Before anyone remarks about this being Off Topic for the various mailing
lists I've sent this to, please think about the effects this could have
to Linux. In addition, even though many of you may not be US citizens,
the recent happenings with international laws against cybercrime, copy
protection and the like could make this US law relevant to you as well,
not to mention the impact to your company should you not be able to do
business in the US because of such a law. Therefore, it really IS on
topic, and the time to think about and act on such things is _BEFORE_
they are written in stone, not after.
In case you haven't heard, the SSSCA is before the Senate Commerce
Committee, with a hearing earlier today
(http://slashdot.org/articles/02/03/01/1423248.shtml?tid=103 for the
story and several links, including a draft of the bill). The SSSCA, if
passed, would basically require that all interactive digital devices,
including your PC, have copy protection built in. This protection would
not allow digital media from being viewed, copied, transferred, or
downloaded if the device is not authorized to do so. The bill also makes
it a crime to circumvent the protection, including manufacturing or
trafficking in anything that does not include the protection or that
would circumvent it.
Even if there is no SSSCA, the entertainment industry as well as the IT
industry both agree: we must have copy protection of some kind. While I
do not disagree that many movies, songs, and other media are distributed
illegally without their owners consent, and that copyright owners need
some sort of protection, this is not the way to fight the problem, and
doing so can, and probably will, have drastic and far reaching
consequences for not only the IT industry, but the entertainment
industry and the consumer as well.
Many of us have become increasingly involved with, and dependent upon,
Free Software (as in GNU GPL or similar), especially the Linux operating
system. This type of software is distributed with the source code,
allowing anyone to modify it as they choose and need. Linux has become
popular to the point that many companies, especially those that provide
some kind of service on or for the Internet, rely upon it heavily.
Because of the free nature of Linux, and other Free Software, it is
extremely difficult to place actual numbers on how many systems are out
there employing such software. Some of you, like me, can approximate the
number of such systems in your own company or realm of knowledge. So how
does this relate to the SSSCA?
As any programmer worth his/her salt will attest, given the resources,
anything that can be programmed into a computer can be programmed out,
or worked around. In the case of copy protection such as the SSSCA would
require, the resources needed for circumventing it is simply the source
code for the operating system of the computer, and/or other source code
for applications used on the computer (such as one of the many free
video/audio players available). Now given the wording of the SSSCA,
along with the DMCA and other supporting laws, it stands to reason that
such Free Software would suddenly become a target for legislation. Such
legislation logically may require such software to be judged illegal.
Such a decision may have serious consequences to the IT industry as well
as the entertainment industry and the consumer as well. Little may the
consumer or entertainment industry know, but much of the technology they
rely upon today is provided at low cost by Free Software. Take that
software away, and suddenly doing business costs a lot more, and
eventually the consumer just will not be willing to pay for it.
Now aside from the consequences to Free Software, what about the
consequences to those who do not use such software. Imagine that home
movie you shot last weekend on vacation. Now you wish to send that home
movie to a relative, friend, whoever, over the Internet, or place it on
your web site for all to download. Well, with many of the protection
technologies suggested, this would not be possible, or would be
extremely difficult. Some of these technologies require digital
watermarks to be placed in the media, for one example. CD burners,
digital cameras, etc. can not make these watermarks. The copy protection
works by checking for such a watermark, and if it does not exist, the
system either will not allow the media to be played, or will not allow
it to be transmitted over the Internet as the case may be. So much for
sending your cousin your latest home movie, or allowing your whole
family to see it from your web site. An additional problem is all
current media, including CDs and DVDs, you may currently legally own
would not work on proposed new CD and DVD players with copy protection
hardware. You would not be able to copy CDs, tapes, or anything else
that you legally own in order to exercise your right to fair use, so as
to listen to that CD on the cassette deck in your car.
I could go on, but I think this is long enough and has given some food
for thought. Besides, I have work to do. Election time is near, so think
about what that person you are voting for represents. Think about
actually writing a letter to a congressman or other legislator, to a
magazine (I actually had one published once, so it's not beyond the
realms of possibility), newpaper, etc. Many people have the attitude
that they can do nothing and make no difference. Well, I say to them
they are right, because there are so many people with that attitude,
that none of them do anything and they make no difference in doing so.
The once that make the difference, are the ones taking a stance, and the
ones taking the stance are the ones that are causing these rediculous
laws to be passed. Guess who those people are?...
Welcome to The United Corporations of America.
PGA
--
Paul G. Allen
Owner, Sr. Engineer, Security Specialist
Random Logic/Dream Park
http://www.randomlogic.com
Trouble or not. We will defeat this garbage. I will not allow any or my
(Canada) country to tell me how to control my own systems let alone my
own hardware!
Let them pass it, they won't be able to enforce it. I won't let my Linux
kernel become 'tainted' by closed binary drivers and I will really
actively get involved in defeating such measures in Linux kernel
modules.
Shawn.
