"Trusted Computing"

[xpyrate]

Who should your computer take its orders from? Most people think their computers should obey them, not obey someone else. With a plan they call "trusted computing", large media corporations (including the movie companies and record companies), together with computer companies such as Microsoft and Intel, are planning to make your computer obey them instead of you. (Microsoft's version of this scheme is called "Palladium".) Proprietary programs have included malicious features before, but this plan would make it universal.

Proprietary software means, fundamentally, that you don't control what it does; you can't study the source code, or change it. It's not surprising that clever businessmen find ways to use their control to put you at a disadvantage. Microsoft has done this several times: one version of Windows was designed to report to Microsoft all the software on your hard disk; a recent "security" upgrade in Windows Media Player required users to agree to new restrictions. But Microsoft is not alone: the KaZaa music-sharing software is designed so that KaZaa's business partner can rent out the use of your computer to their clients. These malicious features are often secret, but even once you know about them it is hard to remove them, since you don't have the source code.

In the past, these were isolated incidents. "Trusted computing" would make it pervasive. "Treacherous computing" is a more appropriate name, because the plan is designed to make sure your computer will systematically disobey you. In fact, it is designed to stop your computer from functioning as a general-purpose computer. Every operation may require explicit permission.

The technical idea underlying treacherous computing is that the computer includes a digital encryption and signature device, and the keys are kept secret from you. Proprietary programs will use this device to control which other programs you can run, which documents or data you can access, and what programs you can pass them to. These programs will continually download new authorization rules through the Internet, and impose those rules automatically on your work. If you don't allow your computer to obtain the new rules periodically from the Internet, some capabilities will automatically cease to function.

Of course, Hollywood and the record companies plan to use treacherous computing for "DRM" (Digital Restrictions Management), so that downloaded videos and music can be played only on one specified computer. Sharing will be entirely impossible, at least using the authorized files that you would get from those companies. You, the public, ought to have both the freedom and the ability to share these things. (I expect that someone will find a way to produce unencrypted versions, and to upload and share them, so DRM will not entirely succeed, but that is no excuse for the system.)

Making sharing impossible is bad enough, but it gets worse. There are plans to use the same facility for email and documents--resulting in email that disappears in two weeks, or documents that can only be read on the computers in one company.

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.

Imagine if you get an email from your boss stating a policy that is illegal or morally outrageous, such as to shred your company's audit documents, or to allow a dangerous threat to your country to move forward unchecked. Today you can send this to a reporter and expose the activity. With treacherous computing, the reporter won't be able to read the document; her computer will refuse to obey her. Treacherous computing becomes a paradise for corruption.

Word processors such as Microsoft Word could use treacherous computing when they save your documents, to make sure no competing word processors can read them. Today we must figure out the secrets of Word format by laborious experiments in order to make free word processors read Word documents. If Word encrypts documents using treacherous computing when saving them, the free software community won't have a chance of developing software to read them--and if we could, such programs might even be forbidden by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Programs that use treacherous computing will continually download new authorization rules through the Internet, and impose those rules automatically on your work. If Microsoft, or the US government, does not like what you said in a document you wrote, they could post new instructions telling all computers to refuse to let anyone read that document. Each computer would obey when it downloads the new instructions. Your writing would be subject to 1984-style retroactive erasure. You might be unable to read it yourself.

You might think you can find out what nasty things a treacherous computing application does, study how painful they are, and decide whether to accept them. It would be short-sighted and foolish to accept, but the point is that the deal you think you are making won't stand still. Once you come depend on using the program, you are hooked and they know it; then they can change the deal. Some applications will automatically download upgrades that will do something different--and they won't give you a choice about whether to upgrade.

Today you can avoid being restricted by proprietary software by not using it. If you run GNU/Linux or another free operating system, and if you avoid installing proprietary applications on it, then you are in charge of what your computer does. If a free program has a malicious feature, other developers in the community will take it out, and you can use the corrected version. You can also run free application programs and tools on non-free operating systems; this falls short of fully giving you freedom, but many users do it.

Treacherous computing puts the existence of free operating systems and free applications at risk, because you may not be able to run them at all. Some versions of treacherous computing would require the operating system to be specifically authorized by a particular company. Free operating systems could not be installed. Some versions of treacherous computing would require every program to be specifically authorized by the operating system developer. You could not run free applications on such a system. If you did figure out how, and told someone, that could be a crime.

There are proposals already for US laws that would require all computers to support treacherous computing, and to prohibit connecting old computers to the Internet. The CBDTPA (we call it the Consume But Don't Try Programming Act) is one of them. But even if they don't legally force you to switch to treacherous computing, the pressure to accept it may be enormous. Today people often use Word format for communication, although this causes several sorts of problems (see "We Can Put an End to Word Attachments"). If only a treacherous computing machine can read the latest Word documents, many people will switch to it, if they view the situation only in terms of individual action (take it or leave it). To oppose treacherous computing, we must join together and confront the situation as a collective choice.

For further information about treacherous computing, see http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/rja14/tcpa-faq.html

To block treacherous computing will require large numbers of citizens to organize. We need your help! The Electronic Frontier Foundation and Public Knowledge are campaigning against treacherous computing, and so is the FSF-sponsored Digital Speech Project. Please visit these Web sites so you can sign up to support their work.

