10 ms·

Microsoft furious at $2,000 bounty for open source Kinect drivers

164 points by bensummers 16y ago

rhizome 16y ago
It's shady for TechEye to quote CNET without linking to the article that contains Microsoft's response.
- jamescrowley 16y ago
  Hi rhizome - our mistake. Apologies for the delay picking this up, but we've included the CNET link now. It is our intention to always link to our sources, but this slipped through the net. Thanks for bringing it to our attention! James Crowley CTO, TechEye
orangecat 16y ago
"Microsoft does not condone the modification of its products," a Microsoft spokesperson told CNET. "With Kinect, Microsoft built in numerous hardware and software safeguards designed to reduce the chances of product tampering. Microsoft will continue to make advances in these types of safeguards and work closely with law enforcement and product safety groups to keep Kinect tamper-resistant." That's exactly what I would say if I actually did want a bunch of hackers trying to create drivers for other platforms.
- markkanof 16y ago
  This also seems like a strange thing to emphasize. Instead of pointing to the advances in motion tracking that Microsoft made to create Kinect they choose to emphasize the advances in DRM that they have made to prevent people from doing interesting things with their product.
  - jrockway 16y ago
    I think this is because they sell the hardware at a loss, and have to make it up through legitimate game sales. Statements like the above are to keep the shareholders happy with a pretty bad business model. ("We give the actual hardware away, but then rape developers and users with per-game fees. We go out of business if someone breaks the DRM, but that can't happen because we're Microsoft and our DRM is unbreakable.")
    - Tangurena 16y ago
      While the "sold at a loss" might be true, I've also read some articles that claimed that some of the processing in the kinect hardware was being offloaded into the xbox itself. If true, this means that the drivers will need to replicate some code running on the xbox and Microsoft was rather nasty about researchers reversing some of what went on inside the running hardware.
      - Vivtek 16y ago
        Then perhaps they should avoid trying to play the hardware market instead of lawyering up to reinforce their bandaids.
    - 1337p337 16y ago
      This sort of attitude (and the business model of Draconian control over third-party developers) is unfortunately, endemic in the console gaming industry, harmful to the console gaming industry, and something Microsoft is great at (which is why they were such a good fit). Nintendo pioneered this in the 80s, with their connector patents and weird, proprietary chips that cartridges required, learning from Atari's "mistakes" of not locking it down hard enough. They were rewarded with big sacks of money and developers that got used to the rough treatment. The industry still hasn't recovered. It's why I love GamePark so much. Fun little handhelds and open development. I've bought two of their products so far. But they file for bankruptcy more often than Shigeru Miyamoto flashes his trademark smile; it isn't an industry that is easy to break into, and there's not much incentive for the big players to start playing nice.
      - ootachi 16y ago
        Exactly. The issue here is not a battle between a belief that consumers have the right to do whatever they want with whatever signal or device they possess and the belief that consumers don't have that right. It's an issue of open vs. closed standards and ecosystems. The video game industry, and by extension consumers, have been demonstrably harmed for years by these sorts of control measures. Consider the ethics of (a) using the Wiimote to drive my set-top box and (b) getting DirecTV without paying for it. The situations are clearly different. The former drives innovation [1], the latter doesn't. [1]: http://hacknmod.com/hack/top-30-wiimote-hacks-of-the-web/ http://hacknmod.com/hack/top-30-wiimote-hacks-of-the-web/
- oiuyftgrghjk 16y ago
  "work closely with law enforcement" If they do they are going to be on the wrong side of the bars. Article 6 of the EU convention on software prohibits anything which stops you reverse engineering hardware or software for interoperability.
  - X-Istence 16y ago
    DMCA allows reverse engineering for interoperability or when it is for education.
    - mkramlich 16y ago
      Reverse engineering is educational, thus... Er. Uh. :)
- enjo 16y ago
