
How big brother and big media can put the Internet genie back in the bottle. - hmart
http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/digital-imprimatur/
======
neilk
This is from 2003. It's not entirely outdated, but it is rather quaint.

The author foresees a future where everyone has to use personal certificates
to communicate, which has various pros and cons - while enabling commerce, it
could be the end of anonymity. He didn't anticipate a world where the
government is simply hoovering up all the plaintext.

~~~
accountoftheday
These personal certificates are turning out to be Facebook accounts, which is
arguably worse.

~~~
antithesis
Are there any important sites (like news / discussion sites) that require
this?

------
c3d
Microsoft wants ARM machines to be locked in Windows 8 mode, probably to block
Android. From what I can tell, it goes both ways. Existing Android tablets are
not Windows8-certified, so they won't run it.

Microsoft being the runner-up in the tablet market, I find the move puzzling.
What do they have to gain? Why would vendors want to lock themselves in the
hands of Microsoft, given MS's past behavior?

More puzzling yet: what is the force in the Microsoft DNA that prompts them to
systematically return to this kind of anti-competitive behaviors as soon as
they get a chance?

~~~
ams6110
Remember the BCG matrix? I think Microsoft is desperately trying to keep
Windows in the "cash cow" quadrant, while the consumer is starting to look at
it as a "dog." For teens and people in their 20s, Windows is the OS that your
mom and dad use. I just think the product has run its course. Just like GM
couldn't revive Oldsmobile, Microsoft (the GM of the software world) can't
revive Windows. Android and iOS already own the tablet/handheld space. That
war is over, unless Apple and Google seriously stagnate. Microsoft had more
than their fair share of shots at winning that and failed miserably, because
their approach was always one of expanding lock-in to Windows rather than
really building stuff that people enjoyed using.

~~~
tankbot
I mostly agree, especially your last sentence. With the exception of our
Exchange/AD environment at work (which everyone uses Macs on top of) I only
boot Windows when some piece of software I can't get around requires it. I've
used a combination of OS X and various Linux flavors to do everything for a
few years now and haven't missed MS one bit.

My father on the other hand (who told me I was nuts back in the 90's when I
explained how Linux/OSS would change everything) still clings to Windows even
though it's a major source of frustration for my folks. I would even raise the
age you posited, as I am in my early 30's (though it could just be that I'm
immature).

I disagree with your assertion that the war for mobile is won, however. I
think MS is down, but certainly not out. If the last 10 years are any
indication, things can turn around in the blink of an eye.

------
asiekierka
This article seems to focus on closed-source solutions. What about Linux? If
the Trusted Computing code would be open-source, that creates another rather
huge problem for the big brother and big media. Does that mean Linux machines
would be unable to connect to the internet? Or would they need closed-source
Trusted Computing drivers instead?

~~~
Jach
From the article:

> Consequently, a trusted computing platform must validate the signature of an
> operating system before booting it. Operating systems not certified as
> implementing all the requirements of Trusted Computing will not be issued
> certificates, and may not be booted on such systems.

This has already happened with Windows 8 verified hardware. If you want to run
another OS, you (or rather, the OS maintainers) have to pay the $99 Microsoft
(ed: VeriSign, see below) tax to get a Microsoft-signed bootloader and kernel.
(Fedora has already done this.) A decent write-up is here with some comments
from Linus: [http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/linus-torvalds-on-
wind...](http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/linus-torvalds-on-
windows-8-uefi-and-fedora/11187) It's kind of disturbing when the main
reassurance is "Hackers will get around it. Probably."

~~~
daeken
> This has already happened with Windows 8 verified hardware. If you want to
> run another OS, you (or rather, the OS maintainers) have to pay the $99
> Microsoft tax to get a Microsoft-signed bootloader and kernel.

No. While that is an option -- if you want to _use_ Secure Boot -- MS is
requiring certified x86 machines to allow disabling Secure Boot entirely. Does
that make it more difficult to install? Marginally, yes; it adds additional
steps. Does it mean that you have to jump through the signing hoops?
Absolutely not.

~~~
Jach
For now. The story is different for ARM devices, however, unless there has
been an update to that policy that I missed.

~~~
daeken
Yes, ARM still doesn't allow unsigned kernels to run; I mentioned x86
specifically in my post.

That said, the "For now." is fearmongering. It's very possible that MS could
change things, but that doesn't mean we should make that assumption -- that's
just FUD. There are plenty of legitimate things to gripe about around the
Secure Boot stuff, but potential future changes to the policies aren't high on
the list.

~~~
rbanffy
Sorry, but there is FUD and FUD.

When Microsoft claims Linux violates their patents, that it lacks the level of
service companies require or that it destroys value, it is FUD. Microsoft does
it very well.

But when we raise the possibility Microsoft will act in its best interest in
the future (which is to block competition) I'd argue it would be a fair
extrapolation from previous behavior. Microsoft consistently engages in anti-
competitive behavior and it would be naïve to expect a sudden surge of
morality from its top executives.

------
batgaijin
Wait, can someone explain what the hell is going on?!?!

Last I heard the no-images-except-signed ones was for for ARM devices only.
Did MS just put this into x86? Can you turn it off in the BIOS?

~~~
InclinedPlane
No, nothing's changed except for people getting hot and bothered at the
possibility that it could be turned off for x86.

~~~
acabal
Which, I think, is a valid fear to have considering MS is basically just
decreeing this. Like they say, rights disappear in degrees.

------
dnpfwfyuta
How was this peer-to-peer Internet actually put to use, and why isn't it used
that way anymore? I think I could name Usenet, but what else? Most of things I
do on the Internet nowadays is using the www - a hierarchical structure. But
were there p2p equivalents of any of the websites we use today?

