Doctorow on the War on General Purpose Computing 360
Cory Doctorow has posted the content of his talk delivered at Google this month on what he calls the coming civil war over general purpose computing. He neatly crystallizes the problem with certain types of (widely called-for) regulation of devices and the software they run — and they all run software. The ability to stop a general purpose computer from doing nearly anything (running code without permission from the mothership, or requiring an authorities-only engine kill switch, or preventing a car from speeding away), he says boils down to a demand: "Make me a general-purpose computer that runs all programs except for one program that freaks me out."
"But there's a problem. We don't know how to make a computer that can run all the programs we can compile except for whichever one pisses off a regulator, or disrupts a business model, or abets a criminal. The closest approximation we have for such a device is a computer with spyware on it— a computer that, if you do the wrong thing, can intercede and say, 'I can't let you do that, Dave.'"
Welcome to 2006, Cory Doctorow (Score:2, Insightful)
Let's see, where have we heard all of this before, on Slashdot, pointed out by average commenters? Oh yeah:
When TPM was introduced in 2006.
When Apple started doing code signing in 2008 on OS X.
Oh, and I forgot driver and application signing in Windows. When did that start?
Gosh (Score:5, Insightful)
Its almost as though freedom requires responsibility or something.
Re:how long be for a Rosa Parks or concentration c (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:all in all (Score:5, Insightful)
Has everyone forgotten the days when your computer actually belonged to you?
To make a counterpoint: We need a certain level of restrictions so that the computer actually does what I want instead of does what the application wants. Current OSs offer very little in the way of actually restricting applications. If you execute an application from a third party, it can do quite literally what it wants. Even Open Source doesn't help much as you have no time to audit it all. At best it might not have root rights, but that still doesn't stop it from searching through your personal photo collection, your credit card info, your mail and all that stuff. In contrast you have Apples AppStore, it's a walled garden with all it's problems, but it also comes with a sandbox. If you execute an App from the AppStore it can't do anything to your system, as it's stuck in it's little box. It can't get your photos, credit card info or anything like that unless you explicitly allow it. The AppStore thus shift control away from the application and back to the user where it belongs.
Re:Businesses.... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Diablo 3 had 6Million+ morons buy it."
No, those are 6 million people that got screwed by Blizzard's business model. Same one used by almost all game makers today. A lot of those simply expected an improved Diablo 2, they didn't care about the reviews, because they expected, expected Blizzard to deliver something just as good as the previous one, or better.
Why I'm saying the business model is broken? Well, say you have a demo (not gameplay movie on youtube, because that's just a short movie where you just watch people doing stuff how they want it not how you want it, you watch their experience, not yours), in that demo, you don't see the network problems, the online only issues that crop up, the utterly fucked up auction house business model, and most of all it's hardly enough time to realize just how worthless it is compared to other titles, not just today, but in the previous years as well.
So, they hate piracy? Of course they do, if those 6 million would have played the pirated edition first, they wouldn't have bought the original.
Most games have very little value, or no replay value. Piracy hurts them, because people get a preview without wasting money on them, then uninstall them and try to forget the experience.
Should we care? Absofuckinlutley not. They try to con people into buying their games without puting any effort into their work. Those are the kind of games where you get only a few hours of playtime, at best, or hours of pointless grinding at best. Could you name a few names? You could try, but it would be very hard, those are the kind you intentionally wait until can pick them from the bargain bin, then an hour later, sigh with frustration over the wasted money.
Where am I know? I'm just playing a few flash games, online only, and PS3 to pass the time or socialize, the rest? Well, let's just say I gained a thorough knowledge of emulators for all kinds of platforms in the past decade.
depends on intended users (Score:5, Insightful)
Here is car/microwave analogy.. and forgive my crassness.
A) Stupid or indifferent people want a computer (car) that just works and they don't have to/nor want to fuck with the innards. They want the computer to be microwave simple. 1) Put food in microwave. 2) Press the "30 sec" button repeatedly until they get the cook time to time they want.* That is it. (Or for the car: key, ignition, go. It came from the factory with everything needed and how it came from the factory is how it will stay)
B) Slashdot "power users" car analogy is that of the muscle cars of the 1960s in the united states. They want to redo the suspension, the transmission. the engine, the carb(s), the differential, get it from the factory with aluminum instead of steel for the body, and have no federal E.P.A. emissions regulations.. straight pipes off the headers. They will get their hands greasy and it will not bother them.
