Trecherous Computing lol

I'm writing a debate on Trusted Computing, and after remembering a flash that's more than likely been bumped off of 4chan's /f/, I decided to ack world4ch about it. Anyone have links to good rants or articles on TC that would provide for some solid pros and cons about the issue? You guys could also throw in what you think about TC, as I can quote discussion groups.


mewtnote (lol): I was about to write this on Jackie T. and the Violence in Video Games baloney, but some professor who's much more important than me has already done it. (Very well, I might add.)

>>32
I'm pointing out that TC could be very useful indeed in a corporate setting.
And I'm pointing out that it couldn't be, because you'd want your security in software.

>>37
Guess what? Developers are less than 1% of most corporate populations. So how exactly does this refute what I said?

So we have to fag up computers for lusers so they can feel safe browsing intarweb sites found with MSN Search with Internet Explorer? Get real. Would you ban metal knives because of children?

I'm in a minority. So what? Being in a majority doesn't make you smarter or better, and it often makes you stupider and worse.


>>38
I'm working right now (ok, I was a couple hours aog) in a corporate environment. One that's not fagged up by the likes of you.


>>41
Not only that, but you'd want your developers and techies to be able to control that security for their own purposes.


BTW, the microsoft consultant defending treacherous computing is the same Anonymous.

This thread is going TO THE MOON! A lot of good points here, many more refuted! I'll read 30-onward when I get more time.

Dude, the 30-onward posts are the good ones. ;)

>>35
I personally despise Gimp, but I was using it to make a point. FOSS and independent development in general will be completely destroyed, along with any of these companies supporting TC. These companies know that they can eek more money out of the consumer if it's a product as vital as a PC, and if the ability to build a PC is effectively eliminated, part and software costs will skyrocket so the corporations will make more money. While this is all great for corporations and IT techs around the world, the middleman is fucked and the economy will run dry from people overspending on their credit cards to get a decent computer. So enjoy your $400 Windows and $600 300gig HDD.

I doubt that will happen (fortunately!), treacherous computing is flawed as anything these "security consultants" and "media rights experts" pull out of their asses.

Even if that happens, we'll always have a rogue market, probably Chinese, now that China is getting better and tech savvy. One good thing about China is they never get on all fours and let media corporations to rape them in the ass with George Zimmer's cock. They develop their own standards and say "fuck-you" to "industry standards" bullshit. That's how the free CVCD was born, for example. I'm sure they'd be up for a rogue PC market, and with a thriving community of Windows developers abandoned by microsoft, ReactOS would be fully functional soon.

Life will find a way. To fuck all terrorist protections.

Hello, >>42. Born stupid?

So we have to fag up computers for lusers so they can feel safe browsing intarweb sites found with MSN Search with Internet Explorer?

I love the elitism here. The world isn't computers, you know. What do you know about disciplines outside of your world of electrons? Do you know how to design bridges? Represent a client in the court of law? Save a life while performing surgery? Or even something simpler like carpentry?

Let me spell this out for you:
a) Most people are not computer wizards. They specialize elsewhere.
b) They often make mistakes (as do people like you).
c) As a result there are major problems, like viruses.
d) The IT dept administers their machines for them anyway.

Would you ban metal knives because of children?

Hardly comparable. You seem to think that if TC is enabled on some machines in a corp environment, then zOMG IT'S ENABLED ON ALL OF THEM SHIT THE MAN IS TAKING OVER!!1!

You're a kid.

>>47
Have you read up on TC at all? The idea is that no computer without it is able to communicate with a computer that has it, therefore making all "safe" computers "safe".

This means that all computers must have it, because a computer that doesn't have it will not be able to produce software for a computer that does have it, connect to the internet or print a paper. Since no computer without TC is usable, all computers must have TC if it becomes industry standard.

Another thing to note: IT DOESN'T MATTER IF I'M NOT A DOCTOR, IF I CAN BUILD A CHAIR OR IF I CAN DESIGN A BRIDGE. Viruses, as you insinuate, are often created to pray on user un-awareness - the solution to this, though, isn't to lock down everything (just as the solution to traffic problems isn't to build 1m walls on the sides of all roads) but to inform the users who handle computers daily, and incorporate SOME software security solutions (such as stripping of executables from email attatchments).

