Linux in a binary world... a doomsday scenario [LWN.net]

Linux in a binary world... a doomsday scenario

Posted Dec 5, 2005 20:49 UTC (Mon) by Baylink (guest, #755)
Parent article: Linux in a binary world... a doomsday scenario

Ah, yes... the Cautionary Tale.

Love those. :-)

This one appears to have been written by someone for whom English is a second (or third; we Americans are language wimps :-) language, and therefore isn't a lyrical as, say, Robin Cook.

That's not a good reason to ignore it.

And it doesn't even *mention* Palladium and other forms of Treacherous Computing (like SATA interfaces with hardware encryption on the link, as have been bandied about in the past.

As things proceed, we're *all* going to have to get as paranoid and hardcore as rms is, folks, or the big sociopathic public corporations will take it all away from us: it's *what they do*.

They can't maximize profit and still leave us able to exercise our constitutional rights. And *they* aren't forbidden to try by that constitution; only the government is.

If you're not scared, you're not paying enough attention.

But who knows; maybe it's just me...

So many things are just me.

to post comments

Linux in a binary world... a doomsday scenario

Posted Dec 5, 2005 21:41 UTC (Mon) by bk (guest, #25617) [Link] (31 responses)

They can't maximize profit and still leave us able to exercise our constitutional rights.

While I agree strongly with your post, there is no constitutional guarantee that you have a free, open PC. In fact, the US constitution guarantees very little, and the few rights it does grant have no enforcement mechanism (other than citizens taking up arms en masse and revolting).

This kind of constitutional hyperbole doesn't help anything, and makes us appear somewhat crackpot-ish.

Linux in a binary world... a doomsday scenario

Posted Dec 5, 2005 22:15 UTC (Mon) by jwb (guest, #15467) [Link] (18 responses)

I think your understanding of the US Constitution is a bit backwards. The Constitution reserves all rights to the states, and to the people. It explicitly guarantees certain rights, but also explicity points out that those rights are not to be construed as excluding others. The Constitution only abridges a very few rights.

But I agree with you, we do not enjoy a natural or legal right to be provided with a certain kind of computer and software.

Linux in a binary world... a doomsday scenario

Posted Dec 5, 2005 22:57 UTC (Mon) by dmaxwell (guest, #14010) [Link] (1 responses)

But I agree with you, we do not enjoy a natural or legal right to be provided with a certain kind of computer and software

True. However, I would like to use my computer and software as one way of exercising my rights. Things like Treacherous Computing are designed or can be designed to ensure that I do no such thing. As computing becomes more and more ubiquitous, this intersection of your rights and what your systems permit will conflict more and more. For instance, the EULA on some MS products say that you may not use the products to criticize MS. With Treacherous Computing, MS may have the means to send Non-Criticism Enforcement goons straight to your house. It seems far fetched now but once people accept the notion that it is OK for vendors to dictate what your systems can and cannot do then it won't.

We may not have a natural right to certain kinds of computers and software. But I am thinking more and more than computers and software designed to abridge the natural rights I do have are not to be tolerated. Oh dear, I'm starting to sound like RMS...

Linux in a binary world... a doomsday scenario

Posted Dec 7, 2005 4:30 UTC (Wed) by zblaxell (subscriber, #26385) [Link]

"With Treacherous Computing, MS may have the means to send Non-Criticism Enforcement goons straight to your house"

As I read it, TC gives MS the means to retroactively find and obfuscate the decryption keys of all your criticism (or anything other files coming from your computer) from everyone's computer, possibly combined with aggressive mandatory deletion of local copies.

Sending goons to your house is so 20th-century. It's too late then anyway--the criticism in your house isn't what MS customers are reading--they're reading copies of your criticism on web sites and USENET. In the 21st century, MS will be able to send robogoons to everyone who might read your criticism.

Restore the Old Republic

Posted Dec 5, 2005 23:39 UTC (Mon) by jmorris42 (guest, #2203) [Link] (15 responses)

> The Constitution reserves all rights to the states, and to the people.

Not true, and hasn't been for over a hundred years. The 9th and 10th Amendments are effectively removed from the Constituition by long standing usage. Don't believe me? Then find the justification for the Dept of Education in the US Constituition. Were the 9th and 10th still in effect they would clearly forbid one. I submit the fact it indeed exists as irrefutable proof the 9th and 10th Amendments do NOT in fact exist. I could have just as easilly picked a hundred different proofs. There is some hope that a new Supreme Court might revive them if Stevens could get replaced in the next year or so, but I wouldn't actually bet it on.