Economically, Apple and Microsoft and all the other players know there is greater market of people for A than B.
Now, I do like the idea of a walled garden to protect the idiots from themselves without telling them "No" outright. (Just don't run as admin/root and you're 90% there, but most ISV can't or won't write code that works as non-root) I just don't want the walled garden applied to me. I don't need their excuse of "give me your freedom so I can keep you safe". I know how to fix my own car.
* About the 30 seconds and microwave. for some it seems "time cook" + "5" + "0" +"0" + "start" is too complex.
Re:If you don't like it, make it yourself (Score:4, Insightful)
AFAIK nobody is preventing you from making your own computer that will run any program you want. Nobody is preventing you from designing your own microprocessors and any other component for which you can do computation. Nobody is preventing you from writing the software to do whatever computation you want.
Actually, it's already a criminal offence to run some programs (DRM crackers etc.). I say we'll see the first attempt to seriously enforce laws against running certain kinds of offline software (as opposed to online software like filesharing tools) by 2020.
Re:all in all (Score:5, Insightful)
A walled garden does not preclude allowing the ability to turn it off. Apple (and soon, Microsoft) is not limiting you to the walled garden out of the goodness of their hart. It is pure greed. They could quite easily add an 'opt out' and let people install outside software at their own risk.
Re:all in all (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Overblown (Score:5, Insightful)
I can still go to Newegg.com and order a bunch of commodity parts and assemble a general purpose computer
Until every motherboard comes with a locked-down BIOS that only supports Microsoft/Verisign approached bootloader signing keys. Unless you are building your computer from discrete logic, this argument does not fly. We also have to worry about possible bans on general purpose computers connecting to the Internet (see e.g. ITU proposals for "next generation" networks, past proposals in the US congress, etc), or de facto bans i.e. ISPs/banks/utilities/etc. requiring a locked-down computer (and not everyone can afford two computers). This is not as simple as, "I can build one for myself!"
Walled gardens can peacefully co-exist without threatening general purpose computing.
Thus explaining the prevalence of not-locked-down cable and satellite TV receivers, DVD players, and video game consoles.
as we've seen from every iOS device, even walled gardens don't keep people locked in if they are determined to leave
Which is a nonsense argument for most users, and is simple silly -- you are suggesting that it is reasonable for people to have to attack their own computers just to run the software (or in a dystopian nightmare, compose the documents) they want to run.
If you make compelling hardware people will always find ways to use it how they wish
Yet someone who publishes a book on hacking cable modems is arrested. Do you really think the police would hesitate to arrest someone who is teaching people how to unlock their laptop's bootloader?
Re:Gosh (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Businesses.... (Score:4, Insightful)
I basically agree. Why impose you own opinion on others? As an long-term Apple user who switched to Linux some years ago I have stopped giving people advise on what to buy or not to buy. If people like the walled-garden approach, fine for them -- and fine for me, too, because don't have to give free support any longer. However, I do reserve the right to ridicule Apple users whenever I wish. Have fun with your glossy "retina" displays, fixed batteries, and soldered memory! ;-)
That's the user perspective. From a developer perspective, things look a bit different, because in comparison to 10 years ago it does feel a bit as if Apple is wanting to screw us. And you need to make money somehow,right? I still develop for the Mac, but it's likely that in the near future either Apple will have to pay me if they want a Mac version rather than vice versa. Or, more likely, the Mac and iOS versions of our programs will be more expensive than Windows and Android. Other developers should do the same, since app-store overhead, lack of portability, risk of being rejected by Apple for no reason, etc. all create additional costs and risks. No problem, since Apple users just love to pay more and have (obviously) have enough money to burn.
Re:Who really cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
I just want things to work.
Me too -- when I instruct my computer to play a movie, copy a file, or print 1000 pamphlets criticizing the government, I want it to do what I tell it to do.
I don't want to spend hours trying to get Wine to run World of Warcraft better
So complain to Blizzard -- what does that have to do with running a free operating system? Blizzard ships malware with WoW; why are you not pointing the finger at them for failing to deliver an easy to use, malware-free product?
I use an iPhone because its working is binary
No, whether or not any particular program works is binary, and that decision is up to Apple. Do you consider a product that will run an email program but will not run a political cartoon program to be working or broken?
Who really care if you can't telnet to your phone?