Like you said, people often make mistakes, this is something which can not be helped. We'll have to live with it (or adapt TC and watch everything in the IT area stagnate).

Also, what >>46 said makes a lot of sense. The Chinese would not adopt any TC standard, and the rogue market would (as per the dynamics of capitalism) downright kill the TC market as those computers will be both cheaper and without idiotic restrictions and DRM.

I love the elitism here.

Look, I'm not an architect on surgeon or an attorney or a carpenter or whatever.
But I don't demand that architecture, surgery and law be made easy for somebody like me who lacks knowledge in those fields, and I understand that it is best left to the professionals.

So why should we make the computers "easy" (IE, dumbing them down to the point of uselessness) for people who specialize? I love how you throw your specialization logic around, then say that any moron should be able to use a computer.

So do we all at *least* agree upon the fact that because of TC, the more educated, specialized users are being punished (to certain lengths) simply because of the average joe computers consumer who, for instance, couldn't even tell you what the difference between a flash drive and a floppy drive???

(Veering away from analyzing world4ch user elitism, heh. That's for another thread. ;) )

The idea is that no computer without it is able to communicate with a computer that has it

Authoritative link on this? I think you've misunderstood what remote attestation does.

to inform the users who handle computers daily, and incorporate SOME software security solutions

All true, but ignores that TC is another layer of defence. At some point additional security is counter-productive, but I believe TC is a far more effective and transparent means of keeping the users from harming the network than, say, telling them everyday that viruses are bad, or worrying some dickhead is going to truck in an infected laptop on some part of the network.

>>50
I think we can all agree that TC is bad news for a home user.

>>47
He he, microsoft consultant is getting mad. Consultants don't do that, you know.

The world isn't computers, you know.
The world is anything and everything for the people who work on and for it.

What do you know about disciplines outside of your world of electrons?
What do you know about disciplines inside of my world of electrons?

Do you know how to design bridges? etcetera
No, because that's not my speciality, but I do know one thing: you don't do it with treacherous computing or MSIE.

Most people are not computer wizards.
People using my custom built and configured computers aren't computer wizards either, and by following my advice and using my configuration they aren't having problems, and OMG, they're using untrusted computing!

They often make mistakes (as do people like you).
I make mistakes. I fix my mistakes. Then I proceed to fix mistakes made by lusers which take up a good part of my time :P . And treacherous computing is a mistake.

As a result there are major problems, like viruses.
Getting a virus, maybe. But viruses don't exist because they are a "mistake". They're some way of "natural selection" for computer users which I do not approve.

The IT dept administers their machines for them anyway.
And can you tell me how will the people who knows do their fucking job if they can't do anything? How will a mechanic fix his car if he has to get bill gates and sony music's approval (as if they were any trusted authority) for every fucking screw he wants to touch?

You seem to think that if TC is enabled on some machines in a corp environment, then zOMG IT'S ENABLED ON ALL OF THEM SHIT THE MAN IS TAKING OVER!!1!
You can't disable treacherous computing, moron. The second they're out, they'll want everything to be under their hand. There won't be something like a "non-TC computer", just like there's nothing like a "non-DRM windows mierda player". Mierda is Spanish for shit.

You're a kid.
Not that young I'm afraid, but I wish I were, to have more time to write against treacherous computing and dismantle the arguments of "professional business consultants", "security experts", and "information technologies lawyers" like you.


>>51
Do you want maximum security? Throw your computer out of your window and start using industry standard paper. Talk about trusted computing. No viruses, no kewl screensavers Bill Clinton emailed you to your Hotmail account, no data loss. That's just one step forwards from treacherous computing.

>>49
Statement of truth.

>>52
Statement of truth.

So the bottom line is, treacherous computing sucks hairy, greasy king kong balls, end of the story.

>>53
Oh and BTW, I'm not a "security expert". I'm a developer, and I just know how to not get screwed. My security policies for my home network could be described in 6 KB, and I haven't gotten any problem in ages (despite the kind of sites I usually visit and the kind of things I usually deal with).