  It's funny, because having hackers get open control of Kinect would probably be the very best thing to ever happen to it. From what I can tell Kinect is a seriously cool piece of technology without a problem to solve. Every review has been the same "it's pretty neat, but the launch titles are a bewildering array of uninteresting crap" (paraphrased of course). Hackers are a group that are just uncanny at finding creative uses for hardware like this. Hell, I'd attribute much of the iPhone's success to those early hackers who built apps long before any official SDK was available. They pushed things in all sorts of creative directions. Apple undoubtedly learned a lot from that...Kinect needs the same.
  - nodata 16y ago
    Isn't that a good reason Microsoft doesn't want this to work? It will show open source as good.
    - techno-fitness 16y ago
      I'm sorry, but no, Microsoft, and the world for that matter, do not work that way. Stifling open-source innovation in one small, small chunk of their bottom-line (and their gaming division is really small when compared to the behemoth that is the rest of MS) isn't even going to be on the agenda for discussion. They're stifling it because they want to control the content running on the platform (see any Apple product for why). Whether that is an acceptably smart/evil thing for MS to do is up to you, but let's not pretend it's part of the insidious crusade by the man to keep us hackers down, eh?
    - uxp 16y ago
      It isn't just open source. If I was to hack a driver for it, but not release the code and only do some sort of daemon server and documented API replicating anything it can already do, it would be the same idea. The problem comes because the reverse engineer hackers don't have a business model to protect. It doesn't matter if that month long project doesn't return any money, because it was damn cool to do. Compare that to Microsoft who requires people to pay them money for the privilege to write code that takes advantage of it. I don't have any numbers, but a large group of small to medium game companies buy SDKs and Development tools for platforms they don't actually produce titles for. This is a significant number of people they don't want "trying" before they buy.
- mkramlich 16y ago
  Of course, once I buy that product, it becomes my product. My possession. My asset. And I would condone modification of my product.
wccrawford 16y ago
That's one of the few projects that I'd be willing to contribute personal funds to see done... If done well enough. That's the trick.
tptacek 16y ago
They're "furious"? I don't get that. What I get is "If necessary, we're going to outspend Limor by roughly two orders of magnitude on this problem alone"; based on the caliber of people MSFT has ready access to, I'd put my chips on Microsoft in this arms race.
- cryptoz 16y ago
  No corporation has ever shut out the hackers. In every machine ever built, if hackers want to control it they will. Especially if they're allowed to take the machine home. What makes you think this case is any different? Microsoft can't keep Office or Windows under wraps, nor the XBOX, nor anything else. The hackers will win, as always.
  - chadgeidel 16y ago
    As with much security "win" is relative. If Microsoft can keep the hackers at bay until their next console release (or, perhaps the subsequent release) they will have essentially "won".
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - tptacek 16y ago
    Patently false. For one example: DirecTV shut out the off-the-shelf smartcard hackers. You're falling into a narrative trap. It's not actually "hackers vs. Microsoft". Microsoft pays some of the best in the world. Most examples of hackers beating companies involve companies that did not invest seriously in countermeasures. That's not a problem Microsoft has.
    - daeken 16y ago
      Another good one: the 360. While there have been attacks against it, hackers have by no means won.
      - Psyonic 16y ago
makuro 16y ago
$2,000 seems low, really. The people who would be intrigued in this situation are doing it for the challenge and the glory. Two thousand would be an OK cherry on top, but if you really want to sweeten the deal, I bet with a Kickstarter you could get ten times that amount.
- jiaaro 16y ago
  but with kickstarted we all have to give somebody the money BEFORE they figure it out. With a bounty you don't hand it over until it works
  - Raphael 16y ago
    It could be a form of escrow. The person fundraising would have to be someone people trust.
- rapind 16y ago
  IMO MS could offer $10,000 to any developer who delivers the exact same thing to them only giving MS complete ownerhip over the code. That would entice anyone working on it to go for the bigger bucks and give them legal recourse if the same code appeared as opensource. Of course that could start a bidding war, and draw more attention, and no doubt encourage more hackers... so actually never mind, probably a really bad idea.
  - burgerbrain 16y ago
