Don’t trust ‘trusted computing’
p2pnet.net News:- World governments shouldn’t trust Trusted Computing (TC) or DRM, says New Zealand’s State Services Commission (SSC).
Accordingly, it’s invited administrations around the world to share, peer-to-peer, special policies and principles it’s drawn up to make sure TC and Digital Restrictions Management applications don’t interfere with, or compromise, information security.
Risks created by international IT vendors and media organisations through the introduction of protection technologies shouldn’t be allowed to, “adversely affect the integrity (including availability and confidentiality) of government-held information or related government systems,” says ZDNet Australia.
“We believe that collaboration between governments is vital to ensure that these technologies develop in a way consistent with government requirements,” the story has the SSC saying.
“By agreeing on a common set of principles and policies that reflect their requirements, governments can more effectively influence ICT product vendors to develop standards and features that will meet these requirements, for example a standard for disclosing the DRM restrictions associated with a computer file.”
The SCC basically opposes, “externally imposed restrictions on access to government information except where government has given informed consent. Government must also have full control of any DRM encumbrance over the master copy of any information it owns,” says ZDNet Australia.
“They also call for a common set of rights definitions and proscribe the use of hardware or software that could modify or hinder access to information held by government. Such systems also cannot compromise information privacy. Agencies must have knowledge about the information flows into and out of such systems.”
Also See:
ZDNet Australia – NZ draws line on DRM and trusted computing, September 5, 2006
p2pnet newsfeeds for your site.
rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss
Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
September 6th, 2006 at 5:13 pm
Well, if New Zealand has it’s way Vista and hardware TPMs are out the window. One can only hope that other gvmnts hear and understand what NZ is saying. If this crap keeps going the way it is, IT corporations will have subversive control over government information. BAD BAD BAD
September 6th, 2006 at 8:18 pm
One of the most confusing problems with Trusted Computing is that it is the use of a series of technologies which owners of a computer would like to have, but where it is not the owner but some third party that is given control.
It is not “trusted computing” that is bad, or any of the technologies behind it. What is bad is that these “digital locks” have keys that are being kept by the manufacturers rather than being kept by the owners of the devices.
September 6th, 2006 at 11:44 pm
>IT corporations will have subversive control over government information.<
From what I’ve read I’ve come to my own conclusion that this may already be attempting to take place. E.G.: The fight the US State of Massachusettes had with MS.
September 6th, 2006 at 11:46 pm
WOW! That DOES suck – MASSIVELY!
September 7th, 2006 at 4:47 am
Trusted computing and DRM allow ppl to rent content collections, but if you stop paying for access you lose the content right?
What better way to hide the evidence than to be able to cancel your account within a few minutes and see the collection disappear never to be seen again. Even if the data could be undeleted, without verfication it’s not accessable. Not even by the cops.
It’s not like the cops could demand the password or encryption key off the pervert either. The pervert never had either. And without being able to prove that encrypted deleted data was child porn, what can the cops do?
So DRM and TPM are obviously bad and must be gotten rid of immediately. To protect the children of course. And anyone who disagrees with that is obviously a pervert. To quote many governments own lines of reasoning against them.
September 7th, 2006 at 6:48 pm
Tony I bet you ARE a pedophile.
You know “so much” about them.
NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You need to RESEARCH a subject before posting tin foil hat drivel like that!
September 7th, 2006 at 7:34 pm
In the simplest terms who holds the keys is the problem. In the case we have before us there are major problems with implementation as well. IMHO the security features provided by “trusted computing” (Vista and hardware TPMs) are inherently not secure. The CPU useage just for “trusted computing” overhead is rediculous as well. Then there is the matter of diminished functionality. This last one is just my opinion. Looking at the whole trusted computing implementation one can logically assume that there will be ongoing big headaches for end users and IT people alike, not because of who holds the keys, but because the bloatware/hardware/scumware/evilware nightmare that is “trusted computing” will just not work right.
September 8th, 2006 at 6:29 am
Why?
Politicians never do, and it works for them…