That's a red herring and you know it. Hardly anyone is trying to telnet to their phone, but large numbers of people have been told that their program cannot run on iOS for one arbitrary reason or another -- it performs bytecode translation, it might offend Republicans, it might offend Democrats, it might enable jailbreaking, etc. Your iPhone only does what you want as long as Apple approves, and Apple's approval process is not about stopping you from telnetting to your phone (though I must wonder why they would even care), it is about making sure you keep paying them and the politicians stay happy.
After all, if you work for your machines, who owns who?
Funny how my laptop running ScientificLinux does everything I ask it to do without first checking with CERN...
Re:Businesses.... (Score:4, Insightful)
They try to con people into buying their games without puting any effort into their work.
You're not a game developer, I take it?
Re:Businesses.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, why does it have to be black and white?
What about using the tool for the job? I recently boughtt a macbook pro. I got it because I knew I'd seen be doing a lot of photo stuff and wanted to use Aperture. I got a high end camera and am looking to do video, weddings,e tc. Final Cut Pro X is what I wanted for that...and the hardware and other software, are nice for everyday stuff on it...email, etc.
I have a number of linux boxes at home...I set them up as home servers, and my primary desktop in the back is a gentoo box...I'm also playing around with Backtrack, to teach myself security pen testing.
I have a win7 box (also win7 vm on the mac)...for doing some development for a job...that requires windows.
So, every job has its tool.
Sure there are things I don't like about the mac...so, I use a different box for that....etc.
I mean, these days..computers are largely commodity.....the days of saving forever to only have one family computer is long gone, I have to image most people have at least 2x computers in their homes today, don't they? Or at least a computer...a tablet...a smartphone....etc.
Tool for the job....
Re:If you don't like it, make it yourself (Score:5, Insightful)
AFAIK nobody is preventing you from making your own computer that will run any program you want.
Except an army patent lawyers at every major computer and software company.
Re:all in all (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody* gives a shit about GPC
"Why can't I watch this DVD on my tablet when I lack an Internet connection?"
"...because your tablet has a walled garden and they want to force you to buy the movie again. We warned you about that before you bought that thing."
"Damnit make it work now!"
People most certainly do care about general purpose computing; they just do not know what that terms means or that they actually want it. Apple is not marketing the iPad as, "Do everything you want that we approve of! The magic is in us controlling your computer use!" because that is not what people want to buy. Look at the outcry when Amazon deleted 1984 from the Kindle; people expect their computers to do what they want and not just what Amazon, Apple, Google, Microsoft, the MPAA, the Chinese government, etc. approve of.
On a subconscious level, people know that a PS3 is somehow different from their PC. They cannot articulate what that difference is, but they refuse to call the PS3 a "computer" -- even when they see a PS3 with a keyboard and mouse, running Firefox in YDL. People absolutely do care; they just lack the sophistication needed to express that, to identify when someone is tricking them into giving up their freedom, or to know how to protect themselves from such attacks.
Re:Same exact thing with cars (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody is taking away your Unix.
UEFI came close though.
A better car analogy would be the (unsuccessful) attempts made back in the 1970s to regulate auto power to weight ratios. The mother hens in congress were bent upon killing off the muscle car market. Fortunately, they were laughed out of that attempt. In some European countries, cars capable of higher speeds were to be taxed or outright prohibited. So you got cars with speedometers that maxed out at 85 MPH (125 KPH). Even though the car could keep going.
Sure. You can still have your Unix. On a $25K workstation. Just like the old days, before some crazy Finn ported it to a 386.
And no, we can't make a car that never ever crashes, but we can take legitimate steps to reduce crashes significantly, and in fact it is immoral to do any other thing.
We don't legislate morality. This isn't the Soviet Union. Or Saudi Arabia.
Re:all in all (Score:5, Insightful)
Yup. Exploiting the ignorance of others is the best way to take power for oneself. Just look at the modern US political process. Exact same thing, and just as much if not a bigger disaster.
Re:all in all (Score:5, Insightful)
So, because "the majority of people are not nerds" means that nerds must not be allowed to exist?
Wow, way to misinterpret something and bring up a straw man. Nowhere does he state that "nerds must not be allowed to exist." He's stating that the device demographic has changed. These things used to be by nerds for nerds. Now they're by business managers/bean counters/nerds for decidedly non-nerds.
Nerds, however can still get their fix because they're nerds (eg Cyanogenmod for phones, Raapberry Pi, any x86 computer, etc.)
*posting from my Samsung Galaxy S II running Debian.
