Microsoft's copyright play and the Trusted Computing Group
Summary: Bruce Schneier wrote this piece "Is Microsoft skirting the issue?" but maybe he should have titled it "I hate hardware TPMs because they enable copy protection".
Bruce Schneier wrote this piece "Is Microsoft skirting the issue?" but maybe he should have titled it "I hate hardware TPMs because they enable copy protection". It's not that I necessarily disagree with Bruce over the issue that the new copy protection features in Windows Vista are a little scary, I just wish he'd be a little more up front and say that rather than skirt around the issue by beating up on the TPM.
As I read Bruce's article, I thought it was a bit strange to hear a security guy rail against a hardware cryptographic module since the NIST gives these hardware modules the highest rating in authentication security. Bruce vehemently objects to the obstruction of a software-only based implementation of the TCG, but the whole point of a trusted platform is that it can't be modified in software form because of the inclusion of a hardware module. The reality is that the same hardware cryptographic module that enables strong cryptography for strong security can also be used by the movie and music industry to limit our ability to copy music. While it's true that the entertainment industry can be overzealous in their copy protection tactics and step on consumer rights, that is a different argument than the security value of a hardware module. If Bruce wants to rail against something, rail against the entertainment industry rather than an inanimate piece of hardware that has real value in strong security. The fact that the entertainment industry might abuse the security hardware is a whole different topic.
There is even some talk that Microsoft can use the hardware to block the third world from using pirated copies of Windows, but I really doubt that because Microsoft will be pushing the developing countries towards Linux and Open Office. Bill Gates himself has even stated that he understands why someone in China who makes $100 a month isn't going to buy a copy of Windows or Office and those things will be different when their economies and wages rise. Microsoft wants to be friendly to the Entertainment industry so that they will produce content for the PC in the first place. Consumers want the freedom and flexibility to use their paid content without any hassles and they will ultimately revolt if the entertainment industry or Microsoft goes overboard. It's all just a matter of finding the right balance between the rights of the content producers and the consumers and it will all work itself out in the end.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
Trusted computing?
ZDNET's Monkey Business
George thinks he is an expert in security and challenges Phil Zimmermann and other experts. Talk about ego!
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=86
He fails to realize that Journalists have to abide with Ethics but George Ou is above that.
http://www.spj.org/ethics_code.asp
What "agreement" might that be?
ZDNET's Monkey Business
Microsoft's dirty practices are known but not completely exposed. There are numerous factual reports with proof about those practices and ethics. I'm sure you can google around or check out groklaw.net (many exposed connections to journalists).
It doesn't take rocket science to figure out your motives.
ZDNET also has a history of complaints because they don't want to upset their paying sponsors (Microsoft).
If you think that the reads are blind or stupid, your wrong again.
John Carroll is not as corrupt as you are but at least he disclosed his connection with Microsoft:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/carroll/?p=1412
Nevertheless, he should stay in his expertise and not pretend to be an expert on other systems.
Follow the journalists Ethics code and report about subjects that are within your expertise.
http://www.spj.org/ethics_code.asp
Lots of different points of view here
yes, points of view, not monkey business
What? you're gonna convince us readers that you do it for the *love* of Microsoft? ;)
You must really think *all* readers are suckers and will beleive anything you write.
I like to use what works
I like Windows 2003 for servers
I like Linux for servers
I like FreeBSD for servers
I like Asterisk for PBX
I like M0N0Wall for BYO firewalls
I like IPCop for BYO firewalls
I like VxWorks for Realtime OS
I like MSSQL when I can pay for the license
I like MySQL when I can't pay for the license
I like IIS 6.0
I like Apache for some things
I like Cisco for Switches, Routers, Firewalls, Access Points.
I like Microsoft Exchange 2003
I'm starting to like Scalix as an Exchange alternative
That's just some of the things I like. So there is my agenda, I love technology.
Gawd, you really are pathetic.
Balance
something away from consumers, you must make your offering
somehow more attractive than what they have now if you expect
them to buy it. Right now, all we're getting from MS and the
MPAA/RIAA are limitations. Why would anyone "upgrade" to a
new OS that lets them do less than their current OS?
You can look at this from a moral perspective or a business
perspective. Moral--we should all be fair and willing to
compromise, but one side, the content owners, are not willing to
budge in the slightest. Business--shoving restrictions down the
consumer's throat is not a good way to market a new product.
Too early to tell
Not too early to see that this is a loser
game for consumers. Yes, it is too early to know how things will
eventually shake out in this battle (although given the RIAA/
MPAA's current stance, they seem intent on destroying their own
industry before making any sort of compromise). But one can
objectively view this set of proposed restrictions and realize they
won't fly.
I'll say it again--you're asking people to spend money, so you
have to make it worth their while. Why would anyone buy a new
product that does less than what they already own?
Because it's more secure. This is
All this talk about DRM ignores the fact that spyware, viruses, ID theft, etc are rampant and a major pain and people need help with it. Software alone has NOT been able to do it.
Isn't that what they said last time?
you willing to spend thousands of dollars on a new system and a
new monitor in hope that those promises will be met?
Except it isn't.
And DRM doesn't change that one bit [1]. Nice try, thanks for playing.
[i]Software alone has NOT been able to do it.[/i]
Software has for quite a while. What you should have written was, "Microsoft alone has NOT been able to do it."
[1] Well, technically that's not true. By providing a means for software to take control of the machine beyond control of the user, it offers some stellar opportunities for spyware etc.
DRM will exist with or without the TPM
Why do you ignore the answers I give you?
Now you may not like it personally and I suggest you don't buy it, but do not pretend that your views are shared by the masses that spend BILLIONS every year on pure entertainment.
Because you haven't given me any answers that make sense
Once morte, people WANT content and will pay for it, it's just
that simple.---
I agree, people want content and will pay for it. That does not
answer my question. What will this system offer those people
that is not already available? What new things are being offered
here that is worth spending thousands of dollars just to have the
ability to spend more money to purchase content? What is
significantly better than what we already have? So far all you've
offered is that those lucky enough to have broadband will be
able to download a movie rather than going to the video store or
the mailbox. That's not worth thousands of dollars to me, or to
any rational consumer, especially since the downloaded movie
will be extremely limited compared to the currently available
DVD.
---Now you may not like it personally and I suggest you don't
buy it, but do not pretend that your views are shared by the
masses that spend BILLIONS every year on pure
entertainment.---
I am one of those masses. I spend lots of money on
entertainment every year, and in some ways, I'm a gadget freak
and an early adopter. Yet this product has no appeal to me. If it
doesn't appeal to the technophiles, why would the average Joe
want such an expensive product that does less than what he
already owns?
No, they make no sense to you because that's what you want.
Re: No, they make no sense to you because that's what you want.
We're living in a sea of content. We can't consume it all. How is "people want content" a selling point? That's what tic wants to know.
Vista isn't bringing more content, or more compelling content, and the studios still will address the lowest common denominator, look for the blockbuster, etc.
Maybe, as someone said, he'll finally get his All Yarn Channel.
Big deal.
:)
They make no sense because there is no substance
you--what is the great advantage offered here that makes it worth
thousands of dollars to the average consumer? You have no
answer other than downloading movies, do you?
Answer the question, stop evading, or just admit you don't know.