Another BTW, if Windows Vista becomes useless because of treacherous computing, I'll join ReactOS and see how can I help making a free Windows. Perhaps you'll have to use ReactOS one day, and perhaps you'll benefit from this elitist asshole's $0.02.

He he, microsoft consultant is getting mad. Consultants don't do that, you know.

Ah, brillant assumption! Truly, you are psychic.

Do you use gentoo by any chance?

>>52
It is only bad news for the home thief.

>>56
And those who want to run anything Microsoft doesn't want you to.

>>55
No, I actually use a heavily tuned version of Windows 2000 (legal BTW) as my primary OS.

>>56
With this statement you show your ignorance or bad intentions. It's a terrible security policy (security by obscuring, and security the one in charge of a computer can't control or override) which is bad for everyone including corporations; it's a violation of several rights which is bad for everyone including corporations (although bullshit lawyers don't seem to care for this one); it's a lame obstacle and a pain in the arse for developers and techs - the ones who matter most as they are writing the software everyone else uses; and it's crappy and unfair especially for the legit home user who does nothing wrong and is still controlled, slowed down, and disturbed by all this shit.

microsoft just wants a dream machine who will only run "trustworthy software", as in "microsoft software" and "digital rights infringement". Everything else is "unsafe". Maybe this model is fine for worthless lusers who may very well get a simple box to run Windows XP and browse their interweb with MSIE. But you can't do this to PCs. PCs are used for much, much more than this luser bullshit, and just because the world is full of lusers who make up for 60% of users, we can't fag up PCs and screw the rest. You know why? Because the ones doing software - including that shitty MSIE you love to use - NEED a real computer without that microsoft shit (tm) to work.

If you can't see this, your opinion in this thread is worth nothing, gb2/partners.microsoft.com and enjoy your security. (We all know microsoft was always famous for their strong, well thought security policies and reliability, so it must be trusted the security of every computer in the world.)

Since we've already heard Microsoft's view in this thread from a particular Anonymous, we should read what the GNAA has to say about this. It's actually a balanced and serious opinion which throws some light to the topic.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html

>>58
You call people lusers, you must be a real computer expert. How impressive.

So basically you are saying that it is a good thing that current computers make stealing easy right?

>>60
Yes, just like it is a good thing that current knives make murdering easy. If it weren't easy, they would be useless. Being easy is a side effect from being useful. Would you penalize legit users for it? And why should I care? Not only music piracy is not my problem, but fucking with me is most surely not the solution.

>>61
We've already agreed that TC is generally bad news for home computing, yet most your arguments only appear to target that segment. In the corporation, most users don't need, nor should have, administrator access.

Trucking out that "security by obscurity" mantra shows that you aren't familiar with developing trustable systems. The algorithm and implementation is best when open, obviously, but it's only one part of a layered solution. If you put all your eggs in one basket, so to speak, you're begging for it.

>>61
The way you put it, given enough bullshit and spin-doctoring, you could convince the NRA to rally against TC!

I like the points made thusfar. It'll definitely be included into the paper.

>>61
Except that I don't see the harm in preventing the users from stealing what they obviously can't. If there was a way to prevent a knife from killing people, it would definitely be made mandatory on all knives, why shouldn't it be the same with computers, since they have the ability to prevent stealing?

>>62
In the corporation, most users don't need, nor should have, administrator access.
BINGO! You're talking about restricted users and administrator access. That's EXACTLY what we have NOW in any operating system, including Windows NT. See how we don't need treacherous computing at all?

The algorithm and implementation is best when open, obviously, but it's only one part of a layered solution.
A security system will be as strong as the single strongest layer. If you have enough power to break it, you have enough power to break the rest. Morever, you can't consider "secure" something that's completely out of your control and knowledge, and in the hands of a few greedy corporations (note: I'm not a communist hippy. There are good corporations, and bad corporations. Bad corporations are the ones trying to fuck you in the ass, and good corporations are the ones which don't cause any trouble).


>>63
you could convince the NRA to rally against TC!
Lol, hey, I'll join them!


