4 ms·

I prefer Richard Stallman's term: Treacherous Computing. These academics, like many others, have sold their souls. Books on "trusted computing", "remote attest

I prefer Richard Stallman's term: Treacherous Computing. These academics, like many others, have sold their souls. Books on "trusted computing", "remote attestation", and similar freedom-destroying garbage have become disconcertingly plentiful at my university library. We must fight it to the last bullet. Because once we lose the general-purpose computer, we aren't ever getting it back: "The "you don't own your computer" paradigm is not merely wrong. It is violently, disastrously wrong, and the consequences of this error are likely to be felt for generations to come, unless steps are taken to prevent it." Ethics for Programmers: Primum non Nocere (http://glyf.livejournal.com/46589.html http://glyf.livejournal.com/46589.html) "Who should your computer take its orders from? Most people think their computers should obey them, not obey someone else. With a plan they call “trusted computing”, large media corporations (including the movie companies and record companies), together with computer companies such as Microsoft and Intel, are planning to make your computer obey them instead of you." Can You Trust Your Computer? (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html) Buy, maintain, and cherish true general-purpose computers, my friends, for I fear that within a decade, they will be contraband items.

Fixnum 17y ago
I am genuinely curious as to how you think this will come to pass. We are finally seeing commercial PC/laptop vendors selling preloaded Linux and OpenSolaris. One has the freedom to remove the preloaded OS or even the BIOS, and install the programs of one's choice. So, how do you see this trend being reversed through "trusted computing" to the point that we will all be forced to run Windows and Apple (effectively without the right to use root powers) and proprietary media players from Sony?
- wmf 17y ago
  I don't personally believe in the "trusted computing apocalypse", but the way it is supposed to play out is that you can run Linux but it just won't be useful. (A cynic might observe that this is no worse than the status quo.) Already you can't legally play DVDs or Blu-rays on Linux and you can't officially access iTunes or Netflix streaming. Extrapolate that to a scenario where you also can't access Facebook or play any multiplayer video game, etc.
barnaby 17y ago
Yeah, why is anybody posting about this garbage on HackerNews? There are no startup opportunities for "trustworthy" computing, because there simply aren't any customers for "you do it the way we tell you, or else" products.
- asciilifeform 17y ago
  Actually I am in favor of this article being on HN. Treacherous Computing is brewing, and will be served in generous helpings to all of us, whether we ask for it or not. Know thy enemy.
- wmf 17y ago
  HN is for hackers, not just entrepreneurs. As a hacker, my interest in the technical aspects of this project slightly outweighs my disdain for its evil nature.
  - tptacek 17y ago
    Explain again how this is evil? If you can protect a computer from a virus, you can protect it from a DVD ripper.
    - asciilifeform 17y ago
      > If you can protect a computer from a virus, you can protect it from a DVD ripper. The antivirus vendors, champions of "Enumerating Badness", (http://tinyurl.com/8a2uk http://tinyurl.com/8a2uk) would like us to think so. Yet it is pure nonsense. It is much the same as saying that if a house is safe against burglars, it must also be "safe" against the owner engaging in officially forbidden sex acts in the master bedroom.
      - tptacek 17y ago
        Marcus Ranum also believes that closing holes in Linux is "enumerating badness", and counts as one of the "dumbest ideas in security". Since you didn't make an argument that refered to any technical detail of the antivirus/antimalware problem on general purpose operating systems, I'm content simply to point out that your sources are both comical and non authoritative. Also: let me strongly encourage you to run your views on computer security past Ranum, and report back his response. Warn me first so I can get a get a cold glass of milk to blast out my nose when you do.
tptacek 17y ago
Two points which I think make you sound a little overzealous: There is nothing about even the hardware-enforced security on premium Intel chipsets that forces you to use them. There is a limit to how secure you can make a modern PC without hardware support for security, and any hardware support that protects your machine can also be opted in to protect the interests of someone else. Frankly, I'd rather have my computer attesting to Apple than to some teenager's botnet.
- asciilifeform 17y ago
  > There is nothing about even the hardware-enforced security on premium Intel chipsets that forces you to use them Try running a company which sells modded game consoles and see how long you last. That's exactly what Treacherous Computing advocates have in mind for PCs. > There is a limit to how secure you can make a modern PC without hardware support for security You have bought into the Big Lie of treacherous computing. None of it has anything to do with protecting you against what most people would recognize as malware. That would require writing robust and non-porous operating systems - an option which simply isn't on the table. The "malware" you will be protected against is, for instance: DVD rippers; P2P clients; TOR clients; and, eventually, compilers (for with an unrestricted compiler one might create any of the above.) > any hardware support that protects your machine can also be opted in to protect the interests of someone else Can I lock you in your house using the lock presently installed in your front door? How about the one in your car? Every security technology has a clearly delineated "outside" and "inside." The "outside" is where the keyed side of the lock faces. Another "outside" of this kind is the inside of a cage. Treacherous computing leaves users on the outside, no doubt about it. And the "keys" are in the hands of people who would like to dictate which bits in the machines you bought and paid for you are allowed to view or flip. I ought to point out that I believe that evil will triumph. We shall almost certainly lose general-purpose computing - in the none-too-distant future - in no small part thanks to people like yourself.
  - tptacek 17y ago
    The Intel TPM is a secret plan to take away compilers from general public. Got it. Actually, after years of having to review code from the general public for security flaws, count me in with the bad guys. Muh-hah-hah-hah! Your computer will be first against the wall, asciilifeform!

