitions, you name it. It's global war and they still the plague is upon us. And this is The Planet versus a few coders that are bored. Now add the fact that when applied to MS, some users buy viruses and their business depended on them. How do you fight that?

 

"Treacherous computing puts the existence of free operating systems and free applications at risk"

 

Let me get this straight. So an Intel computer would refuse to boot unless you install Vista? Since the older models need to run older OSs, it's only fair to assume that this applies to new CPUs and new OSs. That being said, let us imagine that this happens. And take a step back. Forget your screen, look at all the screens.

 

Google runs special distribution Linux. Boeing (last time I checked) was using NT. Heck, just about any decent organisation, company, EVERYONE runs either an older Windows or Unix or something close. So what is being suggested is that MS and Intel decided that they no longer need customers since replacing the whole Boeing infrastructure is not a simple 1-day expense. Most major businesses out there grew their IT in time and can't simply shift. They will not shift. What then? Best idea in the world and nobody will buy it.

 

But I'm stretcing. Let me make it simpler. "Free operating systems could not be installed" they say. So many customers run free software that banning it would throw income into the darkest periods Intel ever had. I'm a Windows guy myself, but I am perfectly aware that as a server Linux is just as good if not better at half the resources. The design, from the core up, has been in that direction. You can't benchmark a no-feedback core with something that is promptly reset when the mouse doesn't move for over 2 seconds. Most servers will no upgrade. Most ISPs will ignore or switch. Besides, it's not going to be long before someone modifies a free OS so it will lie it's Windows.

 

I could go on for hours but somehow I think SFN could put the bandwidth to better use.

 

Bottom line is: I believe that 90% of that page is either inaccurate or pushed conclusions. At the very best I consider it to be a worst case scenario. At the VERY best.

 

I mean come on people. Does anyone truely believe that Hollywood, large as they may be, can convince anyone to buy a new optical media player, a new board, a new CPU, a new OS and a new monitor just to watch <insert your movie release here>?

 

Does anyone believe that MS doesn't know that <x>'s copy is illegal? Believe me, they do. It's not that hard. XP needs activation. But people who use Windows will get used to Windows. Will keep it, will configure it, will save their documents as DOC and their music as WMA and they will, maybe, in time, buy a copy. Sue them, what do you get? Nada. Wait, I forgot. You do get something. A big drop in market share as everyone flees.

 

I, for one, run Windows on an Intel platform. I *will* switch manufacturer, provider, author of software, whatever, before I buy a monitor that decides what I can watch and what I can't. I trust most of you do. It's fair to assume most of everyone will. And if blue-ray implements enforced formats for players and computers and differentiates them then their place is assured in the hall near the 8-track player.

[1veedo]

Lol "I'm a Windows guy myself," no offense but I could tell long before you said that.

At the very best I consider it to be a worst case scenario.

That's what I said earlier but the tcpa could become a big nuisance even if it's smaller things.

 

The problem is that companies see technology changing and instead of adapting to it they want to be able to control it.

 

A good example of this is how the RIAA reacted to sharing music over IRC and latter p2p. in the United States, monopolies have certain power over the government. If they go whining about something they can get bills passed specifically for their corporation. The RIAA got a nasty bill called H.R. 5211 which basically allows them to hack any computer they feel might have a digital form of their intellectual property.

 

They havn't used this power yet, but it's there. All these pieces of legislation are in place. It's just a matter of time before they start getting abused.

 

The problem isn't so much computers as it is our poor excuse for a government. Americans are really the only people who have to fear the tcpa.

 

It's illegal to put a CD your bought in your computer and listen to it.

It's illegal to convert your CDs to mp3.

It's illegal to back up CDs or DVDs. You break it, you have to buy another one.

It's illegal to watch CSS encoded DVDs.

 

You can descrambe CSS with Xine but there's a nice little notice on their website, "The xine developers do not support CSS descrambling. The use of this software for watching your legally purchased DVDs may be illegal in your country."

 

The United States is one of the only countries where this is a crime. I'm always glad when I hear that the European Union isn't giving in to Microsoft's demands. In Europe, Microsoft and the RIAA have to play fair.

 

People want to be able to fairly use and digitalized their media. But companies apparently dont want to listen to their customers. It'll eventually piss enough people off that they'll have to change what they're doing.