The 2nd, despite the best efforts of the NRA, is gone; the fundamental right it enshrined has been replaced by sporadic gifts from the State of a license to bear (certain, very select) arms, revokable at the whim of the State.

The 1st, if any doubt remained of it's effectiveness, was snuffed out when Bush signed the McCain/Fiengold Campaign Finance Reform Act.

Need I go on? Many think the 4th is fading fast (Patriot Act among many other reasons) The 6th can't be said to hold unless you can say with a straight face the courts give ANYONE a 'speedy trial'. The civil judgement against OJ clearly violated Amendment 7 (A jury decided he didn't kill his ex, so a later ruling he was liable for the death clearly violated.) and was upheld. etc.

> But I agree with you, we do not enjoy a natural or legal right to be
> provided with a certain kind of computer and software.

If the original Constituition still held then we wouldn't have a Right to be 'provided' a certain kind of computer but we danged well would have the Right to make/sell/buy/possess/use one. A Supreme Court composed of Originalists would laugh at the DMCA and roll on the floor laughing when the inevitable attempt is eventually made to outlaw non TCPA hardware. Which is why we have to fight to restore the Old Republic, so we can become Free Citizens again instead of Consumers.

Restore the Old Republic

Posted Dec 6, 2005 0:22 UTC (Tue) by jwb (guest, #15467) [Link] (9 responses)

This is your second psuedo-libertarian rant in two days. Although I appreciate that you are also a subscriber and supporter of LWN, I get the feeling that the readers in general might prefer if you left that topic for a political website.

Restore the Old Republic

Posted Dec 6, 2005 11:52 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (guest, #15091) [Link] (1 responses)

Yes, please. The right to bear tactical nuclear missiles and the right to reenact the Waco Branch Davidian massacre at your own home are of no interest here.

Restore the Old Republic

Posted Dec 18, 2005 22:21 UTC (Sun) by nailed23 (guest, #34627) [Link]

fat chance that his comments about the 2nd amendment doesn't interrest you but he still have the right to say it.

Restore the Old Republic

Posted Dec 6, 2005 21:15 UTC (Tue) by jmorris42 (guest, #2203) [Link] (6 responses)

A lot of the issues we are facing in the tech world are the result of becoming important enough to show up on the radar of the political world. You can only ignore politics if it is willing to ignore you back. Those days are long gone. The only political structure compatible with the generally held beliefs of most tech types is libertarian even if most tend towards socialism out of ignorance. Don't like the DMCA or the eventual law that will mandate TCPA? Well you can't build a reasoned argument against either unless you start from the assumption that we are Free Citizens entitled to be treated as non-criminals and that there are things the State simply cannot be permitted to do. So long as you think the State Enthroned is morally acceptable you have to abide by it's decision that those things we hate are in the best interest of the State and that it, and it alone, has the moral authority to make these decisions for you.

I assert that things are bad generally with our Republic and have been for a couple of generations. And that any attempt to fend off the DRM Hell that is being planned for us needs to start with the basics, restore the Old Republic and the Constituitional limits to State power that would make abominations like the DMCA unthinkable. Trying to kill off each attempt piecemeal is doomed to failure in the longterm, our foes are much better organized and financed, have a lot of power and money at stake and appear to have little moral compuctions about playing dirty. We have to bat 1000, they only need to hit a single time. We have to change the rules of the game.

Restore the Old Republic

Posted Dec 6, 2005 21:49 UTC (Tue) by Baylink (guest, #755) [Link]

I thought this was a *wonderful* assessment of the problem, sir; thanks.

Restore the Old Republic

Posted Dec 8, 2005 9:14 UTC (Thu) by dvdeug (subscriber, #10998) [Link] (4 responses)

Of course; everyone who disagrees with does so out of ignorance, and everyone needs to hear your brilliant lectures even if they are off-topic.

BTW, even the most strict reading of the Commerce Clause would give Congress the power to prohibit interstate trafficing in things the DCMA prohibits.

Restore the Old Republic

Posted Dec 8, 2005 11:02 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

Further, a lot of us aren't governed by the US Constitution at all. Personally I'd rather not see the Old Republic in the UK reestablished: Cromwell was an unpleasant man, and his followers were equally unpleasant religious fanatics who did immense damage to architecture.

