TCPA & Palladium.

[Naem]

I'd like to hear your opinions on these. Palladium had its name changed recently, although I don't recall what its new name is.

If you don't know what TCPA or Palladium is, I invite you to check out No TCPA or this extremely long and informative page.

[CupHead]

Please, send them to a more biased page.  

[Naem]

Ironically, I tried to find a factual pro-TCPA page, but I just couldn't find one. At least the big article I pointed to shows the pros and cons of the TCPA, microsoft.com or whoever would hype it up to be something it isn't.

[CupHead]

The reason you won't find a "factual pro-TCPA" page is that there are few individuals that actually do support this move.  It's a technology designed around growing business needs for security and control over the individual's actions.  I think that while Palladium and other aspects of the TCPA will be rejected by the vast majority of the informed computing world, they will still find their way to becoming the standard.  Personally, I'm going to bet that it's the future whether people like it or not.

[Grok]

As far as the United States goes, the only way for this to work is for Congress to outlaw non TCPA computers.  Otherwise, you and I will still buy our parts from Taiwan and build our own computers.  Lots of us still will be on irc, usenet, p2p, ftp, www, smtp, doing our daily computing.

Which artists are going to sell their music as TCPA-only?  Madonna, I suppose, Celine Dione, and possibly Metallica.

Everytime someone comes up with a new technology to stop pirating, Congress always asks "is this defeatable?"  The answer is always "yes".  They do not want to pass laws to enforce something which the public can go around anyway.

Unless all PCs that can play TCPA-required media is a black box that self destructs when it detects tampering, the technology will be defeatable.  Look at X-Box.

[Arta]

It's much less of a big deal than people make out. I read over their page explaining it, and although I don't particularly trust it, I did find it reassuring. I think it probably really will be something that can be used optionally, or turned off without any ill effect. It's also worth mentioning that it will have uses other than copyright enforcement and most of them are ok - better data security is always a good idea.

[Raven]

No matter how secure something is, it will never be unbreakable. The music industry people are all just stupid or computer illiterate.

[Grok]

Hmm, I think you mean "on the personal computer as it is build today".

I've worked with secure systems in the military, for example Mode 4 (military) IFF.  Those are hardware and process controlled security communications systems that you're just not going to break.

You're not cleared for any more details than that.  If I told you more, I'd have to send an Army Ranger to kill you.  

[Raven]

Grok, you want to know how to keep a computer safe from hackers? Unplug it from the internet, remove any networking cards, remove the modem, and lock it behind a closed door. Otherwise, there will be a way. There's always a way.

[Grok]

Grok, you want to know how to keep a computer safe from hackers? Unplug it from the internet, remove any networking cards, remove the modem, and lock it behind a closed door. Otherwise, there will be a way. There's always a way.

I was thinking more like communications systems in the military:  Design hardware that destroys the circuitry if improperly opened, store codes in complex mechanical positional systems, put secure devices inside an attack plane, put plane on aircraft carrier with 75 other jets, deploy with 6000 sailors and several detachments of marines to guard it all.  Keep carrier out in the ocean, destroy any boats that approach you without clearance.

[Raven]

I was thinking more like communications systems in the military:  Design hardware that destroys the circuitry if improperly opened,

Unfortunately, an AI complex enough to recognize repeat users hasn't been designed yet. Improperly can be turned into properly if one has sufficient skill. Self-destructive mechanisms themselves tend to be external, and can actually be disabled before their trigger is ever touched. This would be just like "cutting the blue wire". Having things destroy themselves if they suspect they're being tampered with (and as aforementioned, we haven't developed an AI capable of properly figuring that out yet) is fairly inefficient and reeks of desperation. The military would do something like that?

store codes in complex mechanical positional systems,

That's like sticking a piece of cheese at the end of the maze. This method relies heavily upon the offender not being able to recognize patterns very easily. And don't forget about how every last piece of data remains in a system. Someone might not even have to follow the "complicated" route.

put secure devices inside an attack plane, put plane on aircraft carrier with 75 other jets, deploy with 6000 sailors and several detachments of marines to guard it all.  

Ok Grok, let's see the music industry take all those magnificent measures. Hopefully there will never be a day where we see 150 MPs guarding Eminem's latest CD from those greedy pirates, eh?

Keep carrier out in the ocean, destroy any boats that approach you without clearance.

Someone's been reading a little too much Tom Clancy.

Anyway Grok, I fail to see how any of these methods are even practical to say the least. The system that you just explained is basically an over-complicated version of the approach I just explained: just rip the cord out. The military's data infrastructure is not plugged in to anything broadly accessible, so it barely constitutes as feasible proof. The main stuff is actually housed underground in order to protect the more viable atriums and harddrive from possible EMP attacks or other forms of sabotage. Logically, even that's all breakable should be the force be great enough, but when talking about all the other computer systems of the world, as long as a door exists, it can be opened. You described a situation where there's no doors, or even windows for that matter (no pun intended).

[Grok]

Someone's been reading a little too much Tom Clancy.

Anyway Grok, I fail to see how any of these methods are even practical to say the least. The system that you just explained is basically an over-complicated version of the approach I just explained: just rip the cord out. The military's data infrastructure is not plugged in to anything broadly accessible, so it barely constitutes as feasible proof. The main stuff is actually housed underground in order to protect the more viable atriums and harddrive from possible EMP attacks or other forms of sabotage. Logically, even that's all breakable should be the force be great enough, but when talking about all the other computer systems of the world, as long as a door exists, it can be opened. You described a situation where there's no doors, or even windows for that matter (no pun intended).

Actually, I'm just unable to provide you with a more descriptive explanation because the information is classified top secret.  If you really want to know, give up 6 years of your life and join the military, and try to ge a job that works with such devices.  I did.

[Tuberload]

Well my opinion on this is that nothihng is completely hacker  proof, but their are systems that are about 99% secure.  That eliminates a lot of potential breaches.

I plan on giving up some of my life and joining the military though... and looking forward to it.

[Raven]

Grokkers, you have no idea lol.