SSSCA: We're in trouble now
Quoted 2 lines
The solution is simple: go and create your own content, and share it with your friends. But you won't get Hollywood movies this way.
The problem is that copy-protection will only be effective if you impose Soviet style restrictions on the use of computers.
Certain powerful corporations want effective copy-protection. Ergo, those powerful corporations will want to impose Soviet style restrictions on the use of computers.
The attempt will ultimately fail. So did the Soviet Union, but in the meantime the attempt to make it work was, and will be, something of an inconvenience.
Quoted 5 lines · Thomas Hood
Quoted 2 lines
The solution is simple: go and create your own content, and share it with your friends. But you won't get Hollywood movies this way.
The problem is that copy-protection will only be effective if you impose Soviet style restrictions on the use of computers.
That's not necessarily true. Most people cannot circumvent even basic obstacles when it comes to computers, and both industry and legislative might be content with that.
Signature · 3 lines
Florian Weimer [email protected] University of Stuttgart http://CERT.Uni-Stuttgart.DE/people/fw/ RUS-CERT +49-711-685-5973/fax +49-711-685-5898
Quoted 11 lines · Florian Weimer
Quoted 5 lines · Thomas Hood
Quoted 2 lines
The solution is simple: go and create your own content, and share it with your friends. But you won't get Hollywood movies this way.
The problem is that copy-protection will only be effective if you impose Soviet style restrictions on the use of computers.
That's not necessarily true. Most people cannot circumvent even basic obstacles when it comes to computers, and both industry and legislative might be content with that.
It seems highly unlikely. The goal of any such legislation and its technological implmentation, whether copy protection, crypto, or whatever, is not to make it *difficult* to circumvent the obstacle but make it prohibitively *costly* for all but security agencies to do so.
Signature · 8 lines
M. Edward Borasky [email protected] The COUGAR Project http://www.borasky-research.com/Cougar.htm How to Stop A Folksinger Cold # 2 "Are you going to Scarborough Fair?..." No.
Replying to Thomas Hood:
Quoted 2 lines
The problem is that copy-protection will only be effective if you impose Soviet style restrictions on the use of computers.
I lived in times when even typewriters (and SURELY copiers) all had to be registered in a 'competent organizations'.
Quoted 7 lines
Certain powerful corporations want effective copy-protection. Ergo, those powerful corporations will want to impose Soviet style restrictions on the use of computers.
The attempt will ultimately fail. So did the Soviet Union, but in the meantime the attempt to make it work was, and will be, something of an inconvenience.
social
social contract (right?). we pay govt so they will protect us against disasters, foreign enemies nad crime.
that thing transformed into counter-thing. govt thinks that crowd is dumb-silent and finally about 160 millions of slaves (or prisoners). this is the 'final destination' to which lead such attempts of total control :(
unfortunately 98% don't care about such things. they sit on their g-spots and drink vodka (or something). they DON'T NEED computers. or anything else except their drinks.
and govt surely prefer that all citizens became such silent lambs. and easy controlled idiots.
the one difference between govt and corporations - corporations want citizens become idiots that generate money and gift it to a corporate CEO :)
Signature · 2 lines
Paul P 'Stingray' Komkoff 'Greatest' Jr // (icq)23200764 // (irc)Spacebar PPKJ1-RIPE // (smtp)[email protected] // (http)stingr.net // (pgp)0xA4B4ECA4
Quoted 7 lines · Paul P Komkoff Jr
govt thinks that crowd is dumb-silent and finally about 160 millions of slaves (or prisoners). this is the 'final destination' to which lead such attempts of total control :(
unfortunately 98% don't care about such things. they sit on their g-spots and drink vodka (or something). they DON'T NEED computers. or anything else except their drinks.
vodka ? I think you mean "budweiser" ...
Rik
Signature · 4 lines
"Linux holds advantages over the single-vendor commercial OS"
-- Microsoft's "Competing with Linux" document
http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/Quoted 7 lines · Rik van Riel
Quoted 3 lines · Paul P Komkoff Jr
unfortunately 98% don't care about such things. they sit on their g-spots and drink vodka (or something). they DON'T NEED computers. or anything else except their drinks.
vodka ? I think you mean "budweiser" ...
Don't underrate that stuff, in the hands of the "blessed." They sit around and drink between 2 and 5 341ml aliquots of 3% beer and imagine themselves emperors of the universe -- then they behave accordingly......
Signature · 9 lines
| G r e g L o u i s | gpg public key: | | http://www.bgl.nu/~glouis | finger [email protected] | Header information for this message: Subject: Re: SSSCA: We're in trouble now To: Rik van Riel <[email protected]> CC: Paul P Komkoff Jr <[email protected]> [email protected] From: Greg Louis <[email protected]>
Quoted 6 lines · Thomas Hood
The problem is that copy-protection will only be effective if you impose Soviet style restrictions on the use of computers.
Certain powerful corporations want effective copy-protection. Ergo, those powerful corporations will want to impose Soviet style restrictions on the use of computers.
