Intel to include DRM in new Pentium 4 series processors

[Brian Gladman]

From: "Peter Fairbrother" <zenadsl6186@zen.co.uk>
To: <ukcrypto@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Sent: Friday, September 13, 2002 11:12 AM
Subject: Re: Intel to include DRM in new Pentium 4 series processors


> Brian Gladman wrote:
>
> [much snips]
> > I expect the following to be true:
>
> > (b) A remote agent requires the explicit permission of the PC owner in
order
> > to install a 'trusted box'.
>
> So? Seen the recent Windoze EULA's? Dream on, if you think that'll make
any
> difference.

The TCPA specification is clear on this and I was talking about TCPA and
TCPA compliant implementations of its features.  I agree that some companies
will seek to go further than TCPA recommends and its up to purchasers to
decide if they want to accept their offerings.

If Microsoft seeks to impose draconian terms for Windows, the biggest
beneficiary by far will be GNU/Linux. If they seek to impose silly
constraints on Word users, Star Office will become a standard very quickly.
You can criticise Windows as much as you like but the one thing that
Microsoft cannot afford to do is to displease most of its customers.

But I agree that the unconscious acceptance of draconian terms with higher
assurance enforcement through TCPA features is an issue.  An informed owner
is not at risk but what proportion of PC owners can be said to be informed
to the point that they would understand what they are letting themselves in
for with TCPA?

> > (d) A code of ethics on the use of these features will be published and
> > 'agreed' by the community at large.
>
> But they aren't "ethical", are they, else why did M$ loose the case. A
> technologically enforced code of behaviour might be acceptable, but
relying
> on the "ethics" of the likes of M$ and Disnae' is a road to slavery.

Some are, some are not.  Personally I don't think it is fair to cast the
large number of companies working on TCPA all in the same light.  Some are
undoubtedly there because they want 'draconian DRM' but I am very confident
that others are there because they genuinely want to offer PC owners
machines which are more trustworthy from an owner's perspective. These
objectives conflict to a significant extent and the resulting strains in the
specification are only too clear.

> >(TCPA
> > specifications are openly available).
>
> but they're nigh on incomprehensible, say very little definitively, and
are
> subject to major changes at the whim of the cartel.

I very much agree with your first point and I have pressed the TCPA team for
a comprehensible TCPA architecture document.  I am told that this will be
available in the not too distant future.  This has caused myself and others
weeks of work trying to unpick the specifications we have at the moment.

For my part I am pleased that the specifications are subject to change since
some of the features need revision.  And I have found that the TCPA team
does listen to input. But they are not psychic so people do need to
communicate with them.

   Brian