Wal-Mart Online Music Store -- WMA, $0.88 for every song

[Asher]

You want to see what TCPA is all about?

Check out how it's actually being used:

http://www.pc.ibm.com/us/think/thinkvantagetech/security.html

http://www.pc.ibm.com/us/security/userauth.html

http://www.pc.ibm.com/us/security/securecomm.html

http://www.pc.ibm.com/us/security/dataprotection.html

It's not this big brother/RIAA tool that the tinfoil hat people want you to believe.

TCPA certainly does not "monitor" users. That's so far off that it's nearly laughable.

[Q Classic]

Not hard at all, just pass strict privacy laws *ahem, no DRM*.

again, i don't see what's wrong with drm.

Yeah. How popular were cellphones in the 80s already? And how good is outsourcing to India? and what about the workers who lost their union? and did you know that while international rates went down, local rates skyrocketed (well, in Canada and Europe, from what I can attest).

cellphones were popular for yuppies, but were unable to acheive nearly the same amount of market penetration that they do now.
outsource to india? personally, i don't think it's that bad of a problem. what's good for india and what's good for trade is good for the country. i'm unapologetic about my faith in the free market.
unions? unions are good for keeping the companies in balance, bad when they shoot themselves in the foot: case in point, that dumbass United mechanic's union, whose refusal to cooperate with management forced united to declare bankruptcy. it was the only union to refuse.
and local rates? on land lines, sure. but if you have a cell phone, i fail to see the issue.

No one was flying in the 80s. But as we all know, privatizations has created a huge forward pressure on salaries and service, not talking about passenger space.

more people were flying the 80s than had cell phones. try again.

that's the best one. Why don't we ask Putin, Berlusconi, or even Rupert Murdoch?

1. putin is government. he's the very definition of a moscow insider. try again.
2. berlusconi is again government. he does own some media outlets, but again, he's a rome insider. try again.
3. rupert murdoch doesn't have a media monopoly anywhere in the world. try again.

Yeah, the government can't run a airline, so it shouldn't enforce privacy rights.

hey genius, i had no idea you had such trouble reading my engrish. the government has a nasty habit of treading on privacy rights when it feels threatened, therefore should not be given as much leeway as you seem pleased to give it.

How is the government going to monitor you, if it passes a law forbidding corporations to do it? You make it unconstitutional for everyone. That's the point: the companies don't get it, the government won't neither. That is, unless they send their police-coders and force Microsoft to do it.

1. i recall reading something about something called echelon, which did something like listening to some people's things or some such. i suppose it's not very important.
2. technically, companies can't invade foreign countries, but the government can. just because personal freedoms are enshrined in the constitution doesn't mean that the government--or corporations, for that matter--will follow them. besides, it's already been established by the courts that the companies can monitor what is done on their hardware on their clock. try again.
3. you have a double negative there. "companies don't get it, the government won't neither" means that the companies don't, but the government will. small, nitpicky point.

No. The Internet and software is the best way ever to monitor the population. What do you think I fear? Do I care if Microsoft makes an advertising profile for me? not much. What I fear is M$ teaming with the government to share DRM info- what are my books, my writings, my e-mails, etc.

Stop M$ before the governments are tempted. That means pressuringt them right now.

this clearly shows that you don't quite understand drm.
drm=digital rights management, meaning that if you buy something, there's proof you paid for it. it does not mean that it keeps track of your writings and your e-mails. it does not censor what you read. it does not censor what you download, nor what you send.
stop the government before it gets tempted, no matter who the company is in charge.

look, what it boils down to is this: microsoft isn't a knight in shining armor, and they're definitely not a good force in the computing world, but they sure as hell aren't the bad guy.
i'm curious, what platform are you posting from? if you're that worried about microsoft domination of your information flow, i suggest migrating to linux. poly's safe because it's apache on unix, which is not-microsoft. i'd stay away from apple, because you seem terrified of drm, or at least your concept of it.

[Fake Boris]

That's the first version of TCPA. My point is obviously that things will change in the few decades to come, and I bet M$ will be part of it.

when you realize that I fear them in the long run, maybe you'll stop nitpicking me with 'it's ok right now, therefore it will stay like this, because there is no one that got an interest in monitoring me'.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
That's the first version of TCPA. My point is obviously that things will change in the few decades to come, and I bet M$ will be part of it.

Actually it's the second version.

So your whole point is -- again -- not based in reality. You fear DRM because you fear TCPA, you fear TCPA because you think that in the "decades to come" it may be used to monitor users. That makes as much sense as boycotting keyboards, because in the "decades to come" they, too, may contain embedded keyloggers...

Look: You don't know what DRM is about.
You don't know what TCPA is about.

Why are you arguing with people who do?

[Q Classic]

There was a thread on this not long ago. Ashcroft was publicly favorable to a bill that would outlaw any computer with no TCPA chip in it that would allow real time monitoring of every user.

(sigh)
no, not quite.
drm != tcpa.
and ashcroft wasn't talking about the tcpa at all in that bill, but rather that he wants all carriers of telecommunications to make their software have backdoors. this would be people like verizon, bellsouth, att, and so on. he also wanted backdoors into other software, too, like windows. this has little to do with tcpa.
so, now i'm absolutely mystified. you're more scared of microsoft, which has thus far shown no inclination to do such things, while wanting to trust the government, which has?

