iPhone and cell phones in general: "Trusted" (treaturous) computing in a new cloak

It's nice that Jobs finaly got his head out of his tookas and will be
allowing 3rd party apps (real ones, not web based ones). HOWEVER, it
appears everything is still locked down tight via signed certificates
and that certain apps are BANNED. This is very scary because with the
huge influence of the iPhone, this could virtualy railroad in Trusted
Computing, which takes full control away from the owner of a computer
and let's groups such as the RIAA, corporations, and even the gov't
controll what is and what isn't allowed.

Granted, this **** has been going on for years with phones (especialy
thoes with Verizon sets) but this has the potential of giving Trusted
Computing a big push into making people accept this kind of los of
control as "normal" and "acceptable".

iPhone article
http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl.../03/07/0316250

"Trusted" Computing
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Computing

In article <47d39890.3463150@news-server.ca.rr.com>,
ultimauw@hotmail.com (A Texan from Connecticut) wrote:
> "Trusted" Computing
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Computing

Thorough refutation of that misinformation:

<http://domino.research.ibm.com/comm/...pages/gsal.TCG
..html>


--
--Tim Smith

On Mar 9, 12:30 am, Tim Smith <reply_in_gr...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> In article <47d39890.3463...@news-server.ca.rr.com>,
> ultim...@hotmail.com (A Texan from Connecticut) wrote:
>
> > "Trusted" Computing
> >http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Computing
>
> Thorough refutation of that misinformation:
>
> <http://domino.research.ibm.com/comm/...pages/gsal.TCG
> .html>
>
> --
> --Tim Smith



Riight, it will be limited to business trying to secure their data.
It would never be used for evil purposes such as lock up incriminating
documents to prevent whistle blowing. It surely would not be used in
the home and foisted on users by big media and software companies so
people cannot do whatever the hell they want with the music, movies,
software and the very computers they paid for. </sarcasm>


Say, I have a bridge I think you will really be interested in...

ultimauw@hotmail.com (A Texan from Connecticut) wrote in
news:47d39890.3463150@news-server.ca.rr.com:

> This is very scary because with the
> huge influence of the iPhone, this could virtualy railroad in Trusted
> Computing, which takes full control away from the owner of a computer
> and let's groups such as the RIAA, corporations, and even the gov't
> controll what is and what isn't allowed.
>

That has been the aim of media companies and software developers all
along. I lived through an era where the copy protection got so
invasive, even the paying customers couldn't boot it. So, a message was
sent back upstream from the users. They simply quit buying anything
with a dongle or software you had to insert a security floppy before it
would boot. A bad floppy, not an unusual occurance, rendered your $800
accounting program inoperable until a new floppy could be extracted from
the software company.

Message received, software, almost overnight, was again freed up to work
without this nonsense. About this time, shareware became a power force
in the software available. Commercial developers, of course, did
everything they could to prevent it.

The resurgence of copy protection started with Windoze XP, yet again,
with an electronic dongle calling mother to see if you were running it
on the right machine. The fist closed tighter with Vista, of course.
Other copy protection scheme raised their heads, notably in music and
movie disks, but a dedicated hacker community keeps rendering them
useless. Various new laws from the well-bribed government has failed to
stop it, too. Suddenly, the music you've been recording on your
cassette player off the radio for 30 years under fair use laws, has
rendered you a Federal felon as the money crossed palms in Washington.
A new generation of sheeple has emerged, living in terror of the music
and movie police. They are too stupid to simply stop buying the product
to......send that message back upstream.

As Sellphones have been SO successful in propagating company-controlled
devices to the new masses, who were indoctrinated by the tightly-
controlled video game industry toys, it was only a matter of time before
computers emerged that either didn't allow software installation, or,
now that that's not working out with all the jailbreaking, a "wonderful
new" company-controlled software environment where the hardware company
could add 30% to the price the commercial developers wanted for the
controlled software and pass that on to the sheeple consumers....all
begging for its installation on their blank screens after the initial
woowoo wears off. Millions are drooling to be scammed, yet again, by
the software +30% scam, standing in line to hand over their incomes.

Only a certain small portion of the computing public seems to rebel at
the awful prospect of going back to dongles. I'm one of them.

