Lockdown - The coming war on general-purpose computing(boingboing.net)
boingboing.net
Lockdown - The coming war on general-purpose computing
http://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html
47 comments
> template for how other restrictions are implemented in future.
It is a template for what not to do. Counterfeitting still occurs. It only adds expense for manf., and invades privacy of people (probably the real reason governments push it, the anti-counterfeit is just a cover).
Plus counterfeiting is already illegal. There are lots of laws against it. Punish the violators, not everyone else.
It is a template for what not to do. Counterfeitting still occurs. It only adds expense for manf., and invades privacy of people (probably the real reason governments push it, the anti-counterfeit is just a cover).
Plus counterfeiting is already illegal. There are lots of laws against it. Punish the violators, not everyone else.
MPAA ratings are not legally required for films, but most mainstream movies are and many theaters will only show rated films. Why? Because voluntary self regulation is less odious than mandatory government regulation.
It's done today purely out of cost restrictions.
Why build a printer that you can plug a monitor into, power some usb devices, and also connect a keyboard and mouse to?
It would be entirely pointless and too expensive for a manufacturer to do that.
Why build a printer that you can plug a monitor into, power some usb devices, and also connect a keyboard and mouse to?
It would be entirely pointless and too expensive for a manufacturer to do that.
Your missing his point. Printers have anti counter-fitting measures built in and it costs more money to build them that way.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/surveillance/2008-07-13-pr...
It's mostly a non issue, but there are always edge cases. For example there is software that let's you print backup data that can latter be scanned in which was somewhat hampered by this technology. 600DPI * 600DPI * 24 bits * 8.5inch * 11 inch = ~100mb a page which is not all that amazing today, but still useful in the early 90's.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/surveillance/2008-07-13-pr...
It's mostly a non issue, but there are always edge cases. For example there is software that let's you print backup data that can latter be scanned in which was somewhat hampered by this technology. 600DPI * 600DPI * 24 bits * 8.5inch * 11 inch = ~100mb a page which is not all that amazing today, but still useful in the early 90's.
> 100mb a page which is not all that amazing today
100mb is probably enough to hold all the code you will write in your lifetime.
100mb is probably enough to hold all the code you will write in your lifetime.
I'm glad to hear someone else who isn't freaking out over it. You would not believe some of the tin foil hats that come out when discussing these measures.
While this is something that we have to remain vigilant about (case in point, vigorous opposition to SOPA), I think the cat's much too far out of the bag to actually worry about general-purpose computing itself.
To effectively prohibit any general-purpose computer, the government would effectively have to forbid the sale of transistors and solder.
What Microsoft, Apple or any particular hardware or software company chooses to do might be objectionable and annoying but it can hardly threaten open computing itself: I can always build my own PC and install linux.
To effectively prohibit any general-purpose computer, the government would effectively have to forbid the sale of transistors and solder.
What Microsoft, Apple or any particular hardware or software company chooses to do might be objectionable and annoying but it can hardly threaten open computing itself: I can always build my own PC and install linux.
The government won't forbid the sale of transistors and solder. They don't have to, for two reasons.
Firstly, nobody can build a computer to the standard of a contemporary desktop out of transistors and solder. It simply can't be done, even if you don't care about its size or power consumption. You can build a little 4-bit computer, but that's no use to you. So they don't have to prevent all unsecured computation, they just have to prevent you doing more than, say, a billion cycles of computation.
Second, even if the bar is much lower than that — say, you can buy all the chips you need, you just can't buy them preassembled into circuit boards — that's already an effective suppression of general purpose computation. Maybe you personally have the skills and the time to build a computer from those pieces, but I and most people don't. So I've been effectively prevented from computation. I won't write programs and post them on the net, and the online programming communities will dwindle to a small bunch of experts.
And once almost nobody builds or uses general-purpose computers, it's much easier for the government to say "We can't think of a legitimate reason you need a computer, therefore, anyone who has one is a terrorist/pirate/communist." QED.
Firstly, nobody can build a computer to the standard of a contemporary desktop out of transistors and solder. It simply can't be done, even if you don't care about its size or power consumption. You can build a little 4-bit computer, but that's no use to you. So they don't have to prevent all unsecured computation, they just have to prevent you doing more than, say, a billion cycles of computation.
Second, even if the bar is much lower than that — say, you can buy all the chips you need, you just can't buy them preassembled into circuit boards — that's already an effective suppression of general purpose computation. Maybe you personally have the skills and the time to build a computer from those pieces, but I and most people don't. So I've been effectively prevented from computation. I won't write programs and post them on the net, and the online programming communities will dwindle to a small bunch of experts.
And once almost nobody builds or uses general-purpose computers, it's much easier for the government to say "We can't think of a legitimate reason you need a computer, therefore, anyone who has one is a terrorist/pirate/communist." QED.
The only devices I am aware of that are regulated to the point of "you must assemble them yourself" are hand grenades and fully automatic weapons.
It may just be me, but I don't think our society views general purpose computers as quite that dangerous.
