LOCAL Mountain View, California, USA: events this week

[Eugen Leitl]

On Sat, Oct 18, 2003 at 10:50:22AM +0200, Anonymous wrote:
>
> It is indeed difficult to discuss these issues dispassionately in the
> current atmosphere of distrust and suspicion.  You and the EFF are doing

Ah, these unreasonable critics, revelling in pure paranoia. It's, of course,
entirely clear the vendors are emanating pure milk of human kindness. Having
only the
best interests of their customers at heart. Sure, we've forgotten all about
the true intents, the leaked documents. Every iteration is a clean slate,
no one is remembering the past lies. Cypherpunks have no clue about the
importance of a trust track. Right. We're all just babes in the woods.

> a good job overall of remaining objective, although as a result some
> are accusing you of being shills for Microsoft and DRM.

No, that'd be you. The usual FUD & lies channel. Thankfully, your views stink
so much it takes only a periodic reminder on which payroll you are.

> The real issue is this.  Attestation will allow a service provider to
> withhold his services unless you are using TC technology and running a
> particular software program of his choice.  Thus you may need to opt in
> in order to use his services.

Such as using ISP sevices. All of them. Obligate authentication to just go
online.

> Now, some people characterize this as a loss of choice, or as you put it,

Some people? Traitors, and terrorists! Criminals and pedophiles, the sundry
lot.

> as allowing you to be punished for opting out.  Suppose the service being
> offered is extremely valuable, like cheap movie downloads.  And suppose

Like routable TCP/IP. No shoes, no cert, no service. Like accessing the basic
Elsevier information, keyed to your cert. Limited life-time eyes-only
documents, to make whistleblowing harder.

> almost everyone opts in to use these services, enabling TC and running the
> approved clients.  Now you can opt out, but only at the expense of cutting
> yourself off from the flow of information that everyone else is enjoying.
>
> The same effect can occur in a decentralized network.  If there is some
> P2P program which uses TC to make sure that people are running kosher
> clients, and you opt out of TC, you can't participate in the network.

It takes a broken P2P service to be brought down by a few unkosher binaries.
Trust accounting and agoric load levelling don't take Pd hardware.
A palladium-plated turd is still a turd at its heart.

> This makes it seem that you are being punished for your decision.
>
> There are two problems with this analysis.  The first is that it overlooks
> that some of these services will only be provided if TC exists to assure
> that the data will be handled properly.  Without TC there may be no

Put a smartcard reader into the keyboard. Define a crypto hardware standard,
and bundle a card with each motherboard and PC. That would be a good thing.

> such service.  Characterizing TC as limiting choice or punishing those
> who opt out overlooks the advantages being provided to those who opt in
> by allowing them access to a service which might not otherwise exist.

Let those who want a limit on their choice pay for and insert the card
themselves.

> The more popular a service is, and the more people who opt in as a result,
> the harder it is to justify opposing the technology that made the service
> possible and allowed all those people to get access to an information
> flow which is important to them.  By focusing on those who wish to opt
> out, the analysis overlooks the larger group who benefits by opting in.

Look at concentration in scientific publishing. Tell me how Palladium will
reduce the monopolist stranglehold, reduce the prices and make scientific
information available to the largerst possible audience.

> And second, your analysis overlooks the fact that any economic transaction
> has two sides: producer and consumer.  Both have economic power in a
> competitive market.  Producers are not able to simply set the terms and

A manipulated market is no longer a competitive market. Producers and
consumers do not have equivalent leverage. The invisible hand is flipping
us the bird. Of course you know that, TCPA
troll.

> require consumers to accept them.  Rather, there is a constant flow,
> a give and take, between all sides, evolving to a mutually acceptable
> condition.

Rejoice everybody. Halleluja!

> Look at what is happening with digital music stores today.  Some, like
> Apple's service, offer music with relatively weak DRM restrictions.

There is no such thing as a weak DRM. Either I do have the raw bits of an
open format and the according transducer to render it into direct
monkey-consumables, or not. The rights are volatile, and subject to change.
Everything enforcible will be enforced, and a good hardened Palladium makes a
great many evils possible.

> Others have offered more limitations and harsher rules.  Consumers will
> soon have a wide range of choices, and this will allow the market to

Such as sharing that content freely? That'd be a cold day in hell, Palladium
troll.

> select the best mix of limitations and prices.  We are evolving to a
> state of "DRM lite" which offers mild restrictions that allow people
> to use their music in the ways they want, but makes it hard to share it
> with millions of their best friends on the net.

What's your problem with music industry getting out of business? What's your
problem with a greatly diminished copyright enforcement, and free sharing of
information?

Paint the worst picture you can. (Of course you've avoided answering so far,
because that'd be exposing your views as the corporate-financed lies they
are).

> Similarly, even though TC in principle allows service providers to
> impose Draconian restrictions, the marketplace won't just stand by and
> let it happen.  Consumers are not passive sheep; they are active and

Oh yes, now you're suggesting to ignore the history of what has already
happened. What the educated, active, intelligent consumers have let happen.

> intelligent, and they usually have a better idea of what is in their
> own best interests than those of us who are policy activists.

Bullcrap. The majority has no clue, and never had. It's the reason we're
having the current debacle.

> We could do a lot worse than to stand aside and let the market decide
> which technologies solve people's problems.  If TC is so bad for
> consumers, it will fail.  (Some cypherpunk types have predicted that

Go ask a fucking consumer what Palladium, TCPA, or whatever it's name happens
to be today (funny they keep changing the names, huh?) is. Most top end
notebooks already ship with Pd onboard, not widely advertised, though. I
wonder about that, now that's it's such a nice feature.

> TC will be mandated by law, such as the CBDTPA, and certainly I would
> agree that any such measures should be opposed.)

Now you're asking us to trust lawyers and feds, as well as corporate
interests. This is just getting better and better by the moment.

> Of course, we see this already to some extent, with any software program
> that uses proprietary data formats.  Programs using open formats compete
> with programs that use closed formats, and users can choose which ones
> to use.  You speak of users being "induced" to use proprietary formats,

Users don't CHOOSE, you Palladium troll. They didn't knew an open format if
it bit them in the ass. Their bosses choose, the monopolist choses for them
via default-bundle and lock-in.

> but that disparages their abilities to make choices that reflect their
> own best interests.

Blow me. I have better things to do with my Saturday than to post token
refutations. Let somebody else deconstruct your drivel.

> Trusted computing systems allow for new forms of trust relationships that
> are not possible today.

Yes, and new forms of abuses and controls not possible today. Let the lobbies
fight this out. The educated, intelligent, choosing consumer will swallow
either result.


-- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

[demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]