    The type of people who normally do this sort of stuff do it for free. The sort of people who do this kind of stuff because of the publicity being generated have the tendancy to not even do it for free, but to refuse any prize money offered to them. A large portion of bug bounties paid out to people who find bugs are gifted to the EFF for example. A 10k bounty to not release this might stop a few people from doing so, but all it takes is for a single individual to say "fuck it, I have a steady job and a nice place to live, giving MS the finger is worth more than just a measily 10k to me", and it's game over. Once that single person releases their work microsoft has paid out (no doubt numerous times) 10k for absolutely nothing.
dinedal 16y ago
Nintendo didn't say or do anything, and now everyone and their brother can hook up a Wiimote to a computer and use it without issue. It doesn't seem to have negatively impacted them at all. I'm curious as to why MS thinks that this is going to hurt them.
- ahi 16y ago
  The Kinect hardware might be a loss leader for Microsoft licensed software.
  - sh1mmer 16y ago
    That's also probably true of Nintendo. I doubt the hardware has anywhere close to the revenue margins of the games themselves, or licensing games. I think the real point in the original comment was that "serious" business is unlikely to build products competing with 360 on other platforms based on an open source driver for Kinect. E.g. Activision are extremely unlikely to build video games for PC based that require a Kinect. While there might be a small cost to Microsoft in selling a few Kinect bundles to hackers who don't have, and therefore buy games for, XBox 360 in the grand scheme of things it's hardly a threat to Mircosoft's new business model and this is just the standard corporate answer to anyone tampering with their products.
    - tptacek 16y ago
      It's Microsoft's prerogative to make business decisions for itself. They don't have to rationalize them against the C.W. of hacker forums.
      - ShabbyDoo 16y ago
        Nobody's saying it isn't their right. But, it's also my right to criticize their decision as being irrational, mean-spirited, or whatever. I do question whether Microsoft should have a "right" under the DMCA to prevent me from reverse engineering their protocols though. However, that's not an argument specific to any one product encumbered with anti-circumvention schemes.
funkdobiest 16y ago
I think most should be upset over the fact that MS is implying that law enforcement will be kicking in the door of whoever wins this bounty.
- tptacek 16y ago
  I agree, up to the point where someone might try to start a business on Kinect reversing. It was hamhanded for MSFT's spokesperson to invoke law enforcement.
  - CamperBob 16y ago
    Almost sounds like a deliberate troll, doesn't it?
    - tptacek 16y ago
      My comment, or the comment I'm responding to? Preemptively: The fact that what I actually believe flies in the face of the conventional wisdom on Hacker News does not make it a trolling comment.
      - CamperBob 16y ago
        Microsoft's legal threat.
        tptacek 16y ago
        I think it was dumb of them to pick that fight, but that in the extreme they are invoking, it's not an idle or frivolous threat.
  - caf 16y ago
    How would this be any different to a business based on selling unauthorised printer cartridges/refills? (Serious, not rhetorical, question!) (All under the assumption that making unauthorised use of the Kinect does not require copying a work that Microsoft owns the copyright to, of course).
heliodor 16y ago
Adafruit Industries should start a fundraising campaign on kickstarter.com or a similar site and aim for the kind of run-away success that Diaspora had in their fundraising efforts. More publicity, more money, more developers ... angrier Microsoft!
kellysutton 16y ago
It will be curious to see what unlocking the drivers for the Kinect will actually do. If there's no semblance of an API from the device, it might just be giving you back raw data. With the Wiimote, that's more manageable since you're only dealing with 3 axes. With a crazy point cloud, it could be tough to infer anything from the data. I think I read somewhere that the Kinect handles a lot of this on its own though...
- Leynos 16y ago
  The bounty is for RGB video with per-pixel depth information. "To demonstrate the driver you must also write an application with one window showing video (640 x 480) and one window showing depth."
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
- Leynos 16y ago
  https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/86-DOS https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/86-DOS See section headed "IBM Interest"
- recoiledsnake 16y ago
  Reverse engineering DOS? Eh, they purchased it outright.
tlrobinson 16y ago
I predict the Streisand effect will kick in right about now.
