Windows Palladium, the end of privacy as we know it.

[whiteflip]

send assembly code to the cpu?

[binary hero]

it'll never work, but anything released by microsoft from now on, will contain more and more ways to try to stop piracy (and music sharing), and to build up their 'empire'. If, by some miracle, everything neko said comes trye, then people will keep on using current versions of windows, on current computers, and it will die.

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by whiteflip
send assembly code to the cpu?

??

The point is that the CPU will have the chip embedded in the core. It will use a public/private key encryption, and will require that it be fed the correct answer, provided by the internet server (or another source), before it will run code. Hopefully, that encryption will be broken by someone outside of the US - so that they can distribute the free speech that the DMCA prevents:

"No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of cicumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;..."

- DMCA

http://www.loc.gov:8081/copyright/title17/92chap12.html#1201

"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, ..."

- First Amendment

Seems odd to me that I would have to leave the US in order to have the freedom of the first amendment.
4856507896573978293098418946942861377074420873513579240196520736686985134010472374469687974399261175109737777010274475280490588313840375497099879096539552270117121570259746669932402268345966196060348517424977358468518855674570257125474999648219418465 5710084119086259716947970799152004866709975923596061320725973797993618860631691447358830024533697278181391479795551339994939488289984691783610018259789010316019618350343448956870538452085380458424156548248893338047475871128339598968522325446084089711 1977127694120795862440547161321005006459820176961771809478113622002723448272249323259547234688002927776497906148129840428345720146348968547169082354737835661972186224969431622716663939055430241564732924855248991225739466548627140482117138124388217717 6029841255244647445055834628144883356319027253195904392838737640739168912579240550156208897871633759991078870849081590975480192857684519885963053238234905580920329996032344711407760198471635311617130785760848622363702835701049612595681846785965333100 7701799161467447254927283348691600064758591746278121269007351830924153010630289329566584366200080047677896798438209079761985949364630938058633672146969597502796877120572499666698056145338207412031593377030994915274691835659376210222006812679827344576 093802030447912277498091795593838712100058876668925844870047077255249706044465212713040432118261010359118647666963858495087448497373476861420880529443

http://primes.utm.edu/curios/page.php?number_id=953

oops - that's a Gzip of illegal material. Looks like I'm facing up to 5 years and/or up to $500,000 - no wait, this is definately not my first offence. Make that up to 10 years, and up to $1,000,000.

[virulent]

I have to question this. Not because I disagree, but because Im having a hard time with understanding it.

How is me sending you a file that was designed to do one thing and one thing only, which happens to be illegal, protected by free speech? How is sending binary data over the internet speech? Granted I could really give a flip if someone doesn't get my $20 for a DVD, but I question how providing tools to crack a DVD's copy protection can be protected by anything at all.

What I'm mostly concerned about is embeding copy protection in normal audio cds because in doing so, you render things like personal mp3 devices obsolete - and not only that, illegal. I'll fight to see that I can use my legally purchased cd in what ever manner I wish, which breaks no laws.

[Atmo]

Just read this article online.

BILL GATES SAYS security is Microsoft's top priority, but just whose security does he have in mind? Consider some of Microsoft's recent boilerplate legalese -- language you or your company might already have unknowingly accepted -- and then decide for yourself.

The language is contained in the Product Use Rights (PUR) document that can be found at www.microsoft.com/licensing/resources. As the PUR document is part of most customers' volume license agreements and is subject to periodic change, in theory Microsoft customers should check it regularly to see what rights Microsoft has decided to grant or take away.

You can be forgiven if you feel like you have better things to do with your life than reading and rereading all this mind-numbing legal gobbledygook. Fortunately, one Microsoft customer did review the PUR document recently and noticed a change. In the section on Windows XP Professional, he found the "Internet-Based Services Components" paragraph that said in part, "You acknowledge and agree that Microsoft may automatically check the version of the Product and/or its components that you are utilizing and may provide upgrades or fixes to the Product that will be automatically downloaded to your Workstation Computer."

The reader was stunned. "By changing that term in the PUR, Microsoft has found a creative way to obtain authorization from users to access their workstations at will," he said. "How many customers are going to review this PDF file and realize they've given Microsoft this right? And all the risk for the security and privacy violations due to this are neatly put on the customer's shoulders, not Microsoft's."