On Fri, 2002-03-01 at 14:46, Paul G. Allen wrote:
> Before anyone remarks about this being Off Topic for the various mailing
> lists I've sent this to, please think about the effects this could have
> to Linux. In addition, even though many of you may not be US citizens,
> the recent happenings with international laws against cybercrime, copy
> protection and the like could make this US law relevant to you as well,
> not to mention the impact to your company should you not be able to do
> business in the US because of such a law. Therefore, it really IS on
> topic, and the time to think about and act on such things is _BEFORE_
> they are written in stone, not after.
>
> In case you haven't heard, the SSSCA is before the Senate Commerce
> Committee, with a hearing earlier today
> (http://slashdot.org/articles/02/03/01/1423248.shtml?tid=103 for the
> story and several links, including a draft of the bill). The SSSCA, if
> passed, would basically require that all interactive digital devices,
> including your PC, have copy protection built in. This protection would
> not allow digital media from being viewed, copied, transferred, or
> downloaded if the device is not authorized to do so. The bill also makes
> it a crime to circumvent the protection, including manufacturing or
> trafficking in anything that does not include the protection or that
> would circumvent it.
>
> Even if there is no SSSCA, the entertainment industry as well as the IT
> industry both agree: we must have copy protection of some kind. While I
> do not disagree that many movies, songs, and other media are distributed
> illegally without their owners consent, and that copyright owners need
> some sort of protection, this is not the way to fight the problem, and
> doing so can, and probably will, have drastic and far reaching
> consequences for not only the IT industry, but the entertainment
> industry and the consumer as well.
>
> Many of us have become increasingly involved with, and dependent upon,
> Free Software (as in GNU GPL or similar), especially the Linux operating
> system. This type of software is distributed with the source code,
> allowing anyone to modify it as they choose and need. Linux has become
> popular to the point that many companies, especially those that provide
> some kind of service on or for the Internet, rely upon it heavily.
> Because of the free nature of Linux, and other Free Software, it is
> extremely difficult to place actual numbers on how many systems are out
> there employing such software. Some of you, like me, can approximate the
> number of such systems in your own company or realm of knowledge. So how
> does this relate to the SSSCA?
>
> As any programmer worth his/her salt will attest, given the resources,
> anything that can be programmed into a computer can be programmed out,
> or worked around. In the case of copy protection such as the SSSCA would
> require, the resources needed for circumventing it is simply the source
> code for the operating system of the computer, and/or other source code
> for applications used on the computer (such as one of the many free
> video/audio players available). Now given the wording of the SSSCA,
> along with the DMCA and other supporting laws, it stands to reason that
> such Free Software would suddenly become a target for legislation. Such
> legislation logically may require such software to be judged illegal.
> Such a decision may have serious consequences to the IT industry as well
> as the entertainment industry and the consumer as well. Little may the
> consumer or entertainment industry know, but much of the technology they
> rely upon today is provided at low cost by Free Software. Take that
> software away, and suddenly doing business costs a lot more, and
> eventually the consumer just will not be willing to pay for it.
>
> Now aside from the consequences to Free Software, what about the
> consequences to those who do not use such software. Imagine that home
> movie you shot last weekend on vacation. Now you wish to send that home
> movie to a relative, friend, whoever, over the Internet, or place it on
> your web site for all to download. Well, with many of the protection
> technologies suggested, this would not be possible, or would be
> extremely difficult. Some of these technologies require digital
> watermarks to be placed in the media, for one example. CD burners,
> digital cameras, etc. can not make these watermarks. The copy protection
> works by checking for such a watermark, and if it does not exist, the
> system either will not allow the media to be played, or will not allow
> it to be transmitted over the Internet as the case may be. So much for
> sending your cousin your latest home movie, or allowing your whole
> family to see it from your web site. An additional problem is all
> current media, including CDs and DVDs, you may currently legally own
> would not work on proposed new CD and DVD players with copy protection
> hardware. You would not be able to copy CDs, tapes, or anything else
> that you legally own in order to exercise your right to fair use, so as
> to listen to that CD on the cassette deck in your car.
>
> I could go on, but I think this is long enough and has given some food
> for thought. Besides, I have work to do. Election time is near, so think
> about what that person you are voting for represents. Think about
> actually writing a letter to a congressman or other legislator, to a
> magazine (I actually had one published once, so it's not beyond the
> realms of possibility), newpaper, etc. Many people have the attitude
> that they can do nothing and make no difference. Well, I say to them
> they are right, because there are so many people with that attitude,
> that none of them do anything and they make no difference in doing so.
> The once that make the difference, are the ones taking a stance, and the
> ones taking the stance are the ones that are causing these rediculous
> laws to be passed. Guess who those people are?...
>
> Welcome to The United Corporations of America.