oziumjinx 16y ago
I could see it now: Porn industry adapts open source Kinect drivers into new, immersible adult entertainment experience. Act in one of your favorite movies and get "intimate" with your favorite porn stars.
- Psyonic 16y ago
  Dirty minds think alike, apparently. I proposed this very thing to my friend yesterday. He just got a Kinect and I was joking with him about the potential this has for the porn industry.
  - oziumjinx 16y ago
    I did initially get downvoted but I think the implications for that adult entertainment industry with Kinect are huge. As some may know, the POV (point of view) genre in adult entertainment is a huge segment. Being able to act in the movies and dictate the positions and movements of the actor would be a big marketing driver
sz 16y ago
Where can I pledge money for the cause? I'd up the bounty myself if I could.
eli 16y ago
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Microsoft is correct in suggesting any Americans who participate in this might actually be breaking federal law, right?
joeld42 16y ago
How much of what Kinect does is done in hardware, and how much of the vision solve is done in software? the "drivers" might be a huge undertaking if it just gives you the raw input from the cameras.
- uxp 16y ago
  If my understanding of the device is marginally accurate, I understand it offloads almost all of the processing to the 360. So, I would imagine the raw data coming out of it is like getting raw input from 64 mice at the same time. If anything is done directly on the device, it is probably "stabilization", like muting the background and focusing on a central moving object, but actual tracking and number crunching is done off of it. Here's a video of a guy looking at his room with IR goggles. This observation makes me think that there is a Lot of data to be crunched to get an accurate use of it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7nRKU0nFxA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7nRKU0nFxA
pippy 16y ago
Taking the device away from games may be the best thing for it. It could have great applications for medical research and physiotherapy. On the gaming application side, it's just a glorified Eye Toy. If you've played it, you know how foolish you feel playing it.
teilo 16y ago
"Modification of its products" "Product tampering" So if I write a linux device driver for a USB mouse with a proprietary interface, I am "tampering" with the mouse and "modifying" it? This is a human interface device. I highly doubt that even the DCMA could kick in on it, since it is not used for recording, storing, or displaying content of any kind (but I could be wrong). How, then, does Microsoft have the right to say what can and cannot be done with a piece of hardware that I rightfully purchased? Whether the Kinect is a loss leader is irrelevant. Once I buy the thing, I own it, and I can do whatever I want to with it.
lwhi 16y ago
I don't own an Xbox, but if I can connect Kinect to my linux box, I'll buy one.
trotsky 16y ago
The bounty is nothing but a PR stunt - they might as well offer $50k, it's very unlikely anyone will ever claim it. The XBOX 360 and their official(ly licensed) peripherals are protected by TPM style infineon chips that do cryptographically secure mutual authentication and protocol encryption (as needed). These chips are very tamper resistant, requiring a state sponsored level of sophistication to physically remove private keys that are never exposed outside of the chip dye. Or an exposure of the original microsoft signing keys for the xbox project which are undoubtedly closely controlled and are never required to be exposed to 3rd party developers (except, perhaps, infineon). The exposure of such keys or a process to avoid the use of them would be of significantly more value to software bootleggers, unlicensed peripheral manufacturers and homebrew folks than any amount of money this open source group is likely to offer. And they'd be requiring a fully functional driver for a set of complex hardware with no documentation on top of the cryptographic attack. Nobody on earth would do all that work to claim that bounty. Not to mention, defeating the protections would surely fall under the DMCA circumvention rules, meaning revealing the coders identity would open them up to significant legal risk. While it's fun blame microsoft for their behavior, it should be noted that this kind of peripheral protection is becoming significantly more common. Among others, I'm under the impression that this style of on chip cryptographic protections drives the new class of "made for iPhone" officially licensed bluetooth enabled gadgets and certain other "made for iPhone" hardware. I'm unsure if they use as tamper proof a solution, but the intent is the same.