>>64
I don't see the harm in preventing the users from stealing what they obviously can't
You don't see harm because you're probably an Internet Explorer user, but there IS harm: it makes computers useless for the ones who create software and mess with it, and becomes a pain in the ass for a shitload of home users.

If there was a way to prevent a knife from killing people, it would definitely be made mandatory on all knives
But there isn't because it would render knives useless. It's the same with computers.

treacherous computing is like banning streets to end with street gangs. It's flawed from the start, if you can't see this you're blind (but this we already knew, as you must be a religious follower of microsoft), and the ones who are behind treacherous computing know this, but they still try to go on, because they don't care for streets, and they have found in gangs the perfect excuse to take over the world's computers and force users to pay buckets of money for everything and do only whatever they want them doing.

treacherous computing would leave 95% of the world's computers in the hands of half a dozen corporations, how can you be so irresponsible? How can you trust a few shitty corporations who are infamous for their disrespect of users, freedom, competition, capitalism, and the law, and are being trialed over and over because of it? Go back to Cuba for fuck's sake!

You don't see harm because you're probably an Internet Explorer user
[...]Go back to Cuba for fuck's sake!
Let's not resort to name-calling.

it makes computers useless for the ones who create software and mess with it, and becomes a pain in the ass for a shitload of home users.
How the hell preventing people from stealing causes that?

But there isn't because it would render knives useless. It's the same with computers.
Way not to understand the argument. If there was a way to make knives useful to cut meat and useless to kill people, then such a security would be mandatory. Of course it's not technically possible, I just ask you to consider what would happen if it were possible, because computersss change the deal - they can permit legal uses and prevent illegal ones.


You are comparing large corporations to street gangs. That's not a very mature or realistic view of the world. Corporations are kept in check by the consumers and the governments.
Sure, some corporations want to prevent you from stealing music and movies. You call that greedy? If they were installing security devices in brick-and-mortar shops to prevent stealing, you definitely wouldn't call that greedy, you'd say it is the right thing to do.

>>65
See how we don't need treacherous computing at all?

Not exactly. Let's say I have a document I absolutely do not want to leave the organization. How would you reliably prevent that from happening with the current system?

A security system will be as strong as the single strongest layer.

Which could well be TC.

Morever, you can't consider "secure" something that's completely out of your control and knowledge

Which is why I quite clearly (twice already) have stated I'm only interested in TC unless the only people holding the keys to the systems is the corporate entity that owns the machines. The IT and legal departments, right?

Of course, we can't be 100% certain what Windows, Oracle, zOS, SAP, etc, are doing either, and most people don't look at OSS code (they rely on reputation), so I'm not certain how much of a change it'll be. Not that I'm in favour of other entities being in the picture.

TC if the only

fixed

>>67
Let's say I have a document I absolutely do not want to leave the organization.
It may not be printed, because someone might take that paper version with them out the door. It might not be displayed on a monitor, because someone might make a photograph. Etcetera. Hell, nobody can even see it, because they might memorize it!

>>66
>> [...] can permit legal uses and prevent illegal ones.
Ignoring your assumption that illegal acts are always immoral and should therefore be prevented (which is really the most flawed part of your argument), computers cannot permit all legal uses while also preventing illegal ones.

You also apparently have a naive view of corporations.

I smell trolls.

Ignoring your assumption that illegal acts are always immoral and should therefore be prevented (which is really the most flawed part of your argument), computers cannot permit all legal uses while also preventing illegal ones.

Then do what we do in democracy: push for laws that make it legal to steal your entertainment. Whatever your opinion is on this topic, the current laws must be enforced, and TC is one of the many good means to enforce them. But until you make stealing legal, you are only saying that you think we should not make things that make the law easier to apply because you want it to be easily breakable.

Which is why I quite clearly (twice already) have stated I'm only interested in TC unless the only people holding the keys to the systems is the corporate entity that owns the machines. The IT and legal departments, right?

Owning the keys ≠ controlling the implementation. Who knows what you get for free with your TC deal?

I smell trolls.
Trolls? On the largest debate in /comp/?