>
> PGA
> --
> Paul G. Allen
> Owner, Sr. Engineer, Security Specialist
> Random Logic/Dream Park
> http://www.randomlogic.com
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
le ven 01-03-2002 ? 21:27, Shawn Starr a ?crit :
> Trouble or not. We will defeat this garbage. I will not allow any or my
> (Canada) country to tell me how to control my own systems let alone my
> own hardware!
>
> Let them pass it, they won't be able to enforce it. I won't let my Linux
> kernel become 'tainted' by closed binary drivers and I will really
> actively get involved in defeating such measures in Linux kernel
> modules.
You already use much BIOS with linux today, and tomorrow ACPI will be
mandatory to use your box. Both are untrusted binary "drivers".
Xav
Linux doesnt use the BIOS if you tell it not to, if it can avoid using
it. It will :)
On Fri, 2002-03-01 at 15:30, Xavier Bestel wrote:
> le ven 01-03-2002 ? 21:27, Shawn Starr a ?crit :
> > Trouble or not. We will defeat this garbage. I will not allow any or my
> > (Canada) country to tell me how to control my own systems let alone my
> > own hardware!
> >
> > Let them pass it, they won't be able to enforce it. I won't let my Linux
> > kernel become 'tainted' by closed binary drivers and I will really
> > actively get involved in defeating such measures in Linux kernel
> > modules.
>
> You already use much BIOS with linux today, and tomorrow ACPI will be
> mandatory to use your box. Both are untrusted binary "drivers".
>
> Xav
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
> Linux doesnt use the BIOS if you tell it not to, if it can avoid using
> it. It will :)
It has no control over the BIOS and SMM code. Who knows what is going on
behind the scenes in the BIOS, be it for intentional or more dubious
purposes.
Shawn Starr <[email protected]> writes:
> Linux doesnt use the BIOS if you tell it not to, if it can avoid using
> it. It will :)
The problem is that if you don't follow the Trusted Computing Platform
Alliance booting procedure, you won't see much mass-compatible content
on the Internet any longer.
The solution is simple: go and create your own content, and share it
with your friends. But you won't get Hollywood movies this way.
--
Florian Weimer [email protected]
University of Stuttgart http://CERT.Uni-Stuttgart.DE/people/fw/
RUS-CERT +49-711-685-5973/fax +49-711-685-5898
> The solution is simple: go and create your own content, and share it
> with your friends. But you won't get Hollywood movies this way.
The problem is that copy-protection will only be effective
if you impose Soviet style restrictions on the use of computers.
Certain powerful corporations want effective copy-protection.
Ergo, those powerful corporations will want to impose Soviet
style restrictions on the use of computers.
The attempt will ultimately fail. So did the Soviet Union, but
in the meantime the attempt to make it work was, and will be,
something of an inconvenience.
On Fri, 1 Mar 2002, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Linux doesnt use the BIOS if you tell it not to, if it can avoid using
> > it. It will :)
>
> It has no control over the BIOS and SMM code. Who knows what is going on
> behind the scenes in the BIOS, be it for intentional or more dubious
> purposes.
All too true. However, given the quality of BIOS code we have seen over
the years, the thought of your average BIOS programmer implementing
cryptographic techniques does provide some amusement ;-)
Any chance of any manafacturers open-sourcing their BIOS?
Regards,
Neale.
Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> Shawn Starr <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > Linux doesnt use the BIOS if you tell it not to, if it can avoid using
> > it. It will :)
>
> The problem is that if you don't follow the Trusted Computing Platform
> Alliance booting procedure, you won't see much mass-compatible content
> on the Internet any longer.
>
> The solution is simple: go and create your own content, and share it
> with your friends. But you won't get Hollywood movies this way.
>
Not watching Hollywood movies sure won't end my life. I can do without
them, and I'm sure eventually many other people will realize they can
too. I already know many that stopped going to movies when the price hit
$6.00 (it's $8.50 here now), and several that stopped buying and renting
them as well.
There are, after all, many more far more useful things in life. Hell, I
have 3 boxes of books I can read (or am I going to have to pay some
publisher somewhere every time I read one?! :) But, now this _IS_ OT. :)
PGA
--
Paul G. Allen
Owner, Sr. Engineer, Security Specialist
Random Logic/Dream Park
http://www.randomlogic.com
Neale Banks wrote:
[snip]
> All too true. However, given the quality of BIOS code we have seen
> over the years, the thought of your average BIOS programmer
> implementing cryptographic techniques does provide some amusement
> ;-)
PnP crypto? I'd love to see it. :)
That could actually be used somehow as some sort of pseudo-random
generator, given the legendary oh-so-predictable behaviour of most
BIOSes, even in normal circumstances... :D
> Any chance of any manafacturers open-sourcing their BIOS?
Uhmm... Odds: 1 in <buffer overflow>
Considering that they seem to see BIOSes as the easiest way to hide
hardware design mistakes, they probably wont.
OTOH, why not sticking Linux straight into BIOS flash chips?
