Re: [News] DRM Cracked (Reverse-Engineered) Again

["Oliver Wong" <owong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message 
news:1259829.L4esHnObgV@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> __/ [ The Ghost In The Machine ] on Wednesday 13 September 2006 23:00 \__
>
> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Roy Schestowitz
> > <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >  wrote
> > on Wed, 13 Sep 2006 21:08:07 +0100
> > <8361141.bqhUfD0Rff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> > > QTFairUse6 Updated Hours After iTunes7 Release
> > >
> > > ,----[ Quote ]
> > > | "Mere hours after iTunes 7's release, QTFairUse6 has received an 
> > > update
> > > | which enables it to continue stripping iTunes songs of their 
> > > 'FairPlay'
> > > | DRM. Some features are experimental but at least it's proof that the
> > > | concept still works."
> > > `----
> > >
> > > http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/13/1354252&from=rss
> > >
> > > It's clear that people loathe DRM, no matter how secretly you shove it 
> > > in
> > > their faces.
> >
> > The "little people" (end consumers), yes.  I don't know
> > regarding media moguls.  They probably love the idea. :-)
> >
> > Me, I'm not sure either way.  The problem is that
> > techniques for implementing DRM -- done properly -- can
> > also be used to implement electronic cash transfers,
> > and vice versa.
> >
> > Of course one might ask who benefits from electronic cash
> > transfers (as opposed to more old-fashioned methods such
> > as briefcases full of money, bills, or hand-signed checks).
>
> Trusted computing is also said to be assistive in the context of security. 
> It
> can help interception of remotely owned machines (zombies) and maybe even
> WGA. But still... it's all about restrictions. There is not much which is
> gained, but rather the prevention of things. It's not about trust; it's
> about distrust rather.

   Yes, but putting a password on your Linux box is a form of "distrust" or 
"restriction", and I don't think anyone would argue that this is evil. It's 
just that "distrust" and "restriction" are emotionally loaded words.

   Trusted computing (the non-trademarked term) basically means the 
hardware is able to authenticate its identity (either to the software or to 
other hardware). What people don't like is the "I can't control my computer" 
concept, which isn't inherent in trusted computing at all. It may be part of 
the concept that Microsoft, Intel, et all are promoting. I'm not sure if 
they're calling it "Trusted Computing (tm)" or "Palladium (tm)" or some 
other term.

   To avoid fruitless arguments, it's important to agree on what is meant 
by certain terms in the context of the discussion.

   To me, saying Microsoft's implementation of trusted computing is evil, 
therefore trusted computing itself is evil is akin to saying a bank robber's 
implementation of making money is evil, therefore making money itself is 
evil.

   - Oliver