Can anyone keep ownership of their computer after Vista?

[thestain]

http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~mdr/teaching/...ecurity/lectures/TrustedComputing.html

Just remember.. all those anti trust lawsuits against Microsoft have never really even slowed Microsoft down.. with the passage of laws by Congress that make it almost illegal to fight what Microsoft has planned beginning with President Bill giving Microsoft the keys to the digital kingdom, and now the Trusted Computing Platform Alliance headed by Microsoft.. which really dictates what is done in this alliance.. it is not a democracy.. is in the process of taking ownership of all the software and hardware you have previously purchased or ever will purchase, with no real options out there as... trusted computing is also in the open source area.. so..

These initiatives are plainly wrong, as I see it.. yet.. no one is stopping these firms.. and without most of our knowledge and consent.. we have been buying components that have their allegiance to the Trusted Computing Platform Alliance and not to those of us who bought these components and who use them..

I had one person tell me.. if you don't like it.. don't buy the hardware or the software and .. write your own os.. well.. not sure the best os writer will be able to overcome the new trusted computing.. if Bill Gates does not put him on the trusted list.

The Stain

 

[bendixG15]

The only way to "stop" Microsoft is NOT TO BUY.

People bitch and then they give MS their hard earned money for a "upgrade".

So until the money stops rolling in, its business as usual at MS HQ.

Some day it will end....who knows when ??

 

[Bateluer]

People will stop buying MS operating systems when alternative OSs (Linux) run their software without problems or excessive headaches. Software writers will start making said software for alternative operating systems when people stop buying MS operating systems. Catch 22.

Unfortunately, most of the computer users in the world are too dumb to care. ;(

 

[thestain]

If the United State Government thought they needed to break up Standard Oil.. or.. AT&T.. Microsoft should have been broken up many years ago!

I think the words of Thomas Jefferson spoken nearly 200 years ago sum things up

"The Moment you give up Freedom for Security you lose both"

The only thing for sure to come out of Trusted Computing is less freedom for everybody who uses a PC.. although I bet Bill Gates will have a say in what goes on his PC.

 

[imported_Questar]

I don't get what you're bleating on about.

What's wrong with enhanced security? Wouldn't it be nice if only properly credentialed machines can read your personal information, such as your credit card or medical inforamtion? How about not letting machines hookup to the net unless they have properly functioning virus prevention installed?

So it can be used to make it more difficult for you to pirate music, so what? You shouldn't be doing that anyway.

 

[bendixG15]

Originally posted by: Questar
I don't get what you're bleating on about.

What's wrong with enhanced security? Wouldn't it be nice if only properly credentialed machines can read your personal information, such as your credit card or medical inforamtion? How about not letting machines hookup to the net unless they have properly functioning virus prevention installed?

So it can be used to make it more difficult for you to pirate music, so what? You shouldn't be doing that anyway.

-----------------------------------------------------
Thats the problem...You don't get it.....
Don't listen to what MS says, watch what they do...to your pocketbook....

 

[n0cmonkey]

You have probably been giving your money to hardware manufacturers who have consistantly proven their dislike for paying customers. Any hardware manufacturer who will not provide documentation for FOSS developers to create a driver for hardware they, and other CUSTOMERS, own hates their customers. Use FREE software, you won't have as much to worry about.

Plus, TC can be a good thing, it just depends on who controls the controller.

 

[MadRat]

I'd be more inclined to buy Apple's OS X Tiger than Vista is the opportunity presented itself. Poor Apple for being a lousy market penetrator.

 

[SunnyD]

Good thing is that all computers currently can turn TPM off in the bios... for now.

 

[spyordie007]

Originally posted by: SunnyD
Good thing is that all computers currently can turn TPM off in the bios... for now.

And you probably will be able to for some time. Worse case you just wont be able to use software that requires it.

Of course in a corporate enviroment the IT department should be turning it on and not allowing users access to the BIOS...