I think Thomas is absolutely right about this, and for now it would seem likely that this will eventually fail if for no other reason than that many other powerful corporations, who have little direct interest in consumer media content protection, would find such Soviet style restrictions an extreme inconvenience. Powerful as the media companies may be, ultimately they are still small compared to oil, finance, or the heavy industries.
Not that I think we should rely on or wait for any corporations whose interests happen to be coincidentally aligned with those of private citizens... we need to also take action as citizens to halt this rapid descent into a new information dark age. But it as part of this action we should try to mobilize corporate interests who are likely to be on our side... they might move too slowly otherwise as it takes them a while to wake up to these kinds of threats to their self-interest when they haven't yet visibly hit their bottom line.
:j
Signature · 3 lines
Jürgen Botz | While differing widely in the various [email protected] | little bits we know, in our infinite | ignorance we are all equal. -Karl Popper
On Sat, Mar 02, 2002 at 09:35:43AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
[...]
Quoted 3 lines
That's not necessarily true. Most people cannot circumvent even basic obstacles when it comes to computers, and both industry and legislative might be content with that.
Don't be too sure about that. If a "few" knows how to circumvent, they'll release circumvention kits that anybody can use.
Few people can use a new buffer overflow exploit, much more can use a rootkit.
Helge Hafting
----- Original Message -----
From: "Helge Hafting" <[email protected]>
To: "Florian Weimer" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002 9:30 AM
Subject: Re: SSSCA: We're in trouble now
Quoted 11 lines · Florian Weimer
[...]
Quoted 3 lines
That's not necessarily true. Most people cannot circumvent even basic obstacles when it comes to computers, and both industry and legislative might be content with that.
Don't be too sure about that. If a "few" knows how to circumvent, they'll release circumvention kits that anybody can use.
Few people can use a new buffer overflow exploit, much more can use a rootkit.
Well, even if those who uses a rootkit are many more than those who knows how to use a buffer exploit, that doesn't mean they represent more than 5% of all computer users.
My stepfather just recently figured out that you can actually DRAG a window around the desktop. I don't think he will be using a rootkit in some time, and I am pretty sure he don't know anyting about SSSCA, nor will he, nor will he be able to understand if I told him.
(btw. I might very well be ~69.5% off topic now, as I missed some of the conversation)
_____________________________________________________
| Martin Eriksson <[email protected]> | MSc CSE student, department of Computing Science | Umeå University, Sweden
[Cross posted for informational importance]
Quoted 7 lines · Martin Eriksson
My stepfather just recently figured out that you can actually DRAG a window around the desktop. I don't think he will be using a rootkit in some time, and I am pretty sure he don't know anyting about SSSCA, nor will he, nor will he be able to understand if I told him.
You've touched on one of the main problems that spurs these kinds of laws along through the system: People don't know about them or understand them. Those of us that do know and understand them, and their implications, need to speak up and explain them to those that do not. Not doing so just gives those trying to push them through (and succeeding) more power to do so. Those that draft, support, lobby, and push for these kinds of laws often count on the fact that the public in general is naive and are not paying enough attention to know what is good and what is not good for them, or to even have a clue as to what is going on on Capital Hill (or in Parliament, or wherever). They also rely upon the Fear Factor.
The resent Anti Terrorism bills passed here in the U.S. were just waiting for something to allow them to pass easily. Many of the policies in these laws were drafted long before 9/11, and attempts were made to make them law long before 9/11. Those attempts failed because either people were aware of them each for what they were, or the law drafters were not comfortable that they would pass. Along comes 9/11, and suddenly people are more afraid of what would happen to them without a new law (the Fear Factor), than what might happen with a new law. They also did not pay much attention to the actual contents of the law (herein lies the "not understanding, naive, not paying attention" part) and allowed many concessions to to their freedom be made on the premise of the government protecting them against terrorism. There are already plenty of laws that would mandate a terrorist be prosecuted (or a non-terrorist committing many of the crimes that were thrown into the recent anti-terrorism laws), but it seems the powers that be just wanted more control.
The bottom line is, to many too often sit and do nothing until they come to realize it's too late to do anything other than the drastic. Is this to be the trend when it comes to Open Source, including Linux? Maybe the SSSCA or other laws will have no effect, but then maybe they will. I for one do not wish to sit on my rear and wait to find out it (or they) have.
PGA
Signature · 4 lines
Paul G. Allen Owner, Sr. Engineer, Security Specialist Random Logic/Dream Park www.randomlogic.com
Quoted 10 lines · Helge Hafting
On Sat, Mar 02, 2002 at 09:35:43AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
[...]Quoted 3 lines
That's not necessarily true. Most people cannot circumvent even basic obstacles when it comes to computers, and both industry and legislative might be content with that.
Don't be too sure about that. If a "few" knows how to circumvent, they'll release circumvention kits that anybody can use. Few people can use a new buffer overflow exploit, much more can use a rootkit.
That will end when you get a tripwire like system on each system that reports back to Microsoft/Apple when certain critical binaries don't match.
Signature · 1 line
Share and Enjoy.
Quoted 3 lines · Paul P Komkoff Jr
the one difference between govt and corporations - corporations want citizens become idiots that generate money and gift it to a corporate CEO :)
Nope.