It may just be me, but I don't think our society views general purpose computers as quite that dangerous.
Yet.
I wouldn't say that society views industrial quantities of fertilizer as dangerous, but the FBI keeps track of who's buying it.
Industrial quantities of fertilizer IS dangerous. The Oslo bombing wasn't even that long ago, have you forgotten?
You missed my point. Of course it's dangerous if you want it to be, but so is a kitchen knife.
The point is, stuff eventually gets regulated because of how it might be used, not because of how it's normally used.
The point is, stuff eventually gets regulated because of how it might be used, not because of how it's normally used.
But is fertilizer actually regulated?
Apparently yes: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/fertilizer-control-dhs-creat...
(Thanks for making me research it, I learned some interesting stuff and I would learn more if I had more time.)
(Thanks for making me research it, I learned some interesting stuff and I would learn more if I had more time.)
99.9% (and probably a few more 9's) of Fertilizer sold in Industrial Quantities is used on farms and not really all that dangerous.
The government can subsidise certain electronics aimed at blocking criminal content. The only thing people can be aware of are less choices as companies exit due to uncompetitive conditions.
In Australia, the mandatory Internet Filter failed. But conspicuously, the government is throwing money at ISPs who voluntarily filter. Now most biggest ISPs are adopting it. I predict when companies adopt NBN to leave the one digit megabit era, they'll have to have "appropriate criminal content filters in place" in order to be eligible (Taking a note from UK's internet censorship).
tl;dr: The government can use capitalism to kill freedom of choice. Slower, silent yet deadly.
Edit: The government could make an Internet User Owns Device Act that dictates that the hardware bought can not be sold with such remote access to removing content on the device. The user has to specifically opt-in for the remote removal service. Essentially, people can own their own devices they bought.
In Australia, the mandatory Internet Filter failed. But conspicuously, the government is throwing money at ISPs who voluntarily filter. Now most biggest ISPs are adopting it. I predict when companies adopt NBN to leave the one digit megabit era, they'll have to have "appropriate criminal content filters in place" in order to be eligible (Taking a note from UK's internet censorship).
tl;dr: The government can use capitalism to kill freedom of choice. Slower, silent yet deadly.
Edit: The government could make an Internet User Owns Device Act that dictates that the hardware bought can not be sold with such remote access to removing content on the device. The user has to specifically opt-in for the remote removal service. Essentially, people can own their own devices they bought.
I'd hardly call the nefarious actions you describe capitalism. Capitalism is private property and free markets.
That said, I agree that governments can and do interfere with free markets and property ownership to push their agenda.
That said, I agree that governments can and do interfere with free markets and property ownership to push their agenda.
Free-market capitalism is only one several capitalist subtypes, a fringe one at that. Also it's "private ownership of capital or means of production" thus ensuring a few masters rule over many wage slaves.
Good grief. Government ownership of means of production is where few masters rule. Startups and entrepreneurs are what you get with private ownership.
> I can always build my own PC
If computers where UEFI Secure Boot can be disabled are allowed in your country.
If computers where UEFI Secure Boot can be disabled are allowed in your country.
Yes, of course, but that's irrelevant. Drug prohibition doesn't stop drug use either. But it leads to oppression and a vast amount of misery regardless.
I saw Cory's talk at the 28c3 in Berlin. There is a video available here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg
You might agree not on everything but I think it's a great talk to give non-technical people an idea what might happen.
You might agree not on everything but I think it's a great talk to give non-technical people an idea what might happen.
This is a fantastic talk, thank you for the link!
It covers much more than even the Lockdown article and the questions from the audience at the end are both interesting and lead to even more interesting responses.
It covers much more than even the Lockdown article and the questions from the audience at the end are both interesting and lead to even more interesting responses.
I find it somewhat ironic that DRM, SOPA and all the other various techniques designed to prevent copyright infringement are being championed by the politicians of a country who's attitude towards firearms control is "guns don't kill people, people kill people".
Movies don't download themselves, people download them.
Movies don't download themselves, people download them.
I am prepared for the coming infocalypse, I have dusted off my old BBC Micro and am re-learning 6502 assembly language.
I'd seriously consider dusting off a RISC PC or late model Archimedes instead; ARM26 is a joy to work with compared to 6502 (at least for me) and the RISC OS system is quite beautiful to work with. Plus, I (perhaps naively) figure that there'll be plenty of ARM chips continuing to be shipped in devices where I can somehow get the thing to do what I want, whereas I'm not so sure the 6502 architecture would be so widely useful.
I knew I rescued that Commodore 64 from the side of the road for a reason!
And here I have my trusty 8088 (plus math coprocessor!), maxed out RAM, two 5 1/4" disk drives, CGA monitor, and a gigantic 10 MB hard drive!
Re-learn? I never forgot it. ;-)
Whether hardware is locked down or not, it will soon become quite obvious that it is the internet that has all the value. Be it an open, a general or proprietary device, they will ALL see their value diminish without and within the network. This network cannot be unborn.
>This network cannot be unborn.