 

[nova2]

" Questar: How about not letting machines hookup to the net unless they have properly functioning virus prevention installed"

if implemented on the OS level, fine.

since most people use windows, something forceful like this could be done, and have mass effect. great huh? one of the simplest solutions perhaps.

what also would be most excellent, is having these programs run in a non-root account by default:
various IRC, IM clients.
email.
browsers.
etc.

quite unfortunate it isn't that way.

but it could be like that with some patches from windows update.

but you gots the issue of people not using windows update, too

 

[Raduque]

Originally posted by: Questar
So it can be used to make it more difficult for you to pirate music, so what? You shouldn't be doing that anyway.

It's also going to make it difficult to do things that are currently legal with music you've bought. Such as ripping a CD into mp3s (that never see the net, yes not everbody who has mp3s has stolen or shared them) so you don't damage or put wear on the original disk.

Hrm, I wonder what's going to happen first, a bill from the content monopoly to simply strip out all current fair usage rights, or TCPA to come out and prevent you from exercising them anyway?

 

[SunnyD]

Originally posted by: spyordie007

Originally posted by: SunnyD
Good thing is that all computers currently can turn TPM off in the bios... for now.

And you probably will be able to for some time. Worse case you just wont be able to use software that requires it.

Of course in a corporate enviroment the IT department should be turning it on and not allowing users access to the BIOS...

I had to turn it off on my work machines - can't create RIS images with it onboard, and it caused more problems than it would potentially fix (broke various apps, etc).

 

[bersl2]

Yay! A TCPA thread! I love reminding people about it, because it's coming. Too many people have interest in forcing bits---and by association, information itself---to conform to the rules for physical matter (i.e., they assert that information is property, which might have seemed true in the late 19th century but which is now quite dubious).

 

[MadRat]

Only problem with turning it off in bios is that the bios and vista have a symbionic relationship. Vista will have more control of the system than ever before. How will you know what is on and off in the bios?

 

[Markbnj]

Unfortunately, most of the computer users in the world are too dumb to care. ;(

And as long as the anti-MS crowd considers the rest of the world stupid, they'll stay a niche community.

No offense, but it is you guys who don't get it. Roads and automobiles used to be free and open and completely unregulated too. So were telephones, and come to think of it, the electrical system. When a powerful technology goes mainstream, one that has risks as serious as its benefits, and millions of ordinary people use it in their daily lives, it is going to be regulated. End of story. Libertarians kindly exit through the rear doors.

The key misunderstanding is that you think the problems with insecure computing are Microsoft's fault. They haven't made a perfect o/s by any means, but even if we thought they had come as close as possible there would still be attacks, and some would still be successful. Ask any bank security expert.

If you could wave your magic wand and make Linux the gateway of choice for net access and general computing for 100 million people (at least), you'd find out what the costs of popularity are.

I hope there is always an anti-establishment operating system, and free software, and people who write code just because they like to, but that isn't going to stop the evolution of the public Internet and consumer operating systems into something much more tightly controlled than you're used to.

 

[thestain]

Originally posted by: Markbnj

"When a powerful technology goes mainstream, one that has risks as serious as its benefits, and millions of ordinary people use it in their daily lives, it is going to be regulated. End of story. Libertarians kindly exit through the rear doors."
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Do you agree or disagree with what former President Thomas Jefferson had to say about issues like this? you know about the moment you give up freedom for security you lose both?

As the following poster has pointed out, and I just recently was told my folks when discussing this topic.. AT&T when a true Monopoly was able to keep us from even buying phones.. they even had rules on chord lengths.. and laws made to enforce the rules.. and a rental fee per phone, per installed room per household.. freedom surfaced for a while.. but.. our freedoms are slowly being taken away, this is just another domain at risk to the powers that be.. Power corrupts and absolute (M$?) power corrupts absolutely. My folks are just now getting used to using chordless phones as they were so used to following the rules.

In regards to the choices we can make, well they have consequences under the new proposal, already hardwired into most pc components and Vista ready for Microsoft to throw the switch..

The choice to be trusted or not to be trusted, that is the question.. and it is a true Catch 22, where we the individual is damned either way.. I consider it to be a lose/lose situation. In order to join, you need to give up freedom, in order to stay free you need to give up access to technology you would have otherwise been able to enjoy and face limits on access to and communication with "trusted" others.