164 points by bensummers 16y ago

rhizome 16y ago

It's shady for TechEye to quote CNET without linking to the article that contains Microsoft's response.

jamescrowley 16y ago
Hi rhizome - our mistake. Apologies for the delay picking this up, but we've included the CNET link now. It is our intention to always link to our sources, but this slipped through the net. Thanks for bringing it to our attention! James Crowley CTO, TechEye

orangecat 16y ago

"Microsoft does not condone the modification of its products," a Microsoft spokesperson told CNET. "With Kinect, Microsoft built in numerous hardware and software safeguards designed to reduce the chances of product tampering. Microsoft will continue to make advances in these types of safeguards and work closely with law enforcement and product safety groups to keep Kinect tamper-resistant." That's exactly what I would say if I actually did want a bunch of hackers trying to create drivers for other platforms.

markkanof 16y ago
This also seems like a strange thing to emphasize. Instead of pointing to the advances in motion tracking that Microsoft made to create Kinect they choose to emphasize the advances in DRM that they have made to prevent people from doing interesting things with their product.
- jrockway 16y ago
  I think this is because they sell the hardware at a loss, and have to make it up through legitimate game sales. Statements like the above are to keep the shareholders happy with a pretty bad business model. ("We give the actual hardware away, but then rape developers and users with per-game fees. We go out of business if someone breaks the DRM, but that can't happen because we're Microsoft and our DRM is unbreakable.")
  - Tangurena 16y ago
    While the "sold at a loss" might be true, I've also read some articles that claimed that some of the processing in the kinect hardware was being offloaded into the xbox itself. If true, this means that the drivers will need to replicate some code running on the xbox and Microsoft was rather nasty about researchers reversing some of what went on inside the running hardware.
    - Vivtek 16y ago
      Then perhaps they should avoid trying to play the hardware market instead of lawyering up to reinforce their bandaids.
  - 1337p337 16y ago
    This sort of attitude (and the business model of Draconian control over third-party developers) is unfortunately, endemic in the console gaming industry, harmful to the console gaming industry, and something Microsoft is great at (which is why they were such a good fit). Nintendo pioneered this in the 80s, with their connector patents and weird, proprietary chips that cartridges required, learning from Atari's "mistakes" of not locking it down hard enough. They were rewarded with big sacks of money and developers that got used to the rough treatment. The industry still hasn't recovered. It's why I love GamePark so much. Fun little handhelds and open development. I've bought two of their products so far. But they file for bankruptcy more often than Shigeru Miyamoto flashes his trademark smile; it isn't an industry that is easy to break into, and there's not much incentive for the big players to start playing nice.
    - ootachi 16y ago
      Exactly. The issue here is not a battle between a belief that consumers have the right to do whatever they want with whatever signal or device they possess and the belief that consumers don't have that right. It's an issue of open vs. closed standards and ecosystems. The video game industry, and by extension consumers, have been demonstrably harmed for years by these sorts of control measures. Consider the ethics of (a) using the Wiimote to drive my set-top box and (b) getting DirecTV without paying for it. The situations are clearly different. The former drives innovation [1], the latter doesn't. [1]: http://hacknmod.com/hack/top-30-wiimote-hacks-of-the-web/ http://hacknmod.com/hack/top-30-wiimote-hacks-of-the-web/
oiuyftgrghjk 16y ago
"work closely with law enforcement" If they do they are going to be on the wrong side of the bars. Article 6 of the EU convention on software prohibits anything which stops you reverse engineering hardware or software for interoperability.
- X-Istence 16y ago
  DMCA allows reverse engineering for interoperability or when it is for education.
  - mkramlich 16y ago
    Reverse engineering is educational, thus... Er. Uh. :)
enjo 16y ago
It's funny, because having hackers get open control of Kinect would probably be the very best thing to ever happen to it. From what I can tell Kinect is a seriously cool piece of technology without a problem to solve. Every review has been the same "it's pretty neat, but the launch titles are a bewildering array of uninteresting crap" (paraphrased of course). Hackers are a group that are just uncanny at finding creative uses for hardware like this. Hell, I'd attribute much of the iPhone's success to those early hackers who built apps long before any official SDK was available. They pushed things in all sorts of creative directions. Apple undoubtedly learned a lot from that...Kinect needs the same.
- nodata 16y ago
  Isn't that a good reason Microsoft doesn't want this to work? It will show open source as good.
  - techno-fitness 16y ago
    I'm sorry, but no, Microsoft, and the world for that matter, do not work that way. Stifling open-source innovation in one small, small chunk of their bottom-line (and their gaming division is really small when compared to the behemoth that is the rest of MS) isn't even going to be on the agenda for discussion. They're stifling it because they want to control the content running on the platform (see any Apple product for why). Whether that is an acceptably smart/evil thing for MS to do is up to you, but let's not pretend it's part of the insidious crusade by the man to keep us hackers down, eh?
  - uxp 16y ago
    It isn't just open source. If I was to hack a driver for it, but not release the code and only do some sort of daemon server and documented API replicating anything it can already do, it would be the same idea. The problem comes because the reverse engineer hackers don't have a business model to protect. It doesn't matter if that month long project doesn't return any money, because it was damn cool to do. Compare that to Microsoft who requires people to pay them money for the privilege to write code that takes advantage of it. I don't have any numbers, but a large group of small to medium game companies buy SDKs and Development tools for platforms they don't actually produce titles for. This is a significant number of people they don't want "trying" before they buy.
mkramlich 16y ago
Of course, once I buy that product, it becomes my product. My possession. My asset. And I would condone modification of my product.