Have a look here (sorry if you already knew):
http://www.linuxbios.org/
http://freebios.sourceforge.net/
Or just implement an OpenFirmware BIOS (that's cool! :)?
http://www.freiburg.linux.de/openbios/
> Regards, Neale.
All hope is not lost! ;)
Have fun.
/Dantes
Thomas Hood <[email protected]> writes:
>> The solution is simple: go and create your own content, and share it
>> with your friends. But you won't get Hollywood movies this way.
>
> The problem is that copy-protection will only be effective
> if you impose Soviet style restrictions on the use of computers.
That's not necessarily true. Most people cannot circumvent even basic
obstacles when it comes to computers, and both industry and
legislative might be content with that.
--
Florian Weimer [email protected]
University of Stuttgart http://CERT.Uni-Stuttgart.DE/people/fw/
RUS-CERT +49-711-685-5973/fax +49-711-685-5898
Replying to Thomas Hood:
> The problem is that copy-protection will only be effective
> if you impose Soviet style restrictions on the use of computers.
I lived in times when even typewriters (and SURELY copiers) all had to be
registered in a 'competent organizations'.
> Certain powerful corporations want effective copy-protection.
> Ergo, those powerful corporations will want to impose Soviet
> style restrictions on the use of computers.
>
> The attempt will ultimately fail. So did the Soviet Union, but
> in the meantime the attempt to make it work was, and will be,
> something of an inconvenience.
social
social contract (right?). we pay govt so they will protect us against
disasters, foreign enemies nad crime.
that thing transformed into counter-thing. govt thinks that crowd is
dumb-silent and finally about 160 millions of slaves (or prisoners).
this is the 'final destination' to which lead such attempts of total control
:(
unfortunately 98% don't care about such things. they sit on their g-spots
and drink vodka (or something). they DON'T NEED computers. or anything else
except their drinks.
and govt surely prefer that all citizens became such silent lambs. and
easy controlled idiots.
the one difference between govt and corporations - corporations want
citizens become idiots that generate money and gift it to a corporate CEO :)
--
Paul P 'Stingray' Komkoff 'Greatest' Jr // (icq)23200764 // (irc)Spacebar
PPKJ1-RIPE // (smtp)[email protected] // (http)stingr.net // (pgp)0xA4B4ECA4
On Sat, 2 Mar 2002, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Thomas Hood <[email protected]> writes:
>
> >> The solution is simple: go and create your own content, and share
> >> it with your friends. But you won't get Hollywood movies this way.
> >
> > The problem is that copy-protection will only be effective if you
> > impose Soviet style restrictions on the use of computers.
>
> That's not necessarily true. Most people cannot circumvent even basic
> obstacles when it comes to computers, and both industry and
> legislative might be content with that.
It seems highly unlikely. The goal of any such legislation and its
technological implmentation, whether copy protection, crypto, or
whatever, is not to make it *difficult* to circumvent the obstacle but
make it prohibitively *costly* for all but security agencies to do so.
--
M. Edward Borasky
[email protected]
The COUGAR Project
http://www.borasky-research.com/Cougar.htm
How to Stop A Folksinger Cold # 2
"Are you going to Scarborough Fair?..."
No.
Thomas Hood wrote:
> The problem is that copy-protection will only be effective
> if you impose Soviet style restrictions on the use of computers.
>
> Certain powerful corporations want effective copy-protection.
> Ergo, those powerful corporations will want to impose Soviet
> style restrictions on the use of computers.
I think Thomas is absolutely right about this, and for now it would
seem likely that this will eventually fail if for no other reason
than that many other powerful corporations, who have little direct
interest in consumer media content protection, would find such Soviet
style restrictions an extreme inconvenience. Powerful as the media
companies may be, ultimately they are still small compared to oil,
finance, or the heavy industries.
Not that I think we should rely on or wait for any corporations whose
interests happen to be coincidentally aligned with those of private
citizens... we need to also take action as citizens to halt this
rapid descent into a new information dark age. But it as part of
this action we should try to mobilize corporate interests who
are likely to be on our side... they might move too slowly otherwise
as it takes them a while to wake up to these kinds of threats to
their self-interest when they haven't yet visibly hit their bottom
line.
:j
--
J?rgen Botz | While differing widely in the various
[email protected] | little bits we know, in our infinite
| ignorance we are all equal. -Karl Popper
> > It has no control over the BIOS and SMM code. Who knows what is going on
> > behind the scenes in the BIOS, be it for intentional or more dubious
> > purposes.
>
> All too true. However, given the quality of BIOS code we have seen over
> the years, the thought of your average BIOS programmer implementing
> cryptographic techniques does provide some amusement ;-)
I trust several government agencies to be able to supply very high quality
SMM bios code through a person planted in one of the bios writing houses.
Trusted computing people take this kind of stuff very seriously - and for
good reason.