.. no one is stopping Trusted Computing.. No One! even the resistance to it for the most part is kind of like big time wrestling resistance.. staged.. controlled and probably funded by the Trusted Computing Platform Alliance to keep the issues limited to what they want the issues limited to.. Copyright protection, Digital Rights Management.. etc.. but this is all smoke and mirrors.. a sad fact the Entertainment industry will find out when the Alliance begins to charge them access to the trusted community.

Prior to this move, which has been in the works for years and may not be fully implemented for a few more years.. we have recently had freedom.. what is it that "Trusted" computing gives us that we did not already have and.. more importantly what is it taking away?

To take a wild guess at what Thomas Jefferson might need to say about the Trusted Computing Platform choices we will be facing, if not stopped:

Freedom is lost whether you join or refuse to join, make the choice to go into compliance or make the choice to not go into compliance.. regardless of your choices in regards to "Trusted Computing", you lose, we all lose, because, the TCPA has deliberately set limits on our freedoms as part of the whole new platform to begin with in order to gain whatever it is they are seeking, more money, more power, more control over our PC's in whatever name they are claiming to to it in.. for the rights of artists, movie makers, writers, entertainment.. they have willingly decided our rights needed to be stripped away.. for their security, we lose our freedoms.. that is what this whole Trusted computing is all about.. do the ends, do they justify the means? No. Do the means justify the ends? No again

The Stain

 

[htne]

Originally posted by: Markbnj

No offense, but it is you guys who don't get it. Roads and automobiles used to be free and open and completely unregulated too. So were telephones, and come to think of it, the electrical system. When a powerful technology goes mainstream, one that has risks as serious as its benefits, and millions of ordinary people use it in their daily lives, it is going to be regulated. End of story. Libertarians kindly exit through the rear doors.

I'm afraid you are the one who just doesn't get it. Many decades ago, when I was a young man, the telephone company was a tightly controlled monopoly (AT&T). You were not allowed to own a telephone, you had to lease it from AT&T. You could not go to Radio Shack and purchase a long telephone cord so that you could walk around the room and talk on the telephone. No, you had to lease the long telephone cord from AT&T. You could not legally wire up extra telephone jacks in your home. Only AT&T could legally run a telephone line in your home, and you paid extra money every month for each jack. When we first started using modems, it was illegal to connect a modem to an AT&T telephone line without first obtaining approval in writing from AT&T.

If I go to the store and pay $12 for a copy of Grand Funk Railroad's Greatest Hits, I want to be able to rip those songs into MP3 format and play them on my portable MP3 player. The RIAA thinks I should have to pay (again) in order to do so. They claim that I am a thief if I don't pay them twice. Microsoft agrees with everything the RIAA wants, because Microsoft is after the same thing. They want to charge me (and you) a separate fee each time we use Excel. Don't believe me? Next time you talk to Bill Gates, ask him.

 

[nova2]

imo, it is all going to get worse before it gets better.

thinking big, 1000 years is tiny compared to all eternity.
how long will it take before things consistently get better for the general majority? we'll see.

rest assured, some big changes are coming

Originally posted by: Markbnj
The key misunderstanding is that you think the problems with insecure computing are Microsoft's fault.

Provide me with verifiable docs, and we'll figure out which partys can be held accountable. Then we need leverage to force their hands, or to get them removed.

Running various internet programs as root should have never been allowed to continue this far with Windows.
Too bad. It's a mess that needs fixing. We'll see how long it takes until the general majority aren't getting consistently screwed.

 

[drag]

People will stop buying MS operating systems when alternative OSs (Linux) run their software without problems or excessive headaches. Software writers will start making said software for alternative operating systems when people stop buying MS operating systems. Catch 22.

In the world we live with 10% of people make 90% of the changes. In other words the people that care are the ones that matter and the people who care are the minority.. everybody else is just going along with the ride. So on and so forth.