The biggest difference is that Corporations have to convince you to give them money so they can pay the governments to point guns at you, while goverments just point guns at you to take your money.
It's all about money and force.
Signature · 1 line
Share and Enjoy.
Quoted 8 lines · Jurgen Botz
Quoted 6 lines · Thomas Hood
The problem is that copy-protection will only be effective if you impose Soviet style restrictions on the use of computers.
Certain powerful corporations want effective copy-protection. Ergo, those powerful corporations will want to impose Soviet style restrictions on the use of computers.
Quoted 7 lines
I think Thomas is absolutely right about this, and for now it would seem likely that this will eventually fail if for no other reason than that many other powerful corporations, who have little direct interest in consumer media content protection, would find such Soviet style restrictions an extreme inconvenience. Powerful as the media companies may be, ultimately they are still small compared to oil, finance, or the heavy industries.
I think you're wrong about that.
Just about every company big enough to have a corporate lawyer, and many even smaller do have "media" they need or want to track and control.
They'd really like it if they could track or control who opens what files, etc.
Inconvience is merely a cost of doing business, so they charge a little more, whatever. As long as everybody else in that market is facing the same constraints (which gives a clear way to strike at the heart of this problem) that is ok.
It's a lot like other government mandates relating to paperwork, hazardous materials fees--the company I work for , basically a web site, has to pay a "lead fee" of some kind every year because our industry has been identified as a possible problem. There are thousands of other little things we have to pay fees to the governments for, or prove compliance on for Human Resources etc. This is ok for the business people (well, generally) since everyone else has to do it as well. It hurst smaller companies more than larger companies, since it takes a greater percentage of their resources to demonstrate compliance, but that doesn't bother either the Big Companies or the politicians much.
Signature · 1 line
Share and Enjoy.
Quoted 3 lines
Just about every company big enough to have a corporate lawyer, and many even smaller do have "media" they need or want to track and control.
One thing the SSSCA people must consider here is security impact. If a document can be traced through its users then the ability of agencies to work against organised crime will be crippled. The SSSCA appears to have no provision to allow the FBI to remove watermarks, and makes it illegalf or other people to be subcontracted to write the tools
Goodbye corporate whistleblowers, goodbye FBI plants in organised crime bodies..
Quoted 5 lines · Alan Cox
Quoted 4 lines
Just about every company big enough to have a corporate lawyer, and many even smaller do have "media" they need or want to track and control.
Quoted 8 lines
One thing the SSSCA people must consider here is security impact. If a document can be traced through its users then the ability of agencies to work against organised crime will be crippled. The SSSCA appears to have no provision to allow the FBI to remove watermarks, and makes it illegalf or other people to be subcontracted to write the tools
Goodbye corporate whistleblowers, goodbye FBI plants in organised crime bodies..
Oh, but the FBI and DoJ appear to be excellent at breaking laws and making people, including the courts, believe they are completely within the law. According to many reports, there are hundreds of people being "detained" for undetermined amounts of time under the new anti-terroriam bills, without legal counsel, by both the FBI and DoJ. This is blatantly illegal and unconstitutional, but they are doing it anyway.
The DMCA makes it illegal for them to do certain things, but they do. The way the NSA reportedly listens to ALL communication, domestic or foreign, is illegal. Do not discount the ability of the FBI or any other law enforcement agency to work around any law as they see the need.
PGA
Signature · 4 lines
Paul G. Allen Owner, Sr. Engineer, Security Specialist Random Logic/Dream Park www.randomlogic.com
Quoted 5 lines · Alan Cox
Quoted 3 lines
Just about every company big enough to have a corporate lawyer, and many even smaller do have "media" they need or want to track and control.
One thing the SSSCA people must consider here is security impact. If a
Huh?
We're talking politicians here.
We're talking about the kind of people who try to pass a law setting pi=3.14159 FULL STOP.
They don't have to consider jack shit.
Quoted 6 lines
document can be traced through its users then the ability of agencies to work against organised crime will be crippled. The SSSCA appears to have no provision to allow the FBI to remove watermarks, and makes it illegalf or other people to be subcontracted to write the tools
Goodbye corporate whistleblowers, goodbye FBI plants in organised crime bodies..
They don't care about whistleblowers, and FBI agents can always used fake personalities.
Signature · 1 line
Share and Enjoy.
Quoted 8 lines · Petro
Quoted 4 lines
Don't be too sure about that. If a "few" knows how to circumvent, they'll release circumvention kits that anybody can use. Few people can use a new buffer overflow exploit, much more can use a rootkit.
That will end when you get a tripwire like system on each system that reports back to Microsoft/Apple when certain critical binaries don't match.
There is a difference between a circumvention kit and a rootkit. The rootkit modifies stuff in order to hide itself. The circumvention kit doesn't. It doesn't modify any "official" binaries - it provides its own binary and lets the other one sit there.
If this is impossible somehow - replace the tripwire-like system as well as part of the circumvention kit. More work, still possible. Or firewall the port used to report back to vendors...
There is so many options. They may try - they will fail.
Helge Hafting