wccrawford 16y ago

That's one of the few projects that I'd be willing to contribute personal funds to see done... If done well enough. That's the trick.

tptacek 16y ago

They're "furious"? I don't get that. What I get is "If necessary, we're going to outspend Limor by roughly two orders of magnitude on this problem alone"; based on the caliber of people MSFT has ready access to, I'd put my chips on Microsoft in this arms race.

cryptoz 16y ago
No corporation has ever shut out the hackers. In every machine ever built, if hackers want to control it they will. Especially if they're allowed to take the machine home. What makes you think this case is any different? Microsoft can't keep Office or Windows under wraps, nor the XBOX, nor anything else. The hackers will win, as always.
- chadgeidel 16y ago
  As with much security "win" is relative. If Microsoft can keep the hackers at bay until their next console release (or, perhaps the subsequent release) they will have essentially "won".
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- tptacek 16y ago
  Patently false. For one example: DirecTV shut out the off-the-shelf smartcard hackers. You're falling into a narrative trap. It's not actually "hackers vs. Microsoft". Microsoft pays some of the best in the world. Most examples of hackers beating companies involve companies that did not invest seriously in countermeasures. That's not a problem Microsoft has.
  - daeken 16y ago
    Another good one: the 360. While there have been attacks against it, hackers have by no means won.
    - Psyonic 16y ago

makuro 16y ago

$2,000 seems low, really. The people who would be intrigued in this situation are doing it for the challenge and the glory. Two thousand would be an OK cherry on top, but if you really want to sweeten the deal, I bet with a Kickstarter you could get ten times that amount.

jiaaro 16y ago
but with kickstarted we all have to give somebody the money BEFORE they figure it out. With a bounty you don't hand it over until it works
- Raphael 16y ago
  It could be a form of escrow. The person fundraising would have to be someone people trust.
rapind 16y ago
IMO MS could offer $10,000 to any developer who delivers the exact same thing to them only giving MS complete ownerhip over the code. That would entice anyone working on it to go for the bigger bucks and give them legal recourse if the same code appeared as opensource. Of course that could start a bidding war, and draw more attention, and no doubt encourage more hackers... so actually never mind, probably a really bad idea.
- burgerbrain 16y ago
  The type of people who normally do this sort of stuff do it for free. The sort of people who do this kind of stuff because of the publicity being generated have the tendancy to not even do it for free, but to refuse any prize money offered to them. A large portion of bug bounties paid out to people who find bugs are gifted to the EFF for example. A 10k bounty to not release this might stop a few people from doing so, but all it takes is for a single individual to say "fuck it, I have a steady job and a nice place to live, giving MS the finger is worth more than just a measily 10k to me", and it's game over. Once that single person releases their work microsoft has paid out (no doubt numerous times) 10k for absolutely nothing.

