Suppressing The Concerns Over HDCP Content Protection For Intel's Linux DRM Driver

[shmerl]

See also how DRM proponents themselves express their intent in DRM: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_B...dal#Background

The industry will take whatever steps it needs to protect itself and protect its revenue streams... It will not lose that revenue stream, no matter what... Sony is going to take aggressive steps to stop this. We will develop technology that transcends the individual user. We will firewall Napster at source - we will block it at your cable company. We will block it at your phone company. We will block it at your ISP. We will firewall it at your PC... These strategies are being aggressively pursued because there is simply too much at stake.

There is nothing more to add to make it more clear, that DRM is aimed at breaching your privacy to police you.

[Guest]

By policing you in your private digital space. It runs on your private system.

I think you perfectly understand what I'm saying. You just don't want to admit, what endorsing such policing entitles.

A privacy breach is the loss of, unauthorized access to, or disclosure of, personal information. And, nothing of this happens! So, it doesn't breach a privacy.

You're free not to use it. It's just extension used on-demand by DRM protected software. So, it doesn't alter your freedom either, as you're free not to use what you don't want to use.

[shmerl]

A privacy breach is the loss of, unauthorized access to, or disclosure of, personal information.

DRM isn't supposed to be authorized to run on your system. It runs there for the sole purpose of policing you. I.e. it's a code aimed against you. So it's already breaching your privacy. So stop this bogus argument of "you are free not to use it". It's irrelevant to the above.

[Guest]

DRM isn't supposed to be authorized to run on your system. It runs there for the sole purpose of policing you. I.e. it's a code aimed against you. So it's already breaching your privacy.

This isn't a privacy breach. As I see, you're using "privacy breach", instead of "limitation". This technology, might limit you, that's correct. But, only if you use it.

However, it doesn't run on its own, but it's used. It's code aimed against pirating, not people. But yes, it's ensures, that policies, regarding DRM protected material, are met. But, it's still just a tool, which just sits there. It, alone, doesn't affect you in any way.

This is limitation of usage of certain material. To do it, you must use application, which utilizes it. Which you're free to reject to use at all.

[artivision]

This isn't a privacy breach. As I see, you're using "privacy breach", instead of "limitation". This technology, might limit you, that's correct. But, only if you use it.

However, it doesn't run on its own, but it's used. It's code aimed against pirating, not people. But yes, it's ensures, that policies, regarding DRM protected material, are met. But, it's still just a tool, which just sits there. It, alone, doesn't affect you in any way.

This is limitation of usage of certain material. To do it, you must use application, which utilizes it. Which you're free to reject to use at all.

You people, you don't understand what others say to you. The problem is not if i can remove it from my system or not, i don't want my distro to have this at all. Because if it does, someone eventually will say to me "it's there, use it if you want to access the web". Those times i will not have the option not to use it. So i don't want a processor with the option to kill the secure processor, but one with no such a thing, so they cannot enforce this to me in the future. I will personally use the distro that doesn't have this at all. Also in EU there are parties that are thinking legal action against both Intel and AMD.

[Guest]

You people, you don't understand what others say to you. The problem is not if i can remove it from my system or not, i don't want my distro to have this at all. Because if it does, someone eventually will say to me "it's there, use it if you want to access the web". Those times i will not have the option not to use it. So i don't want a processor with the option to kill the secure processor, but one with no such a thing, so they cannot enforce this to me in the future. I will personally use the distro that doesn't have this at all. Also in EU there are parties that are thinking legal action against both Intel and AMD.

That's completely different saying, compared to shmerl, which all time had been naming it a privacy breach. It's not my problem, that I don't understand a man, which can't explain himself.

And, you have very rightful opinion and desire, which I agree upon. I don't like this technology either.

My message is, that this is just consequence of "fucking morons violating author's rights", and that users and people, should start to value non-material work. See my first post on this thread.

I consider this as not very best solution to a problem, that users are behaving in unethical way, and violate author's rights. Pirates started this "content protection war". So, let's focus on elimination of problem - pirates, and there will be no DRM needed. Fuck pirates!

[cybertraveler]

This isn't a privacy breach. As I see, you're using "privacy breach", instead of "limitation". This technology, might limit you, that's correct. But, only if you use it.

However, it doesn't run on its own, but it's used. It's code aimed against pirating, not people. But yes, it's ensures, that policies, regarding DRM protected material, are met. But, it's still just a tool, which just sits there. It, alone, doesn't affect you in any way.