Alan
On Sat, 2 Mar 2002, Paul P Komkoff Jr wrote:
> govt thinks that crowd is dumb-silent and finally about 160 millions of
> slaves (or prisoners). this is the 'final destination' to which lead
> such attempts of total control :(
>
> unfortunately 98% don't care about such things. they sit on their
> g-spots and drink vodka (or something). they DON'T NEED computers. or
> anything else except their drinks.
vodka ? I think you mean "budweiser" ...
Rik
--
"Linux holds advantages over the single-vendor commercial OS"
-- Microsoft's "Competing with Linux" document
http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/
On 20020302 (Sat) at 1858:10 -0300, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Mar 2002, Paul P Komkoff Jr wrote:
> > unfortunately 98% don't care about such things. they sit on their
> > g-spots and drink vodka (or something). they DON'T NEED computers. or
> > anything else except their drinks.
>
> vodka ? I think you mean "budweiser" ...
Don't underrate that stuff, in the hands of the "blessed." They sit
around and drink between 2 and 5 341ml aliquots of 3% beer and imagine
themselves emperors of the universe -- then they behave accordingly......
--
| G r e g L o u i s | gpg public key: |
| http://www.bgl.nu/~glouis | finger [email protected] |
Header information for this message:
Subject: Re: SSSCA: We're in trouble now
To: Rik van Riel <[email protected]>
CC: Paul P Komkoff Jr <[email protected]>
[email protected]
From: Greg Louis <[email protected]>
On Sat, Mar 02, 2002 at 09:35:43AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
[...]
> That's not necessarily true. Most people cannot circumvent even basic
> obstacles when it comes to computers, and both industry and
> legislative might be content with that.
Don't be too sure about that. If a "few" knows how to circumvent,
they'll release circumvention kits that anybody can use.
Few people can use a new buffer overflow exploit, much
more can use a rootkit.
Helge Hafting
----- Original Message -----
From: "Helge Hafting" <[email protected]>
To: "Florian Weimer" <[email protected]>;
<[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002 9:30 AM
Subject: Re: SSSCA: We're in trouble now
> On Sat, Mar 02, 2002 at 09:35:43AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> [...]
> > That's not necessarily true. Most people cannot circumvent even basic
> > obstacles when it comes to computers, and both industry and
> > legislative might be content with that.
>
> Don't be too sure about that. If a "few" knows how to circumvent,
> they'll release circumvention kits that anybody can use.
>
> Few people can use a new buffer overflow exploit, much
> more can use a rootkit.
Well, even if those who uses a rootkit are many more than those who knows
how to use a buffer exploit, that doesn't mean they represent more than 5%
of all computer users.
My stepfather just recently figured out that you can actually DRAG a window
around the desktop. I don't think he will be using a rootkit in some time,
and I am pretty sure he don't know anyting about SSSCA, nor will he, nor
will he be able to understand if I told him.
(btw. I might very well be ~69.5% off topic now, as I missed some of the
conversation)
_____________________________________________________
| Martin Eriksson <[email protected]>
| MSc CSE student, department of Computing Science
| Ume? University, Sweden
[Cross posted for informational importance]
Martin Eriksson wrote:
>
>
> My stepfather just recently figured out that you can actually DRAG a window
> around the desktop. I don't think he will be using a rootkit in some time,
> and I am pretty sure he don't know anyting about SSSCA, nor will he, nor
> will he be able to understand if I told him.
>
You've touched on one of the main problems that spurs these kinds of
laws along through the system: People don't know about them or
understand them. Those of us that do know and understand them, and their
implications, need to speak up and explain them to those that do not.
Not doing so just gives those trying to push them through (and
succeeding) more power to do so. Those that draft, support, lobby, and
push for these kinds of laws often count on the fact that the public in
general is naive and are not paying enough attention to know what is
good and what is not good for them, or to even have a clue as to what is
going on on Capital Hill (or in Parliament, or wherever). They also rely
upon the Fear Factor.
The resent Anti Terrorism bills passed here in the U.S. were just
waiting for something to allow them to pass easily. Many of the policies
in these laws were drafted long before 9/11, and attempts were made to
make them law long before 9/11. Those attempts failed because either
people were aware of them each for what they were, or the law drafters
were not comfortable that they would pass. Along comes 9/11, and
suddenly people are more afraid of what would happen to them without a
new law (the Fear Factor), than what might happen with a new law. They
also did not pay much attention to the actual contents of the law
(herein lies the "not understanding, naive, not paying attention" part)
and allowed many concessions to to their freedom be made on the premise
of the government protecting them against terrorism. There are already
plenty of laws that would mandate a terrorist be prosecuted (or a
non-terrorist committing many of the crimes that were thrown into the
recent anti-terrorism laws), but it seems the powers that be just wanted
more control.
The bottom line is, to many too often sit and do nothing until they come
to realize it's too late to do anything other than the drastic. Is this
to be the trend when it comes to Open Source, including Linux? Maybe the
SSSCA or other laws will have no effect, but then maybe they will. I for
one do not wish to sit on my rear and wait to find out it (or they)
have.
