Intel to include DRM in new Pentium 4 series processors

[John R T Brazier]

Peter Fairbrother wrote:

>M$ displeases most of it's customers every day, what with "blue screens",
>virus susceptibilities, security holes, and so on. It has a monopoly, and
>can do pretty much what it likes.

Your first statement is 100% correct. However, I must disagree with the
second.
M$ has 'market dominance', but not a monopoly (Chambers - Monopoly: sole
power, or
privilege, of dealing in anything; exclusive command or possession; ...).

The point is that a monopoly makes you impervious to market forces; market
dominance does not.
Look at what happened to IBM when they got too snotty and comfortable.

TTFN

John B

-----Original Message-----
From: ukcrypto-admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk
[mailto:ukcrypto-admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk]On Behalf Of Peter
Fairbrother
Sent: 13 September 2002 20:06
To: ukcrypto@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Subject: Re: Intel to include DRM in new Pentium 4 series processors


Brian Gladman wrote:
> From: "Peter Fairbrother"
>> 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.

M$ displeases most of it's customers every day, what with "blue screens",
virus susceptibilities, security holes, and so on. It has a monopoly, and
can do pretty much what it likes. Even if it can't in fact do what it likes,
but just believes it can, it can do a lot of damage before it falls, due to
the large installed base.

What we should be doing is reducing the power of the monopoly (though not
necessarily supplanting it. A common platform has many benefits). My
proposal for "labelling laws" for computers, computer components and
software output and function is designed with this in mind.

>>> (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$ lose 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.

It doesn't matter much if some of them are ethical, it's the ones who aren't
(the main players in this case) who worry me. A wise general doen't judge
someone by his expressed intentions, but judges him by his capabilities and
the capabilities he seeks to gain. A technological limitation to the harm
TCPA could do is needed, not a legal or ethical limitation.

>>> (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.

I started dissecting the spec too, but the doc's seemed to actually say so
little, and were subject to so many caveats (including that they could be
changed completely, in effect making the document near-worthless) that I
gave up. To say that TCPA specifications are openly available is
misrepresentative, these aren't technical spec's so far, just obscure
mumbo-jumbo.

We've been promised a clear document "soon" for some time now.

> 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.

But do they accept letter bombs? On reflection, cruise missiles on the tops
of their pointy heads would be a better way to get their attention. It's a
pity that they're not in fact psychic, their heads would have exploded by
now from all the bad vibes.

Strange, at least one of the original authors is a nice guy. The road to
hell...

-- Peter