Plus I like my Christmas and don't want him back to ban it again.

Restore the Old Republic

Posted Dec 10, 2005 22:12 UTC (Sat) by jmorris42 (guest, #2203) [Link] (2 responses)

> BTW, even the most strict reading of the Commerce Clause would give
> Congress the power to prohibit interstate trafficing in things the DCMA
> prohibits.

Wrong on two counts. The Commerce Clause has been horribly abused of late to attempt to justify things that are blatently unconstituitional. Most attempts to use the Commerce Clause to control anything other than interstate tariffs, shipping, etc are abuses.

But even if you were correct as to the original intent of the writers of the Commerce Clause, the Bill of Rights are AMENDMENTS and therefore superceed anything in the original. "Congress shall make no law...." is pretty blunt. Code IS speech and attempts to supress publishing the source of DeCSS are so obviously an infringement of the First Amendment that only a moron or a "Constituitional Scholar" could fail to see it.

Restore the Old Republic

Posted Dec 11, 2005 6:17 UTC (Sun) by dvdeug (subscriber, #10998) [Link] (1 responses)

I don't care about how the Commerce Clause has been abused. It clearly gives Congress the right to control interstate commerce, which would naturally include the right to ban things from being sold across state lines.

As for your reading of the First Amendment, it does not accord with the reading given by the "Old Republic", which passed the Alien and Sedition Acts.

Most code is not any more expressive than a car's engine. People didn't want to copy DeCSS to read it or understand an opinion behind it; they wanted to use it as a tool. Burning a flag to protest the president is protected speech; burning flags to power your generator isn't.

Your attitude that only a moron would disagree with you is the real problem, though. Just because some disagree with you doesn't mean they're ignorant or stupid. Frequently, they have good reasons for their opinions, and discussing it with them instead of insulting them may be enlightening. You're not convincing anyone of anything they didn't believe to begin with; you're just offending them.

Restore the Old Republic

Posted Dec 16, 2005 20:22 UTC (Fri) by Baylink (guest, #755) [Link]

> Burning a flag to protest the president is protected speech; burning flags to power your generator isn't.

No, but it's not *illegal*, either.

Restore the Old Republic

Posted Dec 6, 2005 7:34 UTC (Tue) by job (guest, #670) [Link]

This news site has an international audience and if you are to rant about your national constitution, please make sure that (a) you describe the background well enough so we foreigners get some background and (b) make sure it has some connection to Linux or at least digital technology in general, otherwise it's just noise to us.

Restore the Old Republic

Posted Dec 9, 2005 17:40 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (guest, #1954) [Link] (2 responses)

The civil judgement against OJ clearly violated Amendment 7 (A jury decided he didn't kill his ex, so a later ruling he was liable for the death clearly violated.)

I have to correct a common misstatement that makes people misunderstand the OJ case: A jury did not decide he didn't kill his ex. Jurors said in interviews after the trial that they thought he did. (And who wouldn't?). Jurors were instructed to decide whether the prosecutor had proved, and done so beyond a reasonable doubt, that OJ killed his ex. Someone can fail to prove something even if it is true. And someone can believe something but still reserve reasonable doubts.

Not that this matters to your argument. The Double Jeopardy clause of the 7th Amendment doesn't say two trials can't come to different conclusions; it says there can't even be a second trial.

I can see that you aren't terribly open to alternative ways of viewing things (so you must really hate lawyers), but lots and lots of smart people believe that the fact tried in OJ's first trial was not the same fact that was tried in the second. And I believe the folks who wrote the Bill Of Rights would say they believed that too.

Restore the Old Republic

Posted Dec 10, 2005 22:24 UTC (Sat) by jmorris42 (guest, #2203) [Link] (1 responses)

> I can see that you aren't terribly open to alternative ways of viewing
> things (so you must really hate lawyers), but lots and lots of smart
> people believe that the fact tried in OJ's first trial was not the same
> fact that was tried in the second.

Yes I do hate laywers, they are a wicked and depraved subspecied that devolved from H. Sapiens about a hundred years ago. ;) But that is beside the point.