dinedal 16y ago

Nintendo didn't say or do anything, and now everyone and their brother can hook up a Wiimote to a computer and use it without issue. It doesn't seem to have negatively impacted them at all. I'm curious as to why MS thinks that this is going to hurt them.

ahi 16y ago
The Kinect hardware might be a loss leader for Microsoft licensed software.
- sh1mmer 16y ago
  That's also probably true of Nintendo. I doubt the hardware has anywhere close to the revenue margins of the games themselves, or licensing games. I think the real point in the original comment was that "serious" business is unlikely to build products competing with 360 on other platforms based on an open source driver for Kinect. E.g. Activision are extremely unlikely to build video games for PC based that require a Kinect. While there might be a small cost to Microsoft in selling a few Kinect bundles to hackers who don't have, and therefore buy games for, XBox 360 in the grand scheme of things it's hardly a threat to Mircosoft's new business model and this is just the standard corporate answer to anyone tampering with their products.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    It's Microsoft's prerogative to make business decisions for itself. They don't have to rationalize them against the C.W. of hacker forums.
    - ShabbyDoo 16y ago
      Nobody's saying it isn't their right. But, it's also my right to criticize their decision as being irrational, mean-spirited, or whatever. I do question whether Microsoft should have a "right" under the DMCA to prevent me from reverse engineering their protocols though. However, that's not an argument specific to any one product encumbered with anti-circumvention schemes.

funkdobiest 16y ago

I think most should be upset over the fact that MS is implying that law enforcement will be kicking in the door of whoever wins this bounty.

tptacek 16y ago
I agree, up to the point where someone might try to start a business on Kinect reversing. It was hamhanded for MSFT's spokesperson to invoke law enforcement.
- CamperBob 16y ago
  Almost sounds like a deliberate troll, doesn't it?
  - tptacek 16y ago
    My comment, or the comment I'm responding to? Preemptively: The fact that what I actually believe flies in the face of the conventional wisdom on Hacker News does not make it a trolling comment.
    - CamperBob 16y ago
      Microsoft's legal threat.
      - tptacek 16y ago
        I think it was dumb of them to pick that fight, but that in the extreme they are invoking, it's not an idle or frivolous threat.
- caf 16y ago
  How would this be any different to a business based on selling unauthorised printer cartridges/refills? (Serious, not rhetorical, question!) (All under the assumption that making unauthorised use of the Kinect does not require copying a work that Microsoft owns the copyright to, of course).

heliodor 16y ago

Adafruit Industries should start a fundraising campaign on kickstarter.com or a similar site and aim for the kind of run-away success that Diaspora had in their fundraising efforts. More publicity, more money, more developers ... angrier Microsoft!

kellysutton 16y ago

It will be curious to see what unlocking the drivers for the Kinect will actually do. If there's no semblance of an API from the device, it might just be giving you back raw data. With the Wiimote, that's more manageable since you're only dealing with 3 axes. With a crazy point cloud, it could be tough to infer anything from the data. I think I read somewhere that the Kinect handles a lot of this on its own though...

Leynos 16y ago
The bounty is for RGB video with per-pixel depth information. "To demonstrate the driver you must also write an application with one window showing video (640 x 480) and one window showing depth."