If the public quit buying iPhones, it would have a swappable battery,
removable standard memory cards and open source software, to the benefit
of all except Apple, ATT and some commercial software hawks.

ultimauw@hotmail.com wrote in
news:a308ca07-b0a4-45b2-ba93-0dc3a5150916@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com:

> On Mar 9, 12:30 am, Tim Smith <reply_in_gr...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>> In article <47d39890.3463...@news-server.ca.rr.com>,
>> ultim...@hotmail.com (A Texan from Connecticut) wrote:
>>
>> > "Trusted" Computing
>> >http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Computing
>>
>> Thorough refutation of that misinformation:
>>
>> <http://domino.research.ibm.com/comm/...nsf/pages/gsal.
>> TCG .html>
>>
>> --
>> --Tim Smith
>
>
>
> Riight, it will be limited to business trying to secure their data.
> It would never be used for evil purposes such as lock up incriminating
> documents to prevent whistle blowing. It surely would not be used in
> the home and foisted on users by big media and software companies so
> people cannot do whatever the hell they want with the music, movies,
> software and the very computers they paid for. </sarcasm>
>
>
> Say, I have a bridge I think you will really be interested in...
>

Only the concept of planted shills or seat warmers can explain the rabid
defense of locking up any software system. Why would any user, no matter
how stupid, buy a car he wasn't allowed to open the hood on, but had to go
back to his nanny dealer to pay to check the oil. Same idea.....how
stupid.

Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:
> ultimauw@hotmail.com (A Texan from Connecticut) wrote in
> news:47d39890.3463150@news-server.ca.rr.com:
>
>> This is very scary because with the
>> huge influence of the iPhone, this could virtualy railroad in Trusted
>> Computing, which takes full control away from the owner of a computer
>> and let's groups such as the RIAA, corporations, and even the gov't
>> controll what is and what isn't allowed.
>>
>
> That has been the aim of media companies and software developers all
> along. I lived through an era where the copy protection got so
> invasive, even the paying customers couldn't boot it. So, a message
> was sent back upstream from the users. They simply quit buying
> anything with a dongle or software you had to insert a security
> floppy before it would boot. A bad floppy, not an unusual occurance,
> rendered your $800 accounting program inoperable until a new floppy
> could be extracted from the software company.
>
> Message received, software, almost overnight, was again freed up to
> work without this nonsense. About this time, shareware became a
> power force in the software available. Commercial developers, of
> course, did everything they could to prevent it.
>
> The resurgence of copy protection started with Windoze XP, yet again,
> with an electronic dongle calling mother to see if you were running it
> on the right machine. The fist closed tighter with Vista, of course.
> Other copy protection scheme raised their heads, notably in music and
> movie disks, but a dedicated hacker community keeps rendering them
> useless. Various new laws from the well-bribed government has failed
> to stop it, too. Suddenly, the music you've been recording on your
> cassette player off the radio for 30 years under fair use laws, has
> rendered you a Federal felon as the money crossed palms in Washington.
> A new generation of sheeple has emerged, living in terror of the music
> and movie police. They are too stupid to simply stop buying the
> product to......send that message back upstream.
>
> As Sellphones have been SO successful in propagating
> company-controlled devices to the new masses, who were indoctrinated
> by the tightly- controlled video game industry toys, it was only a
> matter of time before computers emerged that either didn't allow
> software installation, or, now that that's not working out with all
> the jailbreaking, a "wonderful new" company-controlled software
> environment where the hardware company could add 30% to the price the
> commercial developers wanted for the controlled software and pass
> that on to the sheeple consumers....all begging for its installation
> on their blank screens after the initial woowoo wears off. Millions
> are drooling to be scammed, yet again, by the software +30% scam,
> standing in line to hand over their incomes.
>
> Only a certain small portion of the computing public seems to rebel at
> the awful prospect of going back to dongles. I'm one of them.

> If the public quit buying iPhones,

Taint gunna happen. He's found enough fools to be viable.

> it would have a swappable battery, removable standard
> memory cards and open source software, to the benefit of
> all except Apple, ATT and some commercial software hawks.

Just like he did with ipods.