What matters is people who care enough about their freedom to make the switch. Software is funny like that. With Trusted Computing it is VERY VERY good if your the one in control of the trusted computing aspect. With Trusted Computing it is VERY VERY bad when OTHER people are in control of your computer. Think about it.. Say with Vista Microsoft impliments a strong DRM sceme that is illegal for you to tamper with due to the DMCA act (which says that it is a federal crime to tamper with any copyright 'protection' scemes). So what happens is that people who make the copyrighted material you want to use and have the money and the clout can effectively buy control of your computer from Microsoft or Intel or whoever for a price.

Now of course this control will be limited.. but do you realy think Sony or other corporations can be trusted to have controls over your system that you yourself don't have? Already Sony has been busted installing rootkits on people's machines. You have starforce drivers for invasive anti-piracy stuff with many games.. Publishers are pushing this down on game makers even if they don't want these sort of controls. There are many commercial software makers who install spyware and other items on people's computers and these aren't nessicarially small or fly-by-night companies.

With Steam you have situations were you can get locked out of playing games you bought because you lost your internet connection. With Apple Itunes every song you buy locks you further into buying Apple's hardware and using Apple's software. Spend 500 bucks on songs over a year or so and if you buy a creative mp3 player to replace your broken Ipod your instantly out the 500 dollars. With the Sony PSP homebrew game makers have things break as Sony forces down firmware updates with games that are sold. Numerious formats for Ebooks, audio books, video formats, audio formats, are completely useless to you unless you first go out and buy a copy of Microsoft Windows and install on your machine first. All of that is pretty screwed up stuff. None of that has to do with copyright protections. None of that has anything to do with preventing piracy. It's just stuff that happens when your control is removed from software and hardware that belong to you. Even if it's completely unintentional in some cases.

And it does nothing to prevent real piracy. Average time between a new song getting released on Itunes to that same something ending up on some P2P website or program is about 130 (180 maybe?) seconds. The HDCP protocol from Intel for it's 'protected media path' has been cracked for years. But this still doesn't make life easier for a 'normal' person.

Now for the if YOUR the one in control of your hardware all this TPM and whatnot can be a wonderfull thing. It'll help you make sure that your not running a rootkit. It'll help you detect if your system has been hacked and probably other positive stuff.

So which is it? Do you want convience or do you want to be in control?

For me it's easy. I like to use Linux, I choose Free software whenever possible. And on the flip side I literally get headaches when I have to use Windows XP.. Although to be fair it's usually when I have to fix something in this 'easy to use' operating system.

 

[Markbnj]

Do you agree or disagree with what former President Thomas Jefferson had to say about issues like this? you know about the moment you give up freedom for security you lose both?

Uh... [pauses]... no, I never heard of this guy Jefferson. Was he on a television show, or what?

Seriously, I don't think Tommy was referring to the Internet, dude. He was referring to erosion of key human rights and liberties in pursuit of greater state security, and he lived in a time when that was a serious concern (unlike now).

If you're going to complain about trusted computing you might as well complain about not being able to drive as fast as you want, make left turns whereever, and have Uncle Louie (who used to work in a hardware store) wire up the addition to your house. All those things used to be permitted too.

I'm afraid you are the one who just doesn't get it. Many decades ago, when I was a young man, the telephone company was a tightly controlled monopoly (AT&T). You were not allowed to own a telephone, you had to lease it from AT&T. You could not go to Radio Shack and purchase a long telephone cord so that you could walk around the room and talk on the telephone.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with anything. I like the "many decades" part, but I do not lack gray hair of my own. I started programming in 1976 on a teletype. How about you? Anyway, the granting of regulated monopolies is long-tested practice. They serve their purpose at a particular time and set of economic conditions. I would hasten to point out that: 1) there is no regulated monopoly involved here, just one created out of freemarket choices that you don't like; 2) monopolies aren't illegal; 3) the fact that the phone company was broken up and its monopoly deprecated without any actual hippy revolution kind of makes your whole complaint silly; and 4) speaking of choice, i.e. the ability to buy whatever kind of phone, and cord to boot, what company has done more for consumer choice in terms of computing hardware and software than Microsoft?

Yeah, that would be: none.

 

[bersl2]

Originally posted by: Markbnj

Do you agree or disagree with what former President Thomas Jefferson had to say about issues like this? you know about the moment you give up freedom for security you lose both?