[Asher]

I find it so fascinating that you've built your whole arguments consistently on what you think will "obviously" happen in the future.

"Obviously", TCPA, which is designed to use hardware to protect data, is somehow going to monitor user's actions. Obviously, "M$" is going to have something to do with this.

"Obviously", since DRM may in the future use TCPA, it is evil...

That's some stellar logic. You must study under Agathon.

[Asher]

Philosophers arguing about the real world always cracks me up. Out to lunch, completely. I can't believe we trust these people to research "ethics" when they don't understand what's going on around them.

[Fake Boris]

QCubed, I see the very nature of your idiocy. Obviously my point is government will monitor with the help of consumer products. That's what the FBI wants to do.

So before you lecture me about ECHELON, tell me: would there be anything like this if the people had stood up against it in the first place?

Stop OS monopolies, stop the alliance between corporations and neocons to monitor the world. Both are LINKED. So instead of lecturing me on dictatorships, tell, me, why should you be opposed to a regulation that would forbid the exact opposite of what you denounce? Because, of course, when a government passes a regulation it means the opposite in the law books? Why don't you encourage that the rest of the free world, which for the most part doesn't have anything like the NSA and Echelon, take the steps RIGHT NOW to avoid it, and moreover avoid electronic surveillance?

And your statement about Berlusconi and Putin show how sadly clueless you are. Neocon government=corporation. That was my point. Bush, Berlusconi and Putin are pretty much demonstrating it. We call them the new oligarchs. They run the media, the World Bank, etc, they have billions in overseas account (maybe not Bush, though).

[Asher]

The only way to "stop" the OS "monopoly" is to force half the consumers to not buy Windows.

Good luck with that.

I'd imagine you'd also help developers by funding their greatly increased development costs, as they'll need to develop for multiple platforms.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Asher
I find it so fascinating that you've built your whole arguments consistently on what you think will "obviously" happen in the future.

"Obviously", TCPA, which is designed to use hardware to protect data, is somehow going to monitor user's actions. Obviously, "M$" is going to have something to do with this.

"Obviously", since DRM may in the future use TCPA, it is evil...

That's some stellar logic. You must study under Agathon.

OK. First, I know that TCPA != DRM, that's fine. TCPA will be its natural extension, though; it will do DRM and more.

BTW, didn't you know that the US authorities are interested in the Google bar spyware to get info about the population? If there's a buck to be made, or some backdoor political reward with it, why should Google refuse?

Do you really think there would be no advantage for a corporation to control as much as it can? If there is a buck to be made, M$ will be part of it. It's not even likely: that would be their DUTY towards the shareholders.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Asher
The only way to "stop" the OS "monopoly" is to force half the consumers to not buy Windows.

Good luck with that.

I'd imagine you'd also help developers by funding their greatly increased development costs, as they'll need to develop for multiple platforms.

No. That would be to turn OSes into a non-dangerous monopoly. Like an open source one or something. The least thing would be to enforce OSes with much stricter laws.

[Asher]

Once again.

TCPA is, and will be, independent of the internet.

Comparing this to the Google Bar, which has to be connected to the internet is absurd.

You've got no case whatsoever into saying TCPA will somehow report all activity to Microsoft. You've not even tried making a case, which is the sad part, yet you assume it's already proven or something.

TCPA is hardware-based local security. It's based on public-key cryptography and drivers in the software. It's like PGP, but more advanced and harder to crack. Somehow equating this to some spyware thing is incredibly stupid.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
No. That would be to turn OSes into a non-dangerous monopoly. Like an open source one or something. The least thing would be to enforce OSes with much stricter laws.

Why would an open source OS benefit consumers? What difference would they notice?

How would the lack of direction and general confusion seen in the Linux desktop scene help anyone? How would forcing people to ditch their OS and applications they're used to to switch to Linux help anyone?

You've obviously never had to develop for Linux, or tried to run a desktop on it for regular people.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Asher
Once again.

TCPA is, and will be, independent of the internet.

Comparing this to the Google Bar, which has to be connected to the internet is absurd.

You've got no case whatsoever into saying TCPA will somehow report all activity to Microsoft. You've not even tried making a case, which is the sad part, yet you assume it's already proven or something.

TCPA is hardware-based local security. It's based on public-key cryptography and drivers in the software. It's like PGP, but more advanced and harder to crack. Somehow equating this to some spyware thing is incredibly stupid.

First they put the chip in it. They slowly increase its power. In the spawn of, maybe, 8, 13, 19 years, it becomes related to the Internet, and it's fine because everyone has been used to it.

Of course, the ultimate goal of any DRM is to report activity on anything with a copyright to a central server. Who with a buck to make would settle for less?

My point from the beginning has been: they will someday, unless we prevent them. Wouldn't you be delighted, as CEO of Microsoft, if you could have a way to monitor so that piracy becomes impossible, and to have yourself backed by the government while doing this?

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Asher

Why would an open source OS benefit consumers? What difference would they notice?

How would the lack of direction and general confusion seen in the Linux desktop scene help anyone? How would forcing people to ditch their OS and applications they're used to to switch to Linux help anyone?

You've obviously never had to develop for Linux, or tried to run a desktop on it for regular people.

Oh, y'know, I don't exactly know. The code has to be public, which doesn't mean it has to be Linux. Just find a way, whatever, I'm going to sleep for real.