A Texan from Connecticut <ultimauw@hotmail.com> wrote:

> It's nice that Jobs finaly got his head out of his tookas and will
> be allowing 3rd party apps (real ones, not web based ones).
> HOWEVER, it appears everything is still locked down tight via signed
> certificates and that certain apps are BANNED. This is very scary

Only if you are easily scared, child.

Try sucking your thumb, thats sposed to help silly little scaredycat children.

> because with the huge influence of the iPhone,
> this could virtualy railroad in Trusted Computing,

Not a chance.

> which takes full control away from the owner of a computer
> and let's groups such as the RIAA, corporations, and even
> the gov't controll what is and what isn't allowed.

Again, not a chance.

> Granted, this **** has been going on for years with phones
> (especialy thoes with Verizon sets) but this has the potential
> of giving Trusted Computing a big push into making people
> accept this kind of los of control as "normal" and "acceptable".

Not a chance.

> iPhone article
> http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl.../03/07/0316250

> "Trusted" Computing
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Computing

Yawn.

>>> > "Trusted" Computing
>>> >http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html
>>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Computing

>>> Thorough refutation of that misinformation:
>>> http://domino.research.ibm.com/comm/.../gsal.TCG.html

Those are all great references, thanks!

>> Riight, it will be limited to business trying to secure their data.
>> It would never be used for evil purposes such as lock up incriminating
>> documents to prevent whistle blowing. It surely would not be used in
>> the home and foisted on users by big media and software companies so
>> people cannot do whatever the hell they want with the music, movies,
>> software and the very computers they paid for. </sarcasm>

The measures/countermeasures wars have been happening ever since Macrovision
and dare I suggest we can rely on folks
(mostly outside of the US, thus not under US laws)
to explore, crack and expose the weakness of all such plans.

I personally think it is stupid to try it in the first place,
but stupidity loves to reinvent itself :-(
It would be poetic justice to do things like dump ALL the broken/abandoned
DIVX players and disks in the homes of those responsible for CREATING the system
and forcing it upon the public: it's now their respobsibility to
CLEAN UP THE MESS and all the waste they created.
Yea, sure, as if corporate responsibility was ever really going to happen :-(

>Only the concept of planted shills or seat warmers can explain the rabid
>defense of locking up any software system. Why would any user, no matter
>how stupid, buy a car he wasn't allowed to open the hood on, but had to go
>back to his nanny dealer to pay to check the oil. Same idea.....how stupid.

I agree with WHAT you're saying but not exactly with HOW you're saying it.

Consider video games: most use proprietory cartridges and are extremely
protective of granting licenses to games. The cynic says it's solely to extract
revenue from the games they didn't even create. But Youtube and game web sites
show how many games were really unplayable, unreliable, insulting or just plain stupid,
so there is /slight/ validity to the game mfgr holding games
to a standard of enjoyment and playability.

Some folks treat their cars are appliances: they delegate all maintenance
to the local mechanic or dealer. But yes, they ought to have the CHOICE of where
to bring the car, not be forced to pay excessive fees to ONLY their
authorized dealer.

The bottom line: I agree that DRM is bad since it takes away one's right to
access/control/enjoy their own devices.
"you can BUY it but you can't OWN it".

In article
<a308ca07-b0a4-45b2-ba93-0dc3a5150916@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
ultimauw@hotmail.com wrote:
> Riight, it will be limited to business trying to secure their data.
> It would never be used for evil purposes such as lock up incriminating
> documents to prevent whistle blowing. It surely would not be used in
> the home and foisted on users by big media and software companies so
> people cannot do whatever the hell they want with the music, movies,
> software and the very computers they paid for. </sarcasm>

Go actually read the papers at the IBM link I gave you.

--
--Tim Smith

Tim Smith wrote:
> In article <47d39890.3463150@news-server.ca.rr.com>,
> ultimauw@hotmail.com (A Texan from Connecticut) wrote:
>> "Trusted" Computing
>> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Computing
>
> Thorough refutation of that misinformation:
>
> <http://domino.research.ibm.com/comm/...pages/gsal.TCG
> .html>
>
>
That's just guff for the unthinking zombies from one of the members of
the group.