As a matter of fact I'm convinced OJ did indeed kill those people, but unless I am ready to declare a revolution and attempt to replace our form of Government, the basic responsibilities of Citizenship require certain things of me. One of those is respecting the verdicts of juries, and a jury of OJ's peers duly declared him to be "Not Guilty" and that has to be that as far as any legally binding decisions. That verdict should have been more than enough to end the civil trial. Simply submit the verdict from the criminal court and the judge should have brought the case to an end with "OJ didn't kill em, he therefore cannot be liable for these deaths. Period, full stop."

YOu can't 'have other ways of viewing' these things, you either respect our system of justice and abide by it's verdicts or you don't, viewing it as just a system to be gamed for benefit. Now I would like to see the system improved, so obvious mistakes like OJ's case happen less often, but that is an entirely different matter from saying I reserve the right to ignore court rulings I don't like.

(And yes I do reserve that right to ignore the system, but as overt acts of Civil Disobediance in which I accept the possibility of prosecution and even punishment.)

Restore the Old Republic

Posted Dec 11, 2005 19:09 UTC (Sun) by giraffedata (guest, #1954) [Link]

I must repeat that the first OJ jury did not say that OJ didn't kill 'em.

I didn't bring it up before because I assumed that someone who can cite the Constitution would be aware of this one crucial difference between a criminal verdict and a civil one in US law, but since you haven't mentioned it, I'm starting to doubt it: Standard of proof.

In a criminal trial the jury must find "beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty" that the facts supporting conviction are true. In a civil trial the jury must merely find that the facts supporting the plaintiff are proven by "a preponderance of the evidence," i.e. it's more likely than not that they're true.

It makes plenty of sense that there are two standards. In a criminal trial, the defendant has much to lose and the People little to lose if the verdict is wrong. In a civil trial, each side has an equal amount to lose.

It may interest you to know that the double-trial thing doesn't happen in the opposite direction. If you take a criminal conviction verdict into a civil trial, the judge will consider it essentially conclusive proof; he won't even bother to ask a civil jury about those facts. That's because if it's proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then it's also proven by a preponderance of the evidence.

Relevance of US constitution

Posted Dec 10, 2005 17:31 UTC (Sat) by BackSeat (guest, #1886) [Link]

What does the US constitution have to do with this?

Answer: nothing (unless you live in America, possibly).

Linux in a binary world... a doomsday scenario

Posted Dec 6, 2005 1:18 UTC (Tue) by Baylink (guest, #755) [Link] (7 responses)

Dmax has it right.

Free Speech doesn't mean a damn if you can't *exercise* it.

In this world, that means communications.

While I don't necessarily feel that there are people in big corporations rubbing their hands together and plotting the downfall of free speech (I like my tinfoil hat painted black, for minimum reflection, thanks :-), that does *not* mean that that isn't a likely end.

And, not to sound overly anti-republican or anything, but don't assume that large corporations aren't, more or less purposefully, operating at the behest of the government, more or less formally.

> the few rights it does grant have no enforcement mechanism (other than citizens taking up arms en masse and revolting).

Yup. I'm not fond of the Second American Revolution.

But I don't think it's impossible, either.

It's the only *real* brake on the whole thing, though, isn't it?

I'm frankly amazed the assassinations haven't started already. Oh, yeah; right: the Democrats are the ones who are pro-gun-"control".

Linux in a binary world... a doomsday scenario

Posted Dec 6, 2005 3:30 UTC (Tue) by NightMonkey (subscriber, #23051) [Link] (4 responses)

I'm frankly amazed the assassinations haven't started already. Oh, yeah; right: the Democrats are the ones who are pro-gun-"control".

Um, lets keep talk of assasinations off of LWN, please? Thanks.

Linux in a binary world... a doomsday scenario

Posted Dec 6, 2005 3:41 UTC (Tue) by Baylink (guest, #755) [Link]

You're right, of course.

If an admin sees this, please feel free to clip it out.

Linux in a binary world... a doomsday scenario

Posted Dec 6, 2005 9:40 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] (2 responses)

As opposed to killfiling people, which is of course still acceptable ;)

It's a shame that we can't killfile politicians, isn't it?

Posted Dec 7, 2005 4:11 UTC (Wed) by Baylink (guest, #755) [Link] (1 responses)

Though I think that's precisely the point jmorris was making above.

It's a shame that we can't killfile politicians, isn't it?