[...] push for laws that make it legal to steal your entertainment.
I try. Besides, it's inevitable. The current intellectual property situation is not stable, with the cost of copying at virtually zero, and yet completely artificial limits to distribution. It's all very different from physical property, and any similarities exist mostly in the wording people use.

Whatever your opinion is on this topic, the current laws must be enforced, [...]
...while not limiting the computers' usefulness or, more particularly, our freedoms. This is where the knive analogy comes in again.

>>66
Let's not resort to name-calling.
Name-calling or truth-stating depending on how you look at it. And what I meant by these is that you don't seem to have computer insight (therefore you shouldn't be talking about tc, much less defending it), and I think you'd be happier living on Cuba (where good fidel has his "trusted citizens" policy) than in Western countries.

How the hell preventing people from stealing causes that?
treacherous computing will prevent hackers from working and developers from working without asking for permission on every step. (Note: "hackers" doesn't mean what you saw on TV and the movies, and no they don't break into hospital networks.) You don't know how a developer works; before supporting something as terrible as treacherous computing, you should know.

Way not to understand the argument. If there was a way to make knives useful to cut meat and useless to kill people, then such a security would be mandatory.
Problem is, there's no way to make computers useful to real users and developers and useless to do what microsoft and riaa don't want you doing.

because computersss change the deal - they can permit legal uses and prevent illegal ones.
You are wrong. Here's some truth:
1. Legal is what's defined by the law, not the treacherous computing corporations
2. It's legal to develop
3. It's legal to run custom software
4. It's legal to copy data for private use
treacherous computing breaks all four points. treacherous computing not only prevents illegal ones, it prevents legit users from doing legal things.

You are comparing large corporations to street gangs.
I wasn't comparing large corporations to street gangs (reread my post), but now that you mention it, I trust a street gang to defend my interests over riaa, mpaa and sony any day.

Corporations are kept in check by the consumers and the governments.
HAHAHAHAHAHA

some corporations want to prevent you from stealing music and movies. You call that greedy?
They don't want to prevent me from stealing music and movies. With treacherous computing, they want to prevent me from doing things they don't like, be them legal or not. This includes running software and being in control of my computer. You're incredibly ingenuous and gullible not to realize this. For example, take microsoft. They don't sell media. They sell OSes. To a certain extent, music piracy helped them. There are more and easier ways to download music illegally on Windows than any other OS. And Windows is what they sell, not music. Why are them on the treacherous computing campaign? Because that way they can hurt their most feared competition ever: free software. microsoft doesn't want me to develop my own tools or use my friend's, they want me to buy $400 professional business industry standard software solutions made by them.

If they were installing security devices in brick-and-mortar shops to prevent stealing, you definitely wouldn't call that greedy, you'd say it is the right thing to do.
Yes, because:
1. The shops aren't mine
2. They only prevent people from stealing, but they don't prevent me from using the shops in any way
3. They don't prevent shop owners from controlling their shops and modifying them in any way they want
4. They don't touch my balls


>>67
Let's say I have a document I absolutely do not want to leave the organization. How would you reliably prevent that from happening with the current system?
You can't, either in this system, bill gates' treacherous computing, or anything. It's a problem inherent to information. If you can't trust your employees, you're bound to fail. Read what >>69 said.

Which could well be TC.
treacherous computing is not a security layer, it's a rights infringement layer, and it's by no means secure, because as I said, it's ruled by somebody that's not you or your company's authority, and it's obscure security.

I'm only interested in TC unless the only people holding the keys to the systems is the corporate entity that owns the machines
Man, then you are not interested in treacherous computing, end of the story. There's no way to get rid of the bullshit microsoft and media corporations will build into treacherous computing, and there's no way for you to be the one in control. In fact, you must be constantly updating your keys and rules (which is done in the background and without your approval) for treacherous computing software to work. treacherous computing will stay out of your control and be an impediment for your own developed corporate software and IT department, don't doubt it.


>>69
You also apparently have a naive view of corporations.
That's a major understatement.


I smell trolls.
In MY vagina?


