Microsoft's Palladium and the "Fritz Chip"

Kicka$$gear-News (computer enthusiast site) ^ | June 28, 2002 | Dr. John

[RicocheT]

Palladium and the "Fritz Chip"

You all should know about Senator Fritz Hollings, and his tireless attempts to make PCs incapable of copying music files or running "unauthorized content". The Trusted Computing Platform Alliance" or TCPA, is a hardware and software based system for preventing computers from doing many of the things they are now capable of. Microsoft, AMD, Intel and many other companies say they are now working very hard to integrate TCPA features into hardware and software, including future versions of Windows.

At the heart of TCPA is a new chip added to motherboards, which have been affectionately dubbed "Fritz chips" after the good Senator. But there is a double meaning here, since you can expect computers based on TCPA technology to go on the fritz far more often than their non-TCPA counterparts. Eventually, Intel and AMD say they will incorporate TCPA into future processors. Lucky us.

Palladium is the software end of the business, and will be built-into future versions of Windows. The basic idea is that the Fritz chip will constantly check the machine state, and the "authorizations" for the OS and each application on the machine. The OS will only boot if nothing is "amiss", that means no "unauthorized components or content". The spin they are putting on this draconian move is that "PCs won't necessarily get faster, just more secure".

Is that what computer owners want? Slower computers that can't copy MP3 files without paid authorization? I don't think so, and I doubt that talk about "secure computing" will change many minds. So the question is, will folks run out to buy a "Fritz chip" computer, or will they shop around for Fritz-less options? My guess is the later. However, most computer users are far from techno-savvy, so if they get bombarded with propaganda about TCPA making their computers secure from hackers, maybe the IT industry will be able to bamboozle large numbers of casual computer users. But the relatively smaller community of power users will certainly not go quietly into this good fight. So the next question is, will there be "Fritz-less" computer manufacturers that specifically sell only systems that have no TCPA components or operating systems? What will become of Linux as Microsoft moves completely to "Palladium", especially if the internet becomes TCPA-ified?

The bottom line is this. Computer and software makers are desperate to lock down the ability of modern computers until they are nothing more than paid content providing systems. This is not what computers were made for, they were made to be multifunctional, programmable devices with almost unlimited capabilities. Capabilities that the MPAA (motion picture assoc. of America) and RIAA (recording industry assoc. of America) want eliminated ASAP.

Finally, will TCPA create a black market for Fritz-less motherboards, or will it just make the last, fastest, Fritz-less computers the most popular on earth? I can imagine a big run on the last round on non-TCPA hardware as soon as it becomes known that all motherboards after a certain date must have the Fritz chip installed.

Dr. John

See this article for the technical explanation: "MS Palladium protects IT vendors, not you" http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/25940.html

[steve-b]

I'm going to agree with Aquinasfan.

Ah, another advocate of the Sarah Brady philosophy of attacking the inanimate object rather than the miscreant. I thought the natural home of these folks was DU, not FR.

[discostu]

How do we attack the miscreant in this case? Come up with a better idea. So far the ideas on the table are: tons of wierd security most of which will be pretty annoying to the average person and "information wants to be free".

And watch the slander, say that to my face and things get ugly. People are trying to have a reasonable discussion and somebody running around pointing a finger screaming "sarah brady sarah bardy" isn't contributing.

[steve-b]

How do we attack the miscreant in this case?

Easily. There are civil and criminal laws against copyright infringement. Enforce them against copyright infringers when they are found. Duh.

And watch the slander

I stated that your position is that inanimate objects, not misbehaving individuals, should be the objects of legal enforcement. You have just confirmed this to be true. Truth, by definition, cannot be slander. QED.

[steve-b]

If something is not done to control piracy, we are going to be missing out on a huge economic windfall.

This claim is constantly made to support the xxAA's agenda, but the evidence simply does not support it. Certainly, the industry's revenues remain high, despite the recession (and despite their use of Enronomics to understate their income and thereby chisel on various percentage-based payments).

A few years ago I bought a DVD player and big screen TV, thinking that I would never go back to a theatre, but each month when I look over the DVD releases, I see nothing but junk. The studios are afraid to release their really good work for fear that someone will copy it.

Leaving aside the dubious claim that anything out of Hollywood these days constitutes "really good work", how many major motion pictures can you name that are not released on video within a few years of theatrical debuts?

[Timesink]

Can someone tell me why South Carolina rat Senator Fritz Hollings is so interested in this issue? I don't think that the MPAA and RIAA have a huge presence in his state.

Yeah. but how much money did they give his campaigns? How much did Microsoft give? I agree with you that there's no obvious legitimate reason he should be so concerned about this, so we might as well start following the money.

[Publius6961]

Just a correction.

Yeah right.
The vast majority is excercising their "fair use" rights.

And the vast majority of loser liberals are oppressing me for my own good too.

I am a functional moron and swallow all those claims.
Best regards.

[discostu]

But the situation is bigger now. Back in the day the individual bootlegger wasn't a problem. He'd maybe distribute something to 5 or 6 friends at a cost to himself in material (blank TDK's the currency of my teenaged years that's for sure) and time (took 90 minutes to fill a 90 minute tape). They went after the big bootlegging operations (aka the swapmeet salesmen) because they were actually costing the industry money.

Now it's not that way. I can rip a whole CD in just a couple of minutes, toss it on a website and blammo thousands of copies are out there. Now the individual bootlegger can outstrip the the pro for distribution range and speed. And it's nearly impossible to trace back.