 

I ask you: What's so wrong with playing a DVD in your computer?

[Sayonara]

The United States is one of the only countries where this is a crime. I'm always glad when I hear that the European Union isn't giving in to Microsoft's demands. In Europe, Microsoft and the RIAA have to play fair.

More to the point, the RIAA have no jurisdiction in Europe whatsoever.

[1veedo]

Heh lol recording industry of america. Should've known.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

"Treacherous computing puts the existence of free operating systems and free applications at risk"

 

Let me get this straight. So an Intel computer would refuse to boot unless you install Vista? Since the older models need to run older OSs' date=' it's only fair to assume that this applies to new CPUs and new OSs. That being said, let us imagine that this happens. And take a step back. Forget your screen, look at all the screens.

 

Google runs special distribution Linux. Boeing (last time I checked) was using NT. Heck, just about any decent organisation, company, EVERYONE runs either an older Windows or Unix or something close. So what is being suggested is that MS and Intel decided that they no longer need customers since replacing the whole Boeing infrastructure is not a simple 1-day expense. Most major businesses out there grew their IT in time and can't simply shift. They [i']will not[/i] shift. What then? Best idea in the world and nobody will buy it.

 

But I'm stretcing. Let me make it simpler. "Free operating systems could not be installed" they say. So many customers run free software that banning it would throw income into the darkest periods Intel ever had. I'm a Windows guy myself, but I am perfectly aware that as a server Linux is just as good if not better at half the resources. The design, from the core up, has been in that direction. You can't benchmark a no-feedback core with something that is promptly reset when the mouse doesn't move for over 2 seconds. Most servers will no upgrade. Most ISPs will ignore or switch. Besides, it's not going to be long before someone modifies a free OS so it will lie it's Windows.

You could have just said "anti-trust" and saved yourself the time.

[5614]

Yes Vista will be a lot worst.

 

I've always had a legal OS, and probably always will, so I have nothing to hide in that respect.

 

However I will not instal Vista because it's so stupid. All the "extras" and "security" and crap. I might have to dual boot so I can play Halo 2 on it, but you gotta be joking if you think I'm gonna pay $$$ for an OS just to play a game. Either I have to crack Halo 2 to play on XP (or some Linux) or, well, I might have to enter the world of illegal-OSs. I could not play that game, but I like Halo (the original) very much.

[Sayonara]

Heh lol recording industry of america. Should've known.

Europe? Is that in Wyoming?

[Ndi]

You could have just said "anti-trust" and saved yourself the time.

 

Anti-trust suggests a law, a legal measure against something that will work. My point was focused on market dynamics, that is, my guess is this will not work to begin with.

 

Auto-updating your already-working computer to reject -say- AMD is illegal, however offering an OS that only runs on a certain machine isn't.

 

I ask you: What's so wrong with playing a DVD in your computer?

 

The problem is that record industry never faced such a challange before. In the world of analogue copying, each copy would have been irreversably damaged by loss of definition. Especially true with video, the first copy off a legal video was damagend enough for a trained person to tell it's a copy. By the third copy, artifacts appeared so you could no longer enjoy the full quality, nor rent or sell it.

 

The duplication absorbed itself out. If you bought one, you had to make copies in order to rent it. Those who rent it and got them self a copy already had a blocky, pixelated copy. One you could hardly rent. So out of 10 people who had copy, at least 1-2 needed an original. Plus those that liked the movie and wanted a hi-q copy. 2-4? Say 30% for the sake of argument. Just charge 30$ for a 2$ VHS tape and you cover the rest.

 

With digital media, that problem is solved. One copy shared and within 3-4 days the whole planet saw the movie. Full quality. Give to your friends. Have a few copies. Heck, it's <1$. Out of 10 people, there is quite a high chance you have zero originals.

 

You see the problem. Even in theaters people could record one. There is a real chance that without legal measures to deter this practice you could end up with 300 people with camcoders showing up at the premiere. How to recoop millions invested in filming?

 

I never said it's not fair. I just said it will not work. True, make it enough of a nuissance and you up on that 0%. Not by much, but not 0. The only effect I see in this implementation is a general increase in costs for the consumer.