You can also help by writing to the public affairs offices of Intel, IBM, HP/Compaq, or anyone you have bought a computer from, explaining that you don't want to be pressured to buy "trusted" computing systems so you don't want them to produce any. This can bring consumer power to bear. If you do this on your own, please send copies of your letters to the organizations above.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html

i think for once that everyone here could agree that this is total BS

[xpyrate]

ok ... im not sure if you people understand what this is ... or you're severely upset ... so .. ill explain to the best of my ability ...

trusted computing is a group of corporations consisting of microsoft, intel, AMD, and other software and hardware manufacturers ... together with the RIAA they are developing a chip called the "fritz" chip ... which essentially monitors your system for mp3s emails word documents, etc that it deems you are not authorized to view, play, use , etc ... there are many angles to which they are going at this whole "policeware" deal .. there is an act being made in congress called the "Induce Act" which will force EVERYONE to upgrade their computer to contain this "fritz" chip .. so if this act is passed in a year or two you will no longer be able to surf the internet without buying a new computer which contains the "fritz" chip

even if you do not have mp3s or partake in any file sharing at all ... you will still be affected because emails will have a life of 2 weeks then will be deleted by the fritz chip ... not only that if you use microsoft word each document will be encrypted and the gov't can monitor what you write ... this will have more affect on professional journalists but they could in effect delete your microsoft word files if they dont like what you wrote

sucks dont it?

there is more than just that ... you will have to read the entire article and the links to fully know what it does but i can't concievably understand how anyone in their right mind or wrong mind for that matter be OK with this

i would really like to organize or partake in a boycott of this rediculousness ,,, but it only takes the ignorance and apathy of a few to mess something like that up

[chinelas]

thanx for the heads up.

[chinelas]

hope you dont mind but im going to copy this onto other messageboards and also, why sint the aclu doing something about this , cuz this sounds like something up their ally.

[xpyrate]

go ahead ... by all means spread it as far as you can

[italia23]

hope you dont mind but im going to copy this onto other messageboards and also, why sint the aclu doing something about this , cuz this sounds like something up their ally.

b/c the ACLU is too busy with their other nonsense.

[shortkat5]

it sounds like big brother in full fuckin effect...........

[xpyrate]

im not sure id consider this nonsense

[chinelas]

thinking about it in its fullest effect make this issue far from being non sense by any means...

and if this does happen, soon im sure they will try and tell me who i can date or what i can say...

oh wait a second.......

[xpyrate]

thinking about it in its fullest effect make this issue far from being non sense by any means...

and if this does happen, soon im sure they will try and tell me who i can date or what i can say...

oh wait a second.......

i know thinking about it ... it seems far worse than the patriot act ... i mean *ahem* the patriot act is a wonderful thing I luv big brother

[anotherway83]

yeah, this shit is scary, but i didn't know it was THIS fucked up! thanks for the heads up....im majoring in CS and Math, getting my degree in abt a yr. and a half so maybe i'll come up with something to work around it

[chinelas]

as i read it again...egads. this must be stopped.

[phuturephunk]

I don't usually post on this forum, but I've had some strong opinions on DRM and Microsoft's Palladium initiative for quite some time. If you really want some insight into it, go search slashdot for some of the articles they've posted on the subject. Yeah, you'll have to filter out some of the more tin foil hat posts, but overall some very smart people have said some pretty effed up stuff about this kind of thing...

MS's ultimate goal (in a perfect world) is to have Intel actually on-load the DRM technology onto the processor level. That means, sitting right next to the actual mutant calculator you call the CPU will be another chip, that cannot be turned off, that will communicate with a central authority every time you attempt to use the computer. It can even go as far as to not let you use the box period, like turn on and boot up at all if they detect anything fishy about your system. THAT's the final result of MS's effort if they get their way.

It is the final transformation of the computer into nothing more than a dumb appliance. Computers are supposed to be tools that can carry the users imagination, wants and needs to completion, NOT a recepticle to blindly force the user push marketing crapola and tightly controlled content when the 'trusted 3rd party' thinks its time to do so. Then again, in today's world where billions upon billions are bet on a single product, bottom line Adam Smith style capitalism demands that you have that kind of tight control so that your bets on the market will hit more often. It does raise the bottom line regarding the amount of crap they can sell you, but what's the calculated loss of the removal of the computer's ability to help the process of innovation for a user?

Sad thing is, people really don't understand exactly how profound this transformation will be in the end. Most people don't understand how the box in front of them works, and thats OK, but the scarier thing is the fact that they have no idea what the possibilities are inherant in that same box..and thats what we'd be losing. You may not be a geek, but realize that having control over the tool sitting in front of you..and it IS a tool, not an appliance...is the essence of what created the computer in the first place..

..2006 will tell all...because thats when Longhorn hits the market..

[xpyrate]

well said phuturephunk

... i read in another forum that europe plays a big role(or at least i hope a big one) in this because their laws are more strict as far as privacy goes and windows media player already infringes on some european privacy laws .. so if europe doesn't want longhorn(which undoubtedly will infringe on those same laws or maybe more of them), that's a rather big chunk of money ol' gates is gonna lose out on, that is if europe decides to switch to a different operating system ... as would make sense if lynux was to go 64-bit, and europe does use alot of different standards but im just being optomistic here, so yea in the end only time will tell

i for one wont be upgrading until i know for sure this stuff has no part in longhorn

[chinelas]

man this so sucks for so many reasons to even worry about non sense like this and the possibilty of its existance . maybe you guys, xpyrate and phuturephunk can write everything so that even the not so smart can understand what you guys are writing about and why it sucks so much?? please ? thanx.

[xpyrate]

ok ... chinelas ... this will only be a "feature" for 64-bit windows if it even happens at all ... it's not time to freak out just yet ... that article is pretty much a worst case senario

[chinelas]

lol i like to worry