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

Leynos 16y ago
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/86-DOS https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/86-DOS See section headed "IBM Interest"
recoiledsnake 16y ago
Reverse engineering DOS? Eh, they purchased it outright.

tlrobinson 16y ago

I predict the Streisand effect will kick in right about now.

oziumjinx 16y ago

I could see it now: Porn industry adapts open source Kinect drivers into new, immersible adult entertainment experience. Act in one of your favorite movies and get "intimate" with your favorite porn stars.

Psyonic 16y ago
Dirty minds think alike, apparently. I proposed this very thing to my friend yesterday. He just got a Kinect and I was joking with him about the potential this has for the porn industry.
- oziumjinx 16y ago
  I did initially get downvoted but I think the implications for that adult entertainment industry with Kinect are huge. As some may know, the POV (point of view) genre in adult entertainment is a huge segment. Being able to act in the movies and dictate the positions and movements of the actor would be a big marketing driver

sz 16y ago

Where can I pledge money for the cause? I'd up the bounty myself if I could.

eli 16y ago

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Microsoft is correct in suggesting any Americans who participate in this might actually be breaking federal law, right?

joeld42 16y ago

How much of what Kinect does is done in hardware, and how much of the vision solve is done in software? the "drivers" might be a huge undertaking if it just gives you the raw input from the cameras.

uxp 16y ago
If my understanding of the device is marginally accurate, I understand it offloads almost all of the processing to the 360. So, I would imagine the raw data coming out of it is like getting raw input from 64 mice at the same time. If anything is done directly on the device, it is probably "stabilization", like muting the background and focusing on a central moving object, but actual tracking and number crunching is done off of it. Here's a video of a guy looking at his room with IR goggles. This observation makes me think that there is a Lot of data to be crunched to get an accurate use of it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7nRKU0nFxA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7nRKU0nFxA

pippy 16y ago

Taking the device away from games may be the best thing for it. It could have great applications for medical research and physiotherapy. On the gaming application side, it's just a glorified Eye Toy. If you've played it, you know how foolish you feel playing it.

teilo 16y ago

"Modification of its products" "Product tampering" So if I write a linux device driver for a USB mouse with a proprietary interface, I am "tampering" with the mouse and "modifying" it? This is a human interface device. I highly doubt that even the DCMA could kick in on it, since it is not used for recording, storing, or displaying content of any kind (but I could be wrong). How, then, does Microsoft have the right to say what can and cannot be done with a piece of hardware that I rightfully purchased? Whether the Kinect is a loss leader is irrelevant. Once I buy the thing, I own it, and I can do whatever I want to with it.

lwhi 16y ago

I don't own an Xbox, but if I can connect Kinect to my linux box, I'll buy one.

trotsky 16y ago

The bounty is nothing but a PR stunt - they might as well offer $50k, it's very unlikely anyone will ever claim it. The XBOX 360 and their official(ly licensed) peripherals are protected by TPM style infineon chips that do cryptographically secure mutual authentication and protocol encryption (as needed). These chips are very tamper resistant, requiring a state sponsored level of sophistication to physically remove private keys that are never exposed outside of the chip dye. Or an exposure of the original microsoft signing keys for the xbox project which are undoubtedly closely controlled and are never required to be exposed to 3rd party developers (except, perhaps, infineon). The exposure of such keys or a process to avoid the use of them would be of significantly more value to software bootleggers, unlicensed peripheral manufacturers and homebrew folks than any amount of money this open source group is likely to offer. And they'd be requiring a fully functional driver for a set of complex hardware with no documentation on top of the cryptographic attack. Nobody on earth would do all that work to claim that bounty. Not to mention, defeating the protections would surely fall under the DMCA circumvention rules, meaning revealing the coders identity would open them up to significant legal risk. While it's fun blame microsoft for their behavior, it should be noted that this kind of peripheral protection is becoming significantly more common. Among others, I'm under the impression that this style of on chip cryptographic protections drives the new class of "made for iPhone" officially licensed bluetooth enabled gadgets and certain other "made for iPhone" hardware. I'm unsure if they use as tamper proof a solution, but the intent is the same.