After the reader shared his discovery with me, I asked some other Microsoft volume license customers if they were aware of the PUR term. Not surprisingly, most were only vaguely aware of the PUR's existence, much less the terms in the XP section. But they had plenty of concerns once they read it, the most obvious being the damage the most benign of automatic OS upgrades could cause in a corporate environment. "The idea that Microsoft can change our software without notifying us is totally unacceptable," said one corporate IT manager. "Any alteration to our standard configuration can only be rolled out after careful evaluation and testing. Does Microsoft have no clue?"

Several readers were also worried that Microsoft's broad assertion of its right to access their computers would force their companies into noncompliance with government security guidelines and various privacy laws. This concern was exacerbated by additional PUR language in the same Windows XP section. In terms of "Security Updates," users grant Microsoft the right to download updates to Microsoft's DRM (Digital Rights Management) technology to protect the intellectual property rights of "Secured Content" providers. It says Microsoft may "download onto your computer such security updates that a secure content owner has requested that MS, Microsoft Corporation, or their subsidiaries distribute." In other words, it would seem Microsoft's idea of a security update is one that protects the property rights of vendors, not the security of customers' systems.

Currently, DRM technology is associated just with music or video content, but there's no legal reason it can't be used with software applications as well. One reader expressed the concern that in order to enforce common license terms, DRM technology might have to distinguish customer communications from those of internal users at a company. "As I read this, we will be guilty of violating federal privacy laws if we don't at least warn our customers that Microsoft and its partners may have access to their records," the reader said. "Perhaps our firewall can prevent Microsoft from doing this, but how can I be sure?"

Microsoft officials say that the language in the PUR agreement, which it confirms is also in the Windows XP EULA (End User License Agreement) itself, is not intended to force upgrades on customers. "Our goal is to give the user control over whether a system is being updated, regardless of whether the user is a consumer or an institution," a statement from Microsoft's legal team read. "The 'Internet-based Services Components' section of the Windows XP EULA was written specifically to ensure that we are in compliance with all regulations that require notification when the configuration choices that a user makes could potentially access one of the auto-updating features of Windows XP. We clearly have more work to do to make sure that it's clear when these automatic features are used, and we are looking at how to do a better job at that. But it is certainly not our intent to access any user's system when that is not what they desire."

Both corporate and individual customers can choose to turn off Windows Auto-Update, the Microsoft officials pointed out. Similarly, users will be told when a content owner is requiring an update to Microsoft's DRM technology and they will have the option to download it. "If the user elects not to update the security component, he or she will be unable to play content protected by our DRM from that point forward, although content previously obtained would still be usable."

Well, swell. But if it is indeed Microsoft's intent to continue giving users the right to decline downloads, why has the company written its XP agreements to force users to explicitly surrender that right? Are customers supposed to ignore what the licenses say and just hope Microsoft won't ever do what the terms say it can do? That's not a concept that will make anyone other than Bill Gates feel very secure.

"But it is certainly not our intent to access any user's system when that is not what they desire." Kinda contradicts a lot of the quotes/concerns raised in this thread.

So whos telling the truth??

Time will tell.

[whiteflip]

reading the article

virulent this is my take on it - any computer written code is hand typed text. free speach. kinda like writting a book or singing a song. some one wrote something code like and its free speach.

[virulent]

Hm. So as long as its typed, you can do what ever you want? That doesn't seem quite right. The difference as I see it is that text is text. It does nothing. The only way text, or even speech can be harmful is of someone physically reacts to what you've writen/said. In the case of a program, while yes you've typed it, it preforms an action. It does something other than just being a code, like a song. While a song might be offensive to some, its not going to crack protection and allow people to illegally access information. I think saying that having a law about the type of software you can write, specifically ones that allow for illegal activities to take place, is violating free speech is stretching it a bit.

If you were told that you could not say "I cracked Windows XP" under penalty of law, then you'd have a valid claim. Hell, laws like that already exist about the president and government. I remember a few years back a local DJ here in Orlando (Jim Philips, 104.1) was investigated by the secret service for comments he made about the government on the air.