PGA
--
Paul G. Allen
Owner, Sr. Engineer, Security Specialist
Random Logic/Dream Park
http://www.randomlogic.com
Florian Weimer <[email protected]>:
> Thomas Hood <[email protected]> writes:
>
> >> The solution is simple: go and create your own content, and share it
> >> with your friends. But you won't get Hollywood movies this way.
> >
> > The problem is that copy-protection will only be effective
> > if you impose Soviet style restrictions on the use of computers.
>
> That's not necessarily true. Most people cannot circumvent even basic
> obstacles when it comes to computers, and both industry and
> legislative might be content with that.
Not a chance. Think about it, if the legistators would be content with that
then they wouldn't need additional laws... M$ is already that way.
This is aimed at people that KNOW what they want, and know HOW to get it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse I Pollard, II
Email: [email protected]
Any opinions expressed are solely my own.
On Fri, Mar 01, 2002 at 06:59:27PM -0800, Paul G. Allen wrote:
> Florian Weimer wrote:
> >
> > Shawn Starr <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> > > Linux doesnt use the BIOS if you tell it not to, if it can avoid using
> > > it. It will :)
> >
> > The problem is that if you don't follow the Trusted Computing Platform
> > Alliance booting procedure, you won't see much mass-compatible content
> > on the Internet any longer.
> >
> > The solution is simple: go and create your own content, and share it
> > with your friends. But you won't get Hollywood movies this way.
> >
>
> Not watching Hollywood movies sure won't end my life. I can do without
> them, and I'm sure eventually many other people will realize they can
> too. I already know many that stopped going to movies when the price hit
> $6.00 (it's $8.50 here now), and several that stopped buying and renting
> them as well.
Sure, but then if Linux cannot (for either legal men-with-guns reasons
or technical reasons) utilize this content, you lose at the desktop.
And if Linux cannot serve this traffic, you lose at the server.
And then you lose the critical support many of the people working on
it who need to do this stuff to make money.
If this becomes law, Linux in some fashion will support it. IBM and
the like are (or will be) making too much money off it not to.
And if the government tells you how or what to do with the contents
of your computer, you will because if the financial interests are
strong enough, the laws will get passed, the constitutions will get
modified, and the courts will accept it.
And then you have two choices.
Do what they tell you, or go to jail. (Well, there is a third
choice, but it would best not be discussed here).
--
Share and Enjoy.
On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 09:30:55AM +0100, Helge Hafting wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 02, 2002 at 09:35:43AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> [...]
> > That's not necessarily true. Most people cannot circumvent even basic
> > obstacles when it comes to computers, and both industry and
> > legislative might be content with that.
>
> Don't be too sure about that. If a "few" knows how to circumvent,
> they'll release circumvention kits that anybody can use.
> Few people can use a new buffer overflow exploit, much
> more can use a rootkit.
That will end when you get a tripwire like system on each system
that reports back to Microsoft/Apple when certain critical binaries
don't match.
--
Share and Enjoy.
On Tue, 2002-03-05 at 23:26, Petro wrote:
> Do what they tell you, or go to jail. (Well, there is a third
> choice, but it would best not be discussed here).
And for the safety of those in the USA and around the world,
particularly on this list... it is best not to even think about it...
until it is the only option.
On Sat, Mar 02, 2002 at 06:30:42PM +0300, Paul P Komkoff Jr wrote:
>
> the one difference between govt and corporations - corporations want
> citizens become idiots that generate money and gift it to a corporate CEO :)
Nope.
The biggest difference is that Corporations have to convince you to
give them money so they can pay the governments to point guns at
you, while goverments just point guns at you to take your money.
It's all about money and force.
--
Share and Enjoy.
On Sat, Mar 02, 2002 at 09:47:24AM -0800, Jurgen Botz wrote:
> Thomas Hood wrote:
> > The problem is that copy-protection will only be effective
> > if you impose Soviet style restrictions on the use of computers.
> >
> > Certain powerful corporations want effective copy-protection.
> > Ergo, those powerful corporations will want to impose Soviet
> > style restrictions on the use of computers.
>
> I think Thomas is absolutely right about this, and for now it would
> seem likely that this will eventually fail if for no other reason
> than that many other powerful corporations, who have little direct
> interest in consumer media content protection, would find such Soviet
> style restrictions an extreme inconvenience. Powerful as the media
> companies may be, ultimately they are still small compared to oil,
> finance, or the heavy industries.
I think you're wrong about that.
Just about every company big enough to have a corporate lawyer, and
many even smaller do have "media" they need or want to track and
control.
They'd really like it if they could track or control who opens what
files, etc.
Inconvience is merely a cost of doing business, so they charge a
little more, whatever. As long as everybody else in that market is
facing the same constraints (which gives a clear way to strike at
the heart of this problem) that is ok.