You keep repeating this, but it's not true.

If you allow secret code/hardware into your computer which isn't audited or easily auditable, that makes network connections and which has many access and control permissions on your system, then not only is it reasonable to conclude that this secret code/hardware is likely to be a source of vulnerabilities on your system, there is historical evidence that indeed, copy-protection/DRM systems do cause such privacy destroying vulnerabilities. Here are some examples:

Viruses use Sony anti-piracy CDs:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4427606.stm

Blizzard Entertainment Uses Spyware to Verify EULA Compliance:
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archiv...rd_entert.html

Ubisoft "Uplay" DRM exposed as rootkit:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4311264

Windows DRM-Protected Files Used To Decloak Tor Browser Users
https://yro.slashdot.org/story/17/02...-browser-users

This is limitation of usage of certain material. To do it, you must use application, which utilizes it. Which you're free to reject to use at all.

I 100% agree with this statement. We are largely free to use or not use DRM.

I personally choose to rarely use DRM for the reason I gave above and many other reasons.

I also choose to help spread awareness of DRM to less technical computer users. I think many people are unaware of the ways in which DRM can lead to loss of privacy, to a reduction in usefulness and lifespan of our products and even to rent-seeking (when DRM is combined with anti-circumvention laws).

[artivision]

You keep repeating this, but it's not true.

If you allow secret code/hardware into your computer which isn't audited or easily auditable, that makes network connections and which has many access and control permissions on your system, then not only is it reasonable to conclude that this secret code/hardware is likely to be a source of vulnerabilities on your system, there is historical evidence that indeed, copy-protection/DRM systems do cause such privacy destroying vulnerabilities. Here are some examples:

Viruses use Sony anti-piracy CDs:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4427606.stm

Blizzard Entertainment Uses Spyware to Verify EULA Compliance:
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archiv...rd_entert.html

Ubisoft "Uplay" DRM exposed as rootkit:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4311264

Windows DRM-Protected Files Used To Decloak Tor Browser Users
https://yro.slashdot.org/story/17/02...-browser-users



I 100% agree with this statement. We are largely free to use or not use DRM.

I personally choose to rarely use DRM for the reason I gave above and many other reasons.

I also choose to help spread awareness of DRM to less technical computer users. I think many people are unaware of the ways in which DRM can lead to loss of privacy, to a reduction in usefulness and lifespan of our products and even to rent-seeking (when DRM is combined with anti-circumvention laws).

Yeah but the point isn't those who are unaware. The point is we who are aware, do we have the right to be a CPU without the secure processor or not? There is where some court should intervene.

[Guest]

You keep repeating this, but it's not true.

If you allow secret code/hardware into your computer which isn't audited or easily auditable, that makes network connections and which has many access and control permissions on your system, then not only is it reasonable to conclude that this secret code/hardware is likely to be a source of vulnerabilities on your system, there is historical evidence that indeed, copy-protection/DRM systems do cause such privacy destroying vulnerabilities. Here are some examples:

...

You're right, it's not generally true, when considering all possible DRM technologies/ways. But, HDCP isn't a threat, it doesn't make any vulnerability. I have meant my statements in context of HDCP, but I wasn't too explicit to mention HDCP in comments.

For example, Skype is considered to be a spyware. Assume, that Skype is a spyware, then the easiest way to compromise my system would be installation of Skype, which can freely read all my personal data and act as spyware. And, Skype uses network naturally, so it wouldn't be too suspicious.

...

I also choose to help spread awareness of DRM to less technical computer users. I think many people are unaware of the ways in which DRM can lead to loss of privacy, to a reduction in usefulness and lifespan of our products and even to rent-seeking (when DRM is combined with anti-circumvention laws).

...

That's good. Though, material alone can't lead to loss of privacy (not counting bugs, and attack vectors,...). To compromise privacy, it must be something executable. And, for example, an innocent application like Skype could be a great spyware. There's no protection of user's data in any OS, yet. I also started reddit thread regarding this problem, see: Is Linux secure enough for regular desktop usage?

[Yndoendo]

This was the best part of the post from Intel, "For real content protection you need a complete system, locked down with secure boot or similar. I think any user concerned about their software freedoms knows to avoid such systems like the plague."

From the same guys that gave you the ME plague. Real world, you truly cannot avoid system lock downs with out time, economic strife or potentially breaking the law in order to obtain said freedoms.