On GameSpot: Next-gen DS, Xbox tech contracts set?
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 51 of 55:
Next »
« Previous
This is the scary part
Critics maintain that the fourth feature of Microsoft's trusted
PC plan, remote attestation, could lead to major privacy issues.
A paper the Electronic Frontier Foundation released last October
applauded three features of Microsoft's scheme but criticized
remote attestation as a threat that could lock people into certain
applications, force unwanted software changes on them and
prevent reverse engineering.


What to say it isn't used to charge end users money for say
ripping a CD to the hard drive? What's to say it's not used to
delete MP3s, in an effort to push the WMA format? What to say
it's not used to force upgrades? Allowing anyone remote access
and primary rights to your computer, is just plain stupid. I'm not
singling out Microsoft on this one. I would not grant any
software vendor, first right of access to my computer.

Just for an example, we'll use Adobe Software. Say "remote
attestation" becomes the norm. Adobe releases a new version of
Photoshop, but sales are lagging. They use this feature to
disable parts of previous versions of Photoshop to push
upgrades.

Another example of this could be, the RIAA. Say the john Q
Public, buys a Metallica CD. John then decides to put the music
on his computer. The RIA uses "remote attestation" and sends
John a letter, telling him he has to pay for a new license for the
music on his hard drive. If he fails to do so they will delete it,
from his hard drive.

I for one don't download illegal songs from the internet. But I
don't want a record label telling me I can't put music (that I
bought the CD for) on my computer.

Another scary thing is the part about Microsoft's scheme for
remote attestation. It could be used to could lock people into
certain applications and force unwanted software changes on
them. I should not be forced to upgrade (or buy) an application,
because someone else does. I should also not be forced by
anyone to use a certain application. Be it for web browsing,
music and video playback, etc. If you want me to use your
product, give me a compelling reason to do so. Welding it to the
OS, or locking out competition, is not a compelling reason to
use your product.
Posted by: Rick_K   Posted on: 05/06/04 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

Security == Control of your box  Tim Patterson | 05/05/04
Security == Control of your box  Loverock Davidson | 05/05/04
But with linux, I can modify+re-compile the kernel  Knorthern Knight | 05/05/04
Nice try...  swoopee | 05/05/04
Huh?  CobraA1 | 05/06/04
Yup!  Martin Marvinski | 05/05/04
Interesting contradiction...  No_Ax_to_Grind | 05/05/04
Going Waaaaay Overbaord  Jeff Spicoli | 05/05/04
Please dont take me wrong. I think you need to read more on it...  computer_man | 05/05/04
yep, ibm does same thing  V Sanders | 05/06/04
rotflmao  V Sanders | 05/06/04
90% of users disagree with you  V Sanders | 05/06/04
Not true  Rick_K | 05/06/04
In other words  Chad_z | 05/05/04
Hmm, exactly who is it that owns the data on your box?  oldskool | 05/05/04
Can't argue that oldschool, but...  No_Ax_to_Grind | 05/05/04
Why is this important?  Jeff Spicoli | 05/05/04
Why it's important  PA-ITGuy | 05/06/04
elected Government vs private company  j.m.galvin | 05/06/04
Oh yeah, like I trust the government....  No_Ax_to_Grind | 05/06/04
HUH?  j.m.galvin | 05/06/04
Because we all swim in the same water.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 05/06/04
Guffaw!  Cardinal_Bill | 05/05/04
Get real...  No_Ax_to_Grind | 05/06/04
Hold it.  Cardinal_Bill | 05/06/04
NO, I am talking about Joe Average home user.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 05/06/04
That's what default settings should be for  CobraA1 | 05/06/04
is easy  V Sanders | 05/06/04
All through time people have said  don3605 | 05/07/04
Vapourware on the prawl, again!!!  Spin_Masterz | 05/05/04
Keep tinkering, Microsoft  Franklin_z | 05/05/04
Tinkee enough . . . and even Microsoft might get it right ...  Plain Logic | 05/05/04
But, can you protect users from themselve's?  No_Ax_to_Grind | 05/05/04
One of the few times  Linux User 147560 | 05/05/04
Thanks L.U.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 05/05/04
True True. AX  Squawkbox | 05/05/04
Protect the system from the user  Richard Flude | 05/05/04
WOrst case of cherry picking I've ever seen.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 05/06/04
Sure but I got the big cherry  Richard Flude | 05/06/04
The quote you're looking for  CobraA1 | 05/06/04
What has yet to be seen.  Rick_K | 05/06/04
Another statement about a vapourware  Richard Flude | 05/05/04
Vaporware??? Seems it's running fine here.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 05/06/04
Yep Vaporware.  Richard Flude | 05/06/04
Hope That Day Never Comes  ParadigmOdyssey | 05/05/04
Always good to be on the bleeding edge.  Cardinal_Bill | 05/05/04
is already happening and consumers like it  V Sanders | 05/06/04
Wrong  Tim Patterson | 05/06/04
Well said  Rick_K | 05/06/04
You and Bit...  Cardinal_Bill | 05/06/04
This is the scary part  Rick_K | 05/06/04
The sky is falling, run for your lives.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 05/06/04
Lame Bit, just plain lame  Rick_K | 05/07/04
And probably illegal  j.m.galvin | 05/06/04
Microsoft Is More Dangerous than Any Security Threat  brenthawkinsmd | 05/06/04

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
advertisement
Click Here

SmartPlanet

Click Here