Freedom is a joke, really. We'll "allowed" to do things that the government is able to control. We're given a false sense of security because we think we can do as we please. This isn't the case and how this "p2p" thing is being handled is direct evidence of that. This is beyond their control. If they don't do something *now* and make it *drastic* it will be *completly* out of their control. The US is, and always has been, good at bullying people. That is what the FBI/CIA is for.

[apollos]

Hmm, whilst reading all of Neko's post I kept thinking to myself, Umbrella Corperation from Resident Evil.

Microsoft started off as a 'respectable' firm but soon developed into a bigheaded and greedy corperation.

I truelly believe that Microsoft WILL NOT be around for much longer.
With all the stunts that they are starting to pull off (eg, them being able to access your pc when you install service pack 1 of XP).

Microsoft will anger the people and lets face it, Microsoft can't pull in the crowds for much longer. A new OS is bound to come out soon that will replace Windows.

I do however find it hard to believe that Microsoft would so such a thing as to be able to be able to nose at eveyones files and be able to block and edit anything they felt was 'undesirable' or whatever in their opinion.

Shame on Bill Gates.
End of rant which is late by a few weeks no doubt

[Atmo]

Originally posted by Apollos
I truelly believe that Microsoft WILL NOT be around for much longer.
With all the stunts that they are starting to pull off (eg, them being able to access your pc when you install service pack 1 of XP).

Microsoft will anger the people and lets face it, Microsoft can't pull in the crowds for much longer. A new OS is bound to come out soon that will replace Windows.

Wrong.

90% of pc users have no idea whats actually going on with their pc's. They turn them on and as long as they work theyre happy.

Since most actually buy their pc with windows pre-installed from a store, they dont even bother reading the fine print. For the majority of users paladium wouldnt matter, they dont use any software that wasnt packaged with their pc when they first bought it, dont upgrade hardware, and most certainly dont use warzed or illegal copies of anything.

Just remember that microsoft must build software that suits the average pc user, not the elite. If windows was built for the elite user it would be linux.

Microsoft are a huge corporation because they actually make good products, their software is far from perfect sometimes, but its a helluva lot better than most. While it is true that they spend a shitload lot of money trying to stop people moving to other operating systems, the main reason that they are successful is because they have managed to make pc's usable by anyone.

They may be greedy, but thats not the point here, and there have been os' available as an alternative to windows for a long time. We use windows because of the way it makes interfacing with a pc easier, we like the plug and play, we like that there is little need to ever go to the command line, we like that 99% of software made is available in a windows version.

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by virulent
I have to question this. Not because I disagree, but because Im having a hard time with understanding it.

How is me sending you a file that was designed to do one thing and one thing only, which happens to be illegal, protected by free speech? How is sending binary data over the internet speech? Granted I could really give a flip if someone doesn't get my $20 for a DVD, but I question how providing tools to crack a DVD's copy protection can be protected by anything at all.

What I'm mostly concerned about is embeding copy protection in normal audio cds because in doing so, you render things like personal mp3 devices obsolete - and not only that, illegal. I'll fight to see that I can use my legally purchased cd in what ever manner I wish, which breaks no laws.

I'll give you an example.

DeCSS - This is a tool that breaks the encryption used in DVDs. This obviously has the primary purpose of circumventing a copyright protection. Now, the problem is this: it also has the purpose of allowing free/open source DVD players to be built.

I'll take the example of Linux - people who use Linux normally expect open source, free software to be created for it - that's the Linux way of doing things, for the most part. However, you can't have an open source, free project, if you are required to license the encryption.

Now, why is it free speech? Ok, *maybe* the compiled code isn't (I don't feel like showing that point right now) . But the source is. The source is simply a technical language used by programmers to communicate a series of steps. And what if I send you an image of the source (a real image, as in a picture)? And what if I memorize the code? Do I now have *illegal knowledge*?