And stuff your "duh" where the sun don't shine, you haven't presented a solution.

Neither AF nor I are blaming the equipment. There's a difference between using the equipment to enforcing via the equipment. There's ceiling to the amount of horsepower a car can be sold with in the US (hence why we don't get real lambo's, ours have been modified because the default build has too many horsepower). The level it's limited at is enough to get most cars from 0-75 in about 5 seconds, you really don't need to do that any faster, there's not really much reason to have more horsepower.
And since you're insult was based on a deliberate misstatement of my position yes indeed it is slander. On the other side you can just follow a simple rule: never say anything on line that would get you popped in the face in person. If you follow that you'll find you have much more civil and enjoyable conversations.

[discostu]

Actually the evidence is there, the RIAA is loosing money hand over fist which they weren't doing before all this MP3 stuff hit (something the anti-RIAA people cheer vociferously). The MPAA's margins are down but their still profitable (and will probably stay that way, even at cable modem speeds a movie is one serious download and sucks a lot of harddrive).

And of course if even they weren't losing money over this stuff it's still theft.

[eno_]

If you like it, you buy it. I'd rather not.

[general_re]

here's ceiling to the amount of horsepower a car can be sold with in the US (hence why we don't get real lambo's, ours have been modified because the default build has too many horsepower). The level it's limited at is enough to get most cars from 0-75 in about 5 seconds, you really don't need to do that any faster, there's not really much reason to have more horsepower.

I've never heard of such a thing - IIRC, the reason Lambos are modified is to keep them in line with emissions requirements, not because there's some upper limit to horsepower. When you can get a street-legal modded Viper with 850 HP, it seems clear to me that any such restriction is so high as to make no practical difference. ;)

Not saying you're lying or wrong, now - just that I've never heard that, so I'd be interested in learning more...

[steve-b]

But the situation is bigger now.

LOL! This is the excuse used for half of the leftists' subversions of the notion that the Constitution means what it says rather than what the leftists think it ought to say.

First Amendment? But the situation is bigger now -- we need to crack down on "hate speech" and "campaign finance abuses".

Second Amendment? But the situation is bigger now -- we need to get "Saturday Night Specials"* and "Assault Weapons"** off the streets.

*Definition: Any firearm less than twelve inches in length.
**Definition: Any firearm spanning one foot or more.

And it's nearly impossible to trace back.

Actually, in general it's quite trivial to trace back. The only obstacle is that the industry doesn't want to take the PR hit of targeting the individual violators.

And stuff your "duh" where the sun don't shine, you haven't presented a solution.

I haven't presented a solution that you like. That's too bad. There's ceiling to the amount of horsepower a car can be sold with in the US

Do I really have to explain the fallacy of using one unjustifiable policy to justify another unjustifiable policy?

you really don't need to do that any faster

That's the excuse used for the other half of the aforementioned leftist subversions (e.g. "Rich people don't really need all that money").

And since you're insult was based on a deliberate misstatement of my position yes indeed it is slander.

There is no misstatement. You and Sarah agree that law-abiding citizens should be prohibited from owning items because they might misuse them.

On the other side you can just follow a simple rule: never say anything on line that would get you popped in the face in person.

I've observed that people who prefer to blame inanimate objects tend to have poor impulse control. It's a convenient way of shifting blame, I suppose.

[eno_]

"You need companies willing to front the costs, and they need copyright protection."

That may be true, but why should that imply though-crime laws like the DMCA or invidious chips like Fritz? I don't want this in my computer, and won't buy it if I can avoid it. Short of a law making it mandatory, I can't think of any consumer, or anyone who has the smallest care for their own privacy, who would buy this. Which indicates this is the wrong approach.

At best this is a poison chalice Microsoft will drink deeply from. At worst, this is the end of PCs their owners can actually control and keep secure form external inspection.

[steve-b]

If anything, the numbers say the exact opposite -- the RIAA's revenues went up during 1999-2000 (the heyday of Napster) and down afterwards (in the post-Napster environment in which it takes considerably more work to find bootlegged files).

More likely, there isn't really any connection either way and the whole thing is a classic example of the post hoc fallacy.

[eno_]

You are assuming today's business models have to survive. Why? How long has the recording industry been around in its present form? If it disappeared, 99.9% of musicians would make as much money as they do today.

[Aquinasfan]

If you're worried about your "intellectual property" then don't store it in the form of a long string of ones and zeroes on a machine-readable medium.

And if you don't want your money to be stolen don't convert it into the form of a long string of ones and zeroes on a machine-readable medium.

[steve-b]

If there were a site called FREEMUSIC.COM...

It would be incumbent upon the owners of any copyrights violated there, and the appropriate law enforcement agencies, to shut it down after due process of law.

I said DVD, not video. If you doubt my complaint, just go to amazon.com's DVD page and look over the new DVD releases.

A meaningless distinction (videotapes are, if anything, easier to bootleg because their security, such as it is, is well behind that of the DVD format). Even accepting it for the sake of argument, let's look at that Amazon page:

hmmm... 3rd season of ST:TNG... 1776... 2nd season of M*A*S*H*... The Fellowship of the Ring... 2nd season of The Simpsons.... nope, I'm afraid your claim simply did not survive its collision with the facts.

[steve-b]

There's a lot of big titles that DVD users have been waiting years for.

Obviously for reasons other than fear of bootlegging -- if anything, the mass-market blockbusters (that are routinely coming out of both DVD and tape formats within months of theatrical release) are more at risk than releases that cater to more specialized tastes.