People keep repeating that, like an article of faith. I really wouldn't put it past the smart folks at NSA or wherever to figure out a way to gradually turn the Internet into Cable TV. I don't think the Internet's current ability to "interpret censorship as damage an route around it" is something we should take completely for granted.
People keep repeating that, like an article of faith. I really wouldn't put it past the smart folks at NSA or wherever to figure out a way to gradually turn the Internet into Cable TV. I don't think the Internet's current ability to "interpret censorship as damage an route around it" is something we should take completely for granted.
Previous discussion: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3400449
If this happens, does this mean that manufacturers or vendors will have to practically give away computers? They're already so cheap that even the slightest tech-savvy consumer will just go ahead and pay a tiny, small premium for the ability to do whatever.
Cory is a tremendous fiction writer, but this particular article isn't. Sure the government passes bad laws. They always will. How did prohibition work out?
A talented hacker has much more power than any official. If people want 'locked' systems that can't be hacked it shouldn't ruffle your feathers. They're not hackers.
If you close the door on reality it will come in the window every time.
The sky is always falling. The end is always near.
A talented hacker has much more power than any official. If people want 'locked' systems that can't be hacked it shouldn't ruffle your feathers. They're not hackers.
If you close the door on reality it will come in the window every time.
The sky is always falling. The end is always near.
But unlike during the prohibition, the vast majority of the people doesn't really care about whether they can run arbitrary programs on their computer. Most are content if it runs Facebook. A sizeable portion would probably even like computers that are as realiable as a dishwasher because they run only certified programs.
[deleted]
If we don't bake freedom right into these handheld computers. We will wake up as pets on the land our fathers conquered.
Really, what's this trollbait doing on HN's front page?
The article raises some interesting points, but I think the author makes a major error by misusing the terms 'spyware' and 'malware' multiple times throughout.
The term 'spyware', in particular, has a well-defined meaning which indicates that the malicious software is communicating data back to the creator in order to exploit the user unknowingly. The author of this article uses the term to refer to non-general-purpose computers, and I think that's exceptionally misleading. The iPad could be considered a non-general-purpose computer, but most people would not go around labeling it as coming pre-loaded with 'spyware'.
The term 'spyware', in particular, has a well-defined meaning which indicates that the malicious software is communicating data back to the creator in order to exploit the user unknowingly. The author of this article uses the term to refer to non-general-purpose computers, and I think that's exceptionally misleading. The iPad could be considered a non-general-purpose computer, but most people would not go around labeling it as coming pre-loaded with 'spyware'.
Emotive language though it may be, I don't think it's all that far from the truth. The iPad most definitely is a general purpose electronic computer. It can run any software that's loaded onto it.
Except that it can't, really, because it is loaded with software that prevents the user from doing some of the things they should reasonably expect to be able to do. Regardless of whether it comes from Apple, I would certainly be happy to call software that prevents me from using a computer that I own in a manner in which it is otherwise capable 'malware.'
I don't want to pirate software or content, but I do want to be able to use the equipment that was sold to me and that I now own in any way that I see fit. Merriam-Webster defines Malware as 'software designed to interfere with a computer's normal functioning'; a definition which I think is entirely appropriate here.
Except that it can't, really, because it is loaded with software that prevents the user from doing some of the things they should reasonably expect to be able to do. Regardless of whether it comes from Apple, I would certainly be happy to call software that prevents me from using a computer that I own in a manner in which it is otherwise capable 'malware.'
I don't want to pirate software or content, but I do want to be able to use the equipment that was sold to me and that I now own in any way that I see fit. Merriam-Webster defines Malware as 'software designed to interfere with a computer's normal functioning'; a definition which I think is entirely appropriate here.
That's exactly what Doctorow is arguing. He says that we don't actually have a way to make a computer capable of only running specific applications, we just have general purpose computers that are loaded with spyware/malware to prevent running every program as an approximation to a specialized computer.
Yup. I was just pointing out the misuse of the terminology. Specialized computers certainly are, as you say, just general-purpose computers with restrictive software. But calling all of the restrictive software 'spyware' or 'malware' is unfair to a multitude of devices that are intended to operate in a specialized way. I think it's scare-tactics and a failure of the author to generalize all restrictive software as 'spyware' or 'malware'
That's only a minute technical distinction. It is spyware, because the only way to prevent users from doing general purpose computing is to spy in them. Spying, in this case, is defined as "remote surveillance and control". For example, forcing a firmware upgrade when a way is found to get around code signing restrictions.
It is very simple: If you are not in control of a device, someone else is.
It is very simple: If you are not in control of a device, someone else is.
Many of today's printers, scanners and image editors already ship with restrictions designed to prevent the counterfeiting of currency. In effect general-purpose digital imaging has already been restricted.
What I wonder is how are these restrictions implemented, legally? Do laws or regulations require it? Or is it ad-hoc? Are OEM vendors persuaded or paid to implement it by the proprietors of the pattern matching technology (who in turn sell it to currency mints), or they concerned about vicarious liability if they don't?
I'm interested because this may serve as a template for how other restrictions are implemented in future.