Posted Dec 8, 2005 11:04 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

Sorry, I couldn't see a point in his rantings, which as far as I could understand them struck me as impractical at best; no man is an island and if you try to ban government from some sphere to keep it from growing overweeningly powerful you get overweeningly powerful private actors there instead. I consider them every bit as dangerous...

Linux in a binary world... a doomsday scenario

Posted Dec 7, 2005 5:58 UTC (Wed) by zblaxell (subscriber, #26385) [Link] (1 responses)

How does one tell if governments are operating at the behest of corporations, or the other way around?

Linux in a binary world... a doomsday scenario

Posted Dec 9, 2005 3:54 UTC (Fri) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link]

They're both just pointers to the same object.

Linux in a binary world... a doomsday scenario

Posted Dec 6, 2005 6:08 UTC (Tue) by dvdeug (subscriber, #10998) [Link] (1 responses)

But there is arguably an constutional right to do what you will with your own property. To say that the US constitution guarentees very little misreads it; it was designed to narrowly specify what the government could do, not specify what it can't.

Constitutional right to do what you will with your property

Posted Dec 9, 2005 17:09 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (guest, #1954) [Link]

there is arguably an constitutional right to do what you will with your own property.

Actually, this isn't worded properly. By the definition of property, you have the right to do what you will with your own property. What the US Constitution does is shore up (but not create) the right of individuals to own property. (4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments limit the government's power to take property).

Truths to be self-evident ... unalienable rights

Posted Dec 9, 2005 9:58 UTC (Fri) by AnswerGuy (guest, #1256) [Link] (1 responses)

One observation I like to make when discussions of the U.S. Constitution are bandies about.

People speak far too often of the U.S. Constitution as "granting" certain rights. However, it's wise to read more this in the context of some words from the preamble of the Declaration of Independence:

Therein they describe certain truths as "self-evident" and certain rights as "unalienable."

In that context it seems self-evident that the framers of the constitution intended the Bill of Rights to be an enumeration of "unalienable" rights.

In other words this document should not be taken as "GRANTING" these rights. Rather they RECOGNIZED.

Of course this is a nitpick.

The Constitution is a flawed document. However, in practice it's alot better then what we've been using.

There have been numerous periods where the Bill of Rights have been trampled ... starting perhaps with the Sedition Act of 1798 (less than a decade after the U.S. Constitution took effect).

I'm no historian. However, I've read a bit and listened to those who've read alot more.

We seem to be slipping inexorably towards the sort of corporate totalitarianism that characterized the coal mining "company towns" that play such a significant and bloody role in the history of the labor movement.

This is relevant to LWN because computing devices are increasingly pervasive and necessary to modern life and there is a concerted effort to make them more capable of enforcing policies of a small number of conglomerates. The recent Sony DRM fiasco is one another little blip (not truly the beginning of this) along an alarming trend.

Jim

Truths to be self-evident ... unalienable rights

Posted Dec 9, 2005 14:50 UTC (Fri) by Duncan (guest, #6647) [Link]

Mindful that LWN is read internationally, and most of this has little if
anything to do with Linux or FLOSS directly, but unable to resist, I'll
comment, but keep it short (for me)...

Note that the US Declaration of Independence, while a noble document
(those with an interest in psychology will note that it's one of the few
documents existing at stage 5, with a few stage 6 arguments, of the
Kohlberg moral ladder, while most legal documents remain at stage 4, by
definition of the stage as a society/legal orientation, Martin Luther
King, Jr.'s "I have a Dream" speech being one of the few examples of a
full length public stage-6 document), does not obtain
the force of law in the US. Rather, it's only force of law is as
implemented in the US Constitution, which can be seen as the practical
document legally implementing the ideals of the Declaration of
Independence. Unfortunately but arguably practically, the US Constitution
falls short of the ideals of the US Declaration of Independence, without
the lofty references to "pursuit of happiness", for instance, and with the
references to life and liberty considerably toned down -- not quite so
"inalienable" after all, in practice, tho they are still considered
"rights" and their removal must be for cause and after due process.

I remember how disappointed I was upon finding this out... It's certainly
not the simplistic view many of us were taught (indoctrinated with?) early
in our educational life.

Perhaps, if there are those interested in further discussion, someone will
reply with a link to a more appropriate forum, some list, other web forum,
or (preferred for me) perhaps a newsgroup.

Duncan