Fixnum 17y ago

I am genuinely curious as to how you think this will come to pass. We are finally seeing commercial PC/laptop vendors selling preloaded Linux and OpenSolaris. One has the freedom to remove the preloaded OS or even the BIOS, and install the programs of one's choice. So, how do you see this trend being reversed through "trusted computing" to the point that we will all be forced to run Windows and Apple (effectively without the right to use root powers) and proprietary media players from Sony?

wmf 17y ago
I don't personally believe in the "trusted computing apocalypse", but the way it is supposed to play out is that you can run Linux but it just won't be useful. (A cynic might observe that this is no worse than the status quo.) Already you can't legally play DVDs or Blu-rays on Linux and you can't officially access iTunes or Netflix streaming. Extrapolate that to a scenario where you also can't access Facebook or play any multiplayer video game, etc.

barnaby 17y ago

Yeah, why is anybody posting about this garbage on HackerNews? There are no startup opportunities for "trustworthy" computing, because there simply aren't any customers for "you do it the way we tell you, or else" products.

asciilifeform 17y ago
Actually I am in favor of this article being on HN. Treacherous Computing is brewing, and will be served in generous helpings to all of us, whether we ask for it or not. Know thy enemy.
wmf 17y ago
HN is for hackers, not just entrepreneurs. As a hacker, my interest in the technical aspects of this project slightly outweighs my disdain for its evil nature.
- tptacek 17y ago
  Explain again how this is evil? If you can protect a computer from a virus, you can protect it from a DVD ripper.
  - asciilifeform 17y ago
    > If you can protect a computer from a virus, you can protect it from a DVD ripper. The antivirus vendors, champions of "Enumerating Badness", (http://tinyurl.com/8a2uk http://tinyurl.com/8a2uk) would like us to think so. Yet it is pure nonsense. It is much the same as saying that if a house is safe against burglars, it must also be "safe" against the owner engaging in officially forbidden sex acts in the master bedroom.
    - tptacek 17y ago
      Marcus Ranum also believes that closing holes in Linux is "enumerating badness", and counts as one of the "dumbest ideas in security". Since you didn't make an argument that refered to any technical detail of the antivirus/antimalware problem on general purpose operating systems, I'm content simply to point out that your sources are both comical and non authoritative. Also: let me strongly encourage you to run your views on computer security past Ranum, and report back his response. Warn me first so I can get a get a cold glass of milk to blast out my nose when you do.

tptacek 17y ago

Two points which I think make you sound a little overzealous: There is nothing about even the hardware-enforced security on premium Intel chipsets that forces you to use them. There is a limit to how secure you can make a modern PC without hardware support for security, and any hardware support that protects your machine can also be opted in to protect the interests of someone else. Frankly, I'd rather have my computer attesting to Apple than to some teenager's botnet.

asciilifeform 17y ago
> There is nothing about even the hardware-enforced security on premium Intel chipsets that forces you to use them Try running a company which sells modded game consoles and see how long you last. That's exactly what Treacherous Computing advocates have in mind for PCs. > There is a limit to how secure you can make a modern PC without hardware support for security You have bought into the Big Lie of treacherous computing. None of it has anything to do with protecting you against what most people would recognize as malware. That would require writing robust and non-porous operating systems - an option which simply isn't on the table. The "malware" you will be protected against is, for instance: DVD rippers; P2P clients; TOR clients; and, eventually, compilers (for with an unrestricted compiler one might create any of the above.) > any hardware support that protects your machine can also be opted in to protect the interests of someone else Can I lock you in your house using the lock presently installed in your front door? How about the one in your car? Every security technology has a clearly delineated "outside" and "inside." The "outside" is where the keyed side of the lock faces. Another "outside" of this kind is the inside of a cage. Treacherous computing leaves users on the outside, no doubt about it. And the "keys" are in the hands of people who would like to dictate which bits in the machines you bought and paid for you are allowed to view or flip. I ought to point out that I believe that evil will triumph. We shall almost certainly lose general-purpose computing - in the none-too-distant future - in no small part thanks to people like yourself.
- tptacek 17y ago
  The Intel TPM is a secret plan to take away compilers from general public. Got it. Actually, after years of having to review code from the general public for security flaws, count me in with the bad guys. Muh-hah-hah-hah! Your computer will be first against the wall, asciilifeform!