Uh... [pauses]... no, I never heard of this guy Jefferson. Was he on a television show, or what?

Seriously, I don't think Tommy was referring to the Internet, dude. He was referring to erosion of key human rights and liberties in pursuit of greater state security, and he lived in a time when that was a serious concern (unlike now).

If you're going to complain about trusted computing you might as well complain about not being able to drive as fast as you want, make left turns whereever, and have Uncle Louie (who used to work in a hardware store) wire up the addition to your house. All those things used to be permitted too.

I'm afraid you are the one who just doesn't get it. Many decades ago, when I was a young man, the telephone company was a tightly controlled monopoly (AT&T). You were not allowed to own a telephone, you had to lease it from AT&T. You could not go to Radio Shack and purchase a long telephone cord so that you could walk around the room and talk on the telephone.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with anything. I like the "many decades" part, but I do not lack gray hair of my own. I started programming in 1976 on a teletype. How about you? Anyway, the granting of regulated monopolies is long-tested practice. They serve their purpose at a particular time and set of economic conditions. I would hasten to point out that: 1) there is no regulated monopoly involved here, just one created out of freemarket choices that you don't like; 2) monopolies aren't illegal; 3) the fact that the phone company was broken up and its monopoly deprecated without any actual hippy revolution kind of makes your whole complaint silly; and 4) speaking of choice, i.e. the ability to buy whatever kind of phone, and cord to boot, what company has done more for consumer choice in terms of computing hardware and software than Microsoft?

Yeah, that would be: none.

Calling anti-monopolists "hippies" surely has the same effect as Godwin's Law.

Anyway, your arguments are unclear and unsupported. The burden of proof that MS is somehow not a monopoly in desktop OSes and that monopolies are better for markets is yours. Courts of law have declared MS a monopoly, and by definition, monopolies are market failures.

 

[drag]

Seriously, I don't think Tommy was referring to the Internet, dude. He was referring to erosion of key human rights and liberties in pursuit of greater state security, and he lived in a time when that was a serious concern (unlike now).

hahaha. Way to wear the blinders dude.
(note that DRM and software is just a tiny tiny part of what is going on. Microsoft won't chop off your head and rape your mom/sister/wife if you disagee with them, unlike other people. So in that way MS/TP/Free software arguement is unimportant compared to other things)

 

[imported_Questar]

It's also going to make it difficult to do things that are currently legal with music you've bought. Such as ripping a CD into mp3s

You are misinformed. There will always be plenty of CD rippers that don't use the TPM. There is no requiement that software use any trusted computing features.

What it will do is make it harder to crack something like iTunes store downloads. By having the iTunes use the TPM encryption key, the music is essentially locked to one computer at a time (excluding the sharing that iTunes already allows).

Bascially, as long as you are legal today, there isn't anything to worry about.

 

[Markbnj]

Anyway, your arguments are unclear and unsupported. The burden of proof that MS is somehow not a monopoly in desktop OSes and that monopolies are better for markets is yours. Courts of law have declared MS a monopoly, and by definition, monopolies are market failures.

I don't understand how you guys can purport to argue subjects like this when you can't read forum posts, much less understand economics. Let's try it point by point:

a) I never said Microsoft wasn't a monopoly. I implied they were not a government granted monopoly (i.e. one established through regulatory fiat), because the previous poster was comparing them to AT&T, and.... oh forget it, not worth it.

b) monopolies are not by (any learned person's) definition "market failures." They are in fact inevitable albeit temporary results of free market innovation. You simply mistake 25 or 30 years for a long time, and since you haven't likely been alive much longer than that, you think it equates to forever. Microsoft's monopoly will surely end. Unfortunately it won't be replaced by Linux, and you will like what follows even less.

I would say "nice try," but it really wasn't.

hahaha. Way to wear the blinders dude.
(note that DRM and software is just a tiny tiny part of what is going on. Microsoft won't chop off your head and rape your mom/sister/wife if you disagee with them, unlike other people. So in that way MS/TP/Free software arguement is unimportant compared to other things)

Uh... I agree. But I'm certain you had some other good reason for posting that.