Topic: Patent - Tracking usage behavior in computer systems - Big Brother watches

[Just plain old Punisher]

We have an optimist in sector 2, attention apathy squad, Optimist in sector 2!

Optimist?  No.  Idealist yes.  Sadly few people stand by what they claim to be their ideals.  If they did Hot and Spicey would be much cooler.

Good thing, optimism isn't covered under the insurance plan.

[Dracho]

Bah.... we'll implement that pilot show that combines American Idol, Cops, and Jerry Springer, with Judge Judy as a moderator.  That'll cure your nasty little case of optimism.

[Nemesis]

Bah.... we'll implement that pilot show that combines American Idol, Cops, and Jerry Springer, with Judge Judy as a moderator.  That'll cure your nasty little case of optimism.

They will never find those bodies if I'm ever forced to associate with them.

[Nemesis]

Back towards the topic.

There is a recent article on Wired about who "owns" your computer that has some relevance.

When technology serves its owners, it is liberating. When it is designed to serve others, over the owner's objection, it is oppressive. There's a battle raging on your computer right now -- one that pits you against worms and viruses, Trojans, spyware, automatic update features and digital rights management technologies. It's the battle to determine who owns your computer.

You own your computer, of course. You bought it. You paid for it. But how much control do you really have over what happens on your machine? Technically you might have bought the hardware and software, but you have less control over what it's doing behind the scenes.

Using the hacker sense of the term, your computer is "owned" by other people.

It used to be that only malicious hackers were trying to own your computers. Whether through worms, viruses, Trojans or other means, they would try to install some kind of remote-control program onto your system. Then they'd use your computers to sniff passwords, make fraudulent bank transactions, send spam, initiate phishing attacks and so on. Estimates are that somewhere between hundreds of thousands and millions of computers are members of remotely controlled "bot" networks. Owned.

Now, things are not so simple. There are all sorts of interests vying for control of your computer. There are media companies that want to control what you can do with the music and videos they sell you. There are companies that use software as a conduit to collect marketing information, deliver advertising or do whatever it is their real owners require. And there are software companies that are trying to make money by pleasing not only their customers, but other companies they ally themselves with. All these companies want to own your computer.

Go to the link for examples of who else "owns" your computer.

The article contains this link where Palladium and TCPA is discussed.

Basically, Pd is Microsoft's attempt to build a trusted computer, much as I discussed the concept in "Secrets and Lies" (pages 127-130); read it for background). The idea is that different users on the system have limitations on their abilities, and are walled off from each other. This is impossible to achieve using only software; and Pd is a combination hardware/software system. In fact, Pd affects the CPU, the chip set on the motherboard, the input devices (keyboard, mouse, etc.), and the video output devices (graphics processor, etc.). Additionally, a new chip is required: a tamper-resistant secure processor.

1. A "trusted" computer does not mean a computer that is trustworthy. The DoD's definition of a trusted system is one that can break your security policy; i.e., a system that you are forced to trust because you have no choice. Pd will have trusted features; the jury is still out as to whether or not they are trustworthy.

One aspect of this new "security" on computers that apparently is in Vista is that unless your system is "trusted" all the way from the HD DVD to the monitor you will only be able to watch HD Movies in low definition - the "trusted" monitors to display HD don't exist yet.

[Bonk]

If it is to be an "online-only" OS then it is going to fail miserably. Lots of critical corporate networks are not online at all, so NT4 or Win2K will just have to do and MS will miss out on some of their most valuable sales.

However this is all speculation. We'll only know how it will actually behave once it is released, and shortly thereafter undesireable features will be hacked, no matter how far they go to try and prevent that.