>>70
the current laws must be enforced, and TC is one of the many good means to enforce them
Fail. treacherous computing has nothing to do with the law, and it's ruled by maffia organizations who aren't the law but want to be. In fact, it should be illegal.


>>72
Truth

>>73
Your large post would be great if it didn't had one fatal flaw: there will definitely be some testing frameworks available to develop and test your applications without an external authorization server. Therefore, it does not prevents you from developing.

treacherous computing is not a security layer, it's a rights infringement layer
Looks like you've learned your 1984-style of argumentation very well. You are just searching excuses to continue being a thief. Too bad it won't be technically possible anymore in a few years, eh?

>>74
there will definitely be some testing frameworks available to develop and test your applications without an external authorization server
Absolutely useless: they'll still be protected, and you still can't release free software naturally and decently

Looks like you've learned your 1984-style of argumentation very well. You are just searching excuses to continue being a thief.
Looks like you've learned your 2005 Bush-style of argumentation very well. Anybody against treacherous computing is because he wants to be a thief.

I wouldn't be bothered if treacherous computing somehow prevented piracy without affecting me in any way. I am bothered because I am affected (corporations controlling my computer, anti-developer policies, anti-free software policies, not being able to do what I want which is legal, background shit, no privacy, system complication, etc).

Too bad it won't be technically possible anymore in a few years, eh?
Ha ha ha, you're a funny troll or have the mentality of a 10 years old who was told by pops Bill what to think and what to say. Tell you what, I'd rather let you, suited consultants and corporations think it's impossible. That way they'll stop inventing new shit to fuck me in the ass as I don't have anything to do with them or piracy.

You are just searching excuses to continue being a thief. Too bad it won't be technically possible anymore in a few years, eh?

So here's one thing I wonder about. Suppose there are two video files: One contains a recording of a children's birthday party. Another contains a decent quality movie, ripped and thus as unprotected as the first file (it might be a recording of the movie being played on a screen, if you think TC will make direct ripping too difficult). Now, consumers should be able to view the first file, or you'd risk outrage. But according to your post, the second file cannot be watched anymore ('not technically possible anymore'). So either:
(1) TC includes an AI capable of detecting illegal media playback (LOL), or
(2) User made media/software/etc will become completely impossible to view/use (LOL, try forcing that on people).

Conclusion: TC cannot really be used against piracy.

This is for the pro-TC, anti-pirate Anonymous:

TC and current DRM technologies prevent me from using them in LEGAL ways. I can not buy a CD, rip it into OGG, put it on my webserver and stream the music from my home while I'm in school. This is all fully legal, but isn't possible with legally bought CDs because of DRM. At the moment I download any album I buy so that I can do exactly this. This legal use would be impossible with TC, and therefore it prevents me from EXPERIENCING MEDIA even though I'M NOT A PIRATE. One does not need to be a thief, as you so gently put it, to think ill of TC.

In addition to preventing free software from spreading, TC does prevent it from being developed. About half of all current applications are web-applications which require access to internet and other computers to function. Thus, I need internet access to test my programs (I'm a developer. I write a web based gui for a document handling system at the moment, and yes - its' the function our clients have been requesting the most), and TC won't let me do this.

I'm another web developer. Naturally, as anyone with knowledge of this matter that doesn't work for microsoft would, I oppose TC.

>>69
It might not be displayed on a monitor, because someone might make a photograph.

Which is clearly intentional, and thus fodder for the legal department. However, TC prevents people from accidentally sending the document where it shouldn't go; it provides quite a large roadblock.

>>71
Owning the keys ≠ controlling the implementation. Who knows what you get for free with your TC deal?

The same can be said for the BIOS and the rest of the hardware. Truth is, none of us really knows what goes on in that layer. We just trust it's not doing something we don't. So what's your point?

>>79

TC introduces too many negative effects to make it a useful solution to the "accidentally sending important documents to the enemies"-problem, just read this thread about the developer-situation. Alternatives to it could be to use the already built in password-protection in MS Word or having competent employees.

I think >>71's point was that we shouldn't add a restrictive layer which does not satisfy a need appropriately and is a potential security risk.