Jump to content

Talk:Next-Generation Secure Computing Base/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Next-Generation Secure Computing Base
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tannin (talk | contribs) at 00:59, 12 May 2003 (on neutrality). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Arguments against Palladium

Opponents of this idea regard this is an ironic development, as Microsoft has a famously poor record in software security, with weaknesses in the security stance of their existing software being one of the prime causes of computer insecurity. One of Palladium's developers, Paul England is quoted by MSNBC as saying "I firmly believe we will be shipping with bugs".

Anticompetitive

Opponents of Microsoft's Palladium initiative characterise it as an attempt by Microsoft to close the PC architecture, thus entrenching Microsoft's monopoly in PC operating systems into monopoly control of the entire PC industry, both hardware and software. In addition, Microsoft would also be in a position to control the market for digital rights management, and would effectively control the digital entertainment and publishing markets.

Whilst it would appear inconcievable that the PC and entertainment industries would accept this state of affairs, it is possible that Microsoft will succeed in forcing the PC industry to adopt the Palladium technology, using its marketing muscle and leveraging its existing monopoly in desktop operating systems. This could occur because of the competitive advantage that Palladium could offer to existing hardware incumbents, who might believe that they can use it to "lock in" their current dominant position in the hardware market. However, they could pay a high price for entrenching their position, by becoming dependent on Microsoft for the necessary licensing IP needed for access to the new PC market.

The entertainment industry would then have little choice but to go with Microsoft's initiative.

Compulsory

A Microsoft employee is on record as suggesting that the adoption of Palladium or similar technologies would have to be compulsory to be effective: see Ross Anderson's FAQ for details. The only way that this could be accomplished would be by making the adoption of Palladium-type technologies compulsory. This would have the effect of forbidding the sale of general-purpose computers.

Untrustworthy

Palladium puts the security chip in control of your computer. The controller of the security chip now has, if they desire, absolute control over everything that goes on in your computer, and access to all the information that it contains.

Microsoft already appears to be willing to take over control of its users' computers. Microsoft is reported as having already changed their EULA for their existing operating systems to allow them to install any software that they may wish on your computer, at any time. (This relates to the EULA for the 2002 security patch update for Windows Media Player: see the Register story cited below).

Arguments in favour of Palladium

The lack of speed to market and centrally controlled decision making body the comprimises more still to be written

The page is actually not too bad so far as its facts go, it is the tone of it that violates neutrality. I'll go through and read it over more carefully later on (if I remember) but my initial impression is that it just needs to be rephrased so that it is more encyclopediac in style. Tannin 00:59 May 12, 2003 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Next-Generation_Secure_Computing_Base/Archive_1&oldid=1603670"