Author responds

Q: But equally there's a European tradition of civil disobedience - people simply ignore laws they don't like.

So how do you see a European subnet arising? Technically, and politically?

A: That's cool, though: I think the other side of my argument is that once you have a trusted, zoned network we'll all start undermining and subverting it. But in a European way!

Great. A recommendation to just go ahead and implement a flawed law, planning to simply ignore it later.

Q: So how will your "People's TCPA" work? I presume there'll be a UID in every component, and PCs will no longer be upgradeable?

A: I don't know how it will work, I just want us to start thinking about it now before it's too late. I can't see why it should get in the way of upgradeability. The point is not to tie everyone into a Microsoft-sponsored licensing scheme but to provide a trusted computer that can be a full participant in the network - swapping graphics cards or disk controllers doesn't have to impact that. In fact, the sort of 'lock-down' we see in Windows licensing is there because you don't have any hardware-level authentication at the processor level. Once your processor(s) are able to do that then they can certify any new hardware - basically just confirm that the new hardware is also authenticated for use in the trusted network.

Translation: "I don't know how it will work. Here's how it will work." And does he really think the reason Windows barfs when you change hardware is that Microsoft is trying to ensure you aren't running "unsafe" components? It's is entirely about trying to make dure you aren't running one copy of their software on two machines. This would be completely unaffected by any system that simply verified that components were "trusted."

Plus to that I will add that Microsoft will gladly promise him all of that, but it won't actually work.

I would also suggest that he look up the history of network protocols. There was a government mandated protocol that did some of what he wanted. It died because nobody used it.

Seriously, what is the value proposition of being an early adopter? If you cannot sort that out, then you won't ever have early adopters, and your dreams become a chicken and egg thing - with you on the losing end.

Cheers,
Ben

PS Of course there is no need to bother convincing him of that. Let him waste his time on this, rather than on something that might have more of a chance of succeeding in pushing Big Brother.

Post #49,495 by admin 8/15/02 3:27:34 PM Reply	Author responds [link\|http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/26695.html\|He responds to criticism] Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #49,566 by drewk 8/16/02 10:33:04 AM Reply	Stunningly naive Q: But equally there's a European tradition of civil disobedience - people simply ignore laws they don't like. So how do you see a European subnet arising? Technically, and politically? A: That's cool, though: I think the other side of my argument is that once you have a trusted, zoned network we'll all start undermining and subverting it. But in a European way! Great. A recommendation to just go ahead and implement a flawed law, planning to simply ignore it later. Q: So how will your "People's TCPA" work? I presume there'll be a UID in every component, and PCs will no longer be upgradeable? A: I don't know how it will work, I just want us to start thinking about it now before it's too late. I can't see why it should get in the way of upgradeability. The point is not to tie everyone into a Microsoft-sponsored licensing scheme but to provide a trusted computer that can be a full participant in the network - swapping graphics cards or disk controllers doesn't have to impact that. In fact, the sort of 'lock-down' we see in Windows licensing is there because you don't have any hardware-level authentication at the processor level. Once your processor(s) are able to do that then they can certify any new hardware - basically just confirm that the new hardware is also authenticated for use in the trusted network. Translation: "I don't know how it will work. Here's how it will work." And does he really think the reason Windows barfs when you change hardware is that Microsoft is trying to ensure you aren't running "unsafe" components? It's is entirely about trying to make dure you aren't running one copy of their software on two machines. This would be completely unaffected by any system that simply verified that components were "trusted." === Microsoft offers them the one thing most business people will pay any price for - the ability to say "we had no choice - everyone's doing it that way." -- [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=38978\|Andrew Grygus]
Post #49,626 by ben_tilly 8/16/02 6:24:54 PM Reply	My comment remains the same Plus to that I will add that Microsoft will gladly promise him all of that, but it won't actually work. I would also suggest that he look up the history of network protocols. There was a government mandated protocol that did some of what he wanted. It died because nobody used it. Seriously, what is the value proposition of being an early adopter? If you cannot sort that out, then you won't ever have early adopters, and your dreams become a chicken and egg thing - with you on the losing end. Cheers, Ben PS Of course there is no need to bother convincing him of that. Let him waste his time on this, rather than on something that might have more of a chance of succeeding in pushing Big Brother. Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes. -- Edsger Wybe Dijkstra (1930-2002)

Welcome to IWETHEY!