It's a lot like other government mandates relating to paperwork,
hazardous materials fees--the company I work for , basically a web
site, has to pay a "lead fee" of some kind every year because our
industry has been identified as a possible problem. There are
thousands of other little things we have to pay fees to the governments
for, or prove compliance on for Human Resources etc. This is ok for the
business people (well, generally) since everyone else has to do it as
well. It hurst smaller companies more than larger companies, since
it takes a greater percentage of their resources to demonstrate
compliance, but that doesn't bother either the Big Companies or the
politicians much.
--
Share and Enjoy.
Petro wrote:
> > Don't be too sure about that. If a "few" knows how to circumvent,
> > they'll release circumvention kits that anybody can use.
> > Few people can use a new buffer overflow exploit, much
> > more can use a rootkit.
>
> That will end when you get a tripwire like system on each system
> that reports back to Microsoft/Apple when certain critical binaries
> don't match.
There is a difference between a circumvention kit and a rootkit.
The rootkit modifies stuff in order to hide itself.
The circumvention kit doesn't. It doesn't modify any
"official" binaries - it provides its own binary and lets
the other one sit there.
If this is impossible somehow - replace the tripwire-like system
as well as part of the circumvention kit. More work,
still possible. Or firewall the port used to report back
to vendors...
There is so many options. They may try - they will fail.
Helge Hafting
On 5 Mar 2002, Trever L. Adams wrote:
> On Tue, 2002-03-05 at 23:26, Petro wrote:
> > Do what they tell you, or go to jail. (Well, there is a third
> > choice, but it would best not be discussed here).
>
> And for the safety of those in the USA and around the world,
> particularly on this list... it is best not to even think about it...
Wasn't the second amendment created for this purpose ?
Rik
--
"Linux holds advantages over the single-vendor commercial OS"
-- Microsoft's "Competing with Linux" document
http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/
> Just about every company big enough to have a corporate lawyer, and
> many even smaller do have "media" they need or want to track and
> control.
One thing the SSSCA people must consider here is security impact. If a
document can be traced through its users then the ability of agencies to
work against organised crime will be crippled. The SSSCA appears to have no
provision to allow the FBI to remove watermarks, and makes it illegalf or
other people to be subcontracted to write the tools
Goodbye corporate whistleblowers, goodbye FBI plants in organised crime
bodies..
On Wed, 6 Mar 2002, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 5 Mar 2002, Trever L. Adams wrote:
> > On Tue, 2002-03-05 at 23:26, Petro wrote:
> > > Do what they tell you, or go to jail. (Well, there is a third
> > > choice, but it would best not be discussed here).
> >
> > And for the safety of those in the USA and around the world,
> > particularly on this list... it is best not to even think about it...
>
> Wasn't the second amendment created for this purpose ?
>
You mean some junk in the Constitution that Bush never read?
Somebody who targets civilian airliners to "protect certain assets",
thereby denying innocents the "due process" guaranteed by the
Constitution, certainly in unconcerned with mere legality. This
is not only illegal and immoral, it's even insane. The current
President of the United States has committed treason against the
Constitution and People of the United States of America and the
average American, having sold his birthright for the promise of
a job, remains sleeping in comfort.
Next they will come for your neighbor.
Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.4.18 on an i686 machine (799.53 BogoMips).
Bill Gates? Who?
Petro wrote:
> And if the government tells you how or what to do with the contents
> of your computer, you will because if the financial interests are
> strong enough, the laws will get passed, the constitutions will get
> modified, and the courts will accept it.
>
> And then you have two choices.
>
> Do what they tell you, or go to jail. (Well, there is a third
> choice, but it would best not be discussed here).
There is a fourth choice. For more than a hundred years of commercial
endeavor in the US and perhaps longer in other areas of the planet, the
solution to technically restrictive law has been to invent something
entirely new that implements the desired result in a way that falls outside
of the classifications written into the existing law.
It's the classic Church-Turing game. Writing a law necessarily creates an
explicit instance of a more general concept. These are inherently vulnerable
to sufficient creativity.
Best to invent under the umbrella of a respected university and publish only
in obscure journals to maximize the other side's response time.
Creativity is power.
Ed Vance
Rik van Riel wrote:
>
> On 5 Mar 2002, Trever L. Adams wrote:
> > On Tue, 2002-03-05 at 23:26, Petro wrote:
> > > Do what they tell you, or go to jail. (Well, there is a third
> > > choice, but it would best not be discussed here).
> >
> > And for the safety of those in the USA and around the world,
> > particularly on this list... it is best not to even think about it...
>
> Wasn't the second amendment created for this purpose ?
>
Exactly. Last I checked, I can still say and think what I want, but in
some cases it's the way you say it that matters. Your actions also have
bearing on your speach - just saying you're going to revolt is different
than saying it and then actually trying it.
I DO NOT have to do what they tell me, as the Constitution specifically
limits what they can tell me to do. Sure, they can try, they can even
break the law (as the SSSCA and DMCA do) and tell me to do it anyway,
and throw me in jail for not doing it.