Now, as for the CDs - what if there was such a thing as a portable DVD player (one which has a 360 GB Hard drive - enough for about 70 DVDs)? You couldn't legally transfer DVDs onto it, as you would be "circumventing a copyright protection". There's the problem. What you probably don't get is that CDs (music) are pretty much the only format which isn't encrypted. Ebooks, DVDs, (most) games, and even some music now has copy protection. AND YOU CANNOT LEGALLY COPY IT, even though it is allowed under fair use.

See my point?

Music is next.

Originally posted by virulent
Hm. So as long as its typed, you can do what ever you want? That doesn't seem quite right. The difference as I see it is that text is text. It does nothing. The only way text, or even speech can be harmful is of someone physically reacts to what you've writen/said. In the case of a program, while yes you've typed it, it preforms an action. It does something other than just being a code, like a song. While a song might be offensive to some, its not going to crack protection and allow people to illegally access information. I think saying that having a law about the type of software you can write, specifically ones that allow for illegal activities to take place, is violating free speech is stretching it a bit.

No. There is a *huge* gap there. Think of a virus. It, unlike most programs, does what it does, without even the permission of the user. But still, the *source* is speech. The *source* doesn't do anything. However, with things such as DeCSS, or other programs the DMCA stops, the program doesn't do anything by itself anyway. The person HAS TO RUN IT. The software doesn't DO anything, on it's own. If you publish a book on how to break into cars, should that be illegal?

There is the TOOL (say, a lock pick, or a computer), and there is data (lock picking skills / software).

[mc^^^^]

if this isnt the BIGGEST MONOPOLY attempt i have ever seen i will be amazed!

1. lets look at that sweet old privacy act, how are they planning to get around that now?

2. this is gonna force the internet back 8 years, when it was PURELY information purposes.

3. of course, hacking would be possible, but friggin hard to hack & then to install the hacks.

4. they would have to release a corperate version, which excludes all the CRAP, which we will all happily download

i currently want to punch Bill Gates in the face, just to piss him off for making me read that load of shit.

[Kazuko]

Positive this has been iterated in this thread before, but:

What the fuq is the reason to buy the stuff? It's like walking up to the counter at your local CompUSA, Staples, or independent CPU shop and being like "Hi. I'd like to give up all my remaining freedoms. How much will that cost?" Come on... I have a 1.4 GHz Athlon with 256 MB DDRAM.. it suits me perfectly fine AND I can run UT2K3... Unless I want to become a shut-in like the EverAddicts (who wouldn't prolly think twice about getting WinBigBro (or whatever it is)), I'm stickin with my current mobo, and saying "I AM A PRIVATE CITIZEN!!"

Just imagine Bill Gates watching you watching porn... nasty...

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by mc^^^^


3. of course, hacking would be possible, but friggin hard to hack & then to install the hacks.

4. they would have to release a corperate version, which excludes all the CRAP, which we will all happily download

Yup. That's what I'm saying - corperate IT guys would be pissed, and there is no way that non-palladium machines wouldn't be able to talk to normal machines, as all the corperate machines would be non-palladium, and so would the web servers. If you need a lot of power, you can just go with a RISC type processor (or whatever), and if you don't, then you can use a non-palladium PC. The web server area will *never* be dominated by Palladium.

[Caleb]

i got a petition going on here: http://www.petitiononline.com/tcpa1

its more of a "spread the word" thing.

The Palladium can be hacked, and will be. but ur missing the point.
If software requires it, the software will not work (cough next windows OS cough).

And Linux users wont get too far either. Coz there's been some talking and some companies want to 'slip' palladium in linux too!
(but since linux is open source its much easier.. on us and on them)

Palladium is already going to be implemented in Intel's next 3ghz proccessor. they called that palldium chip LaGrande or something ([email protected]), so im not gonna buy any intel chips any time soon :P

As i recall, intel did not want to implement palladium at first, but then something happened, and they did ;S

We (the people) gotta do something before this becomes one of these sci-fi movies about the world being surrounded by hackers and police arresting everybody who encodes an mp3 :P

[whiteflip]

what happened to intel that changed their minds?!?

cough cough M$ cough cough

2.8Ghz is fast for me. The hardware out today is great for my needs. its Better than what I need. I dont need to upgrade to the new systems. I FEAR That the average Kevin Baker or Jo Schmoe will buy it without knowing what they are getting into.