On Fri, 5 Jul 2002, Tim Shapiro wrote:
> The problem is that Padillum thing.... There will be a way around it.
The fact that Palladium will be hackable is, IMO, it's single most
negative aspect. This follows the old, "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws
will have guns" argument.
Microsoft is not trying to stop viruses and prevent cracks with Palladium
- they know as well as we do that that is not possible - it is just a
marketing pitch. What they are trying to do is remove the ability for
legitimate businesses to write software without paying Microsoft a
royalty. Legitimate businesses cannot crack Palladium (because it's
illegal, not because it's hard), so they must pay fealty to Microsoft.
Malicious hackers and crackers do not have to obey the law, so the system
will be no more secure than it is now (that is, it will be upper bound by
Microsoft's ability and motivation to implement security). As you note,
white-hats will be completely unaffected, so they are irrelevant to the
equation.
This is the worst of both worlds - reduction in legitimate competition and
no mitigation of risk. The only people who do stand to benefit are MS,
MPAA, and RIAA - all of them at the expense of the consumer. This is not
good capitalism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"We need commonsense judges who understand that our rights were
derived from God. Those are the kind of judges I intend to put on
the bench." President George W. Bush, 27 June 2002
http://www.nando.net/politics/story/453192p-3627921c.html
"no religious Test shall ever be required" Constitution Article 6
http://www.law.emory.edu/FEDERAL/usconst/art-6.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------
(text/plain)