The problem - and here I am repeating myself again - is that too many
people _allow_ themselves to be told what to do when what they are being
told is blatantly against the law. It comes down to the Fear Factor once
again, and THAT, I think, is the major driving force behind government
(or other) control.
The first reason the SSSCA will pass (if it does), and the reason the
DMCA did pass, is due to the fact that most people outside of the
technical "geek" community not only didn't (or don't) understand it, but
that they have never even heard of it. The second reason is because
those who do know and understand, kept (or keep) their mouths shut and
don't inform those who don't.
The third, at least in this country, is the piss poor voter
participation. Yesterday within 5 min. - the time it took me to go to
the polls, vote, and come home - I met no less than 5 people who freely
admitted to not voting and appearing to be proud of it. But that's
another issue altogether, and borders on OT.
PGA
--
Paul G. Allen
Owner, Sr. Engineer, Security Specialist
Random Logic/Dream Park
http://www.randomlogic.com
Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > Just about every company big enough to have a corporate lawyer, and
> > many even smaller do have "media" they need or want to track and
> > control.
>
> One thing the SSSCA people must consider here is security impact. If a
> document can be traced through its users then the ability of agencies to
> work against organised crime will be crippled. The SSSCA appears to have no
> provision to allow the FBI to remove watermarks, and makes it illegalf or
> other people to be subcontracted to write the tools
>
> Goodbye corporate whistleblowers, goodbye FBI plants in organised crime
> bodies..
Oh, but the FBI and DoJ appear to be excellent at breaking laws and
making people, including the courts, believe they are completely within
the law. According to many reports, there are hundreds of people being
"detained" for undetermined amounts of time under the new anti-terroriam
bills, without legal counsel, by both the FBI and DoJ. This is blatantly
illegal and unconstitutional, but they are doing it anyway.
The DMCA makes it illegal for them to do certain things, but they do.
The way the NSA reportedly listens to ALL communication, domestic or
foreign, is illegal. Do not discount the ability of the FBI or any other
law enforcement agency to work around any law as they see the need.
PGA
--
Paul G. Allen
Owner, Sr. Engineer, Security Specialist
Random Logic/Dream Park
http://www.randomlogic.com
Ed Vance wrote:
>
>
> Creativity is power.
>
Which is why certain laws like the DMCA and UCITA aim to stifle the use
of tools that assist in that creativity.
PGA
--
Paul G. Allen
Owner, Sr. Engineer, Security Specialist
Random Logic/Dream Park
http://www.randomlogic.com
On Wed, 2002-03-06 at 11:26, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > And for the safety of those in the USA and around the world,
> > particularly on this list... it is best not to even think about it...
>
> Wasn't the second amendment created for this purpose ?
>
> Rik
You seem to know US Bill of Rights fairly well. Yes, I believe you are
right. But I also believe it is the responsibility of the citizenry to
avoid exercising some "checks and balances" until all else has failed.
Blood is not a good thing to have on ones hands... innocent blood
especially.
More in private.
Trever
On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 04:42:14PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Just about every company big enough to have a corporate lawyer, and
> > many even smaller do have "media" they need or want to track and
> > control.
>
> One thing the SSSCA people must consider here is security impact. If a
Huh?
We're talking politicians here.
We're talking about the kind of people who try to pass a law setting
pi=3.14159 FULL STOP.
They don't have to consider jack shit.
> document can be traced through its users then the ability of agencies to
> work against organised crime will be crippled. The SSSCA appears to have no
> provision to allow the FBI to remove watermarks, and makes it illegalf or
> other people to be subcontracted to write the tools
> Goodbye corporate whistleblowers, goodbye FBI plants in organised crime
> bodies..
They don't care about whistleblowers, and FBI agents can always used
fake personalities.
--
Share and Enjoy.
Rik van Riel <[email protected]> writes:
>> And for the safety of those in the USA and around the world,
>> particularly on this list... it is best not to even think about it...
>
> Wasn't the second amendment created for this purpose ?
If you aren't a US citizen, the Constitution does not grant any rights
to you, I'm afraid. (Some courts might disagree, but I wouldn't bet
my freedom or even my life on it.)
--
Florian Weimer [email protected]
University of Stuttgart http://CERT.Uni-Stuttgart.DE/people/fw/
RUS-CERT +49-711-685-5973/fax +49-711-685-5898
On Thursday 07 March 2002 17:54, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Rik van Riel <[email protected]> writes:
> >> And for the safety of those in the USA and around the world,
> >> particularly on this list... it is best not to even think about it...
> >
> > Wasn't the second amendment created for this purpose ?
>
> If you aren't a US citizen, the Constitution does not grant any rights
> to you, I'm afraid. (Some courts might disagree, but I wouldn't bet
> my freedom or even my life on it.)
Actually, if you are in the U.S. legally, the Constitution does grant rights
to you. Most are given to "persons" not citizens. The Founding Fathers (tm)
had different ideas about citizenship than we do today.