Re:Businesses.... (Score:5, Insightful)
You're missing the point. What happens when nobody sells general purpose computers - just special purpose appliances? Think it can't happen? Where do you go to buy electronics parts? That used to be what Radio Shack sold, now I have to buy parts mail order from Digi-key. How about ball bearings? Hardware stores used to sell the raw materials that I used for projects, now it's all special purpose parts that only work with one manufacturer's product.
Re:all in all (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not pure ignorance though. I'm perfectly happy to run a walled garden 99% of the time. I'm happy to sacrifice freedom for security. Why? Because sometimes sacrificing one freedom provides you more freedom somewhere else.
Let's say for instance that you give up the freedom to drive whatever speed you want wherever you want. That's a freedom we've sacrificed--we have police who enforce rules. It's now a walled garden. But in exchange for that loss of freedom I now am far less likely to crash, I'm less likely to get hit by a car, if someone does hit me my insurance is affordable and can restore my car to a new state and I'm more likely to drive since safety is greater.
My goal is to simply get from point A to B safely and as quickly as reasonable. Ultimately the structure and rules increase traffic volume and speed so that the commons don't slow to a crawl from frequent crashes and poor right of way.
Similarly if I just want my applications to work then a lightly walled garden that ensures spyware isn't running in the background actually reduces the odds that my privacy will be compromised. Sure it might also provide a backdoor to the government if they get a warrant but that unlikely scenario is far less dangerous in my opinion to identity fraud resulting in huge financial loss and credit damage. The government can read my email I really don't care. Knock themselves out--they'll be bored to death. Not sure why they would want to. But I would be exceedingly worried if someone got my bank account info.
Re:all in all (Score:5, Insightful)
If I was using a public computer with agreed upon rules about how the machine would be used to ensure the safety and security of others I would have no problem operating within a walled garden, it's not my hardware, and if I want to use it the owner is perfectly justified at setting rules on how it is to be used. However if it's MY hardware, why does some other company have the right to decide what I can and can't do with my hardware. Now if I was either too lazy or unskilled to properly secure my hardware I have the right to allow some other company to do it for me by creating a 'walled garden' as it were, but I should always have the right to say screw you I want to run this program anyways, acknowledging the risks involved. If I want to let someone else handle the responsibility of securing my device that's fine, but I shouldn't HAVE to let someone else handle that responsibility.
This would largely be the same as the owner of a private road hiring a private security company to police their road and make sure that drivers on it obey whatever rules you institute, but you always have the right to fire that security company.
Instead what we have is a situation where I can buy a private road (piece of computing hardware), and the company I buy it from says, "ok you can only use your road (computer) to do these certain things we have already decided are allowable, otherwise we'll stop you from doing it"
Screw that, if I want to drive around like a mad man (expose my personal information to potential identity thieves), flip my car (have my banking info exposed to a Nigerian prince), and leave be hind some flaming wreckage (have all my money stolen) on my own private road (personal computing hardware) I should be allowed to.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Welcome to 2006, Cory Doctorow (Score:0, Insightful)
>Cory Doctorow is a self promoting nobody who has been writing BS about this stuff for years and doesn't influence anyone with more than two brain cells in their head.
Fixed that for you.
Re:Businesses.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is much deeper than you think, but you're on the right track. The problem is that you can't economically sell copies. It's retarding the industry. Think about Economics 101: if copies are in infinite supply then what is their price (regardless of cost to create)? Zero
Piracy is just a symptom of an artificial scarcity racket.
Game developers get paid only when they're making a game. The publishers must add cost to the equation (to support their own existance), and they try to get as much money as possible for doing what? Providing Copies? Well, yes, but that's a bogus reason. The only reason we really need Publishers now is that the market is fucked up -- If we could just do work and get paid, like a mechanic does, or a home builder does, then we wouldn't have to charge extra for the work once the games are finished.
The publishers are in the way between the customers and the developers. This is why things like Kickstarter are exciting; However, once free from the Publisher's constraints the Developers are quick to adopt the artificial scarcity system only because they can, and because they can't ask enough funds up front. However, if they couldn't use artificial scarcity to make money, then you could have all games for merely their cost to create (plus a little profit to run things). If we can just get you players to fund the development of the game, we can give you the game for free when its done (since you paid us to make it already), and get more money by making more games / producing mods, etc. -- Game prices are WAY over inflated right now for the successes, but for the less stellar games the margin is so small that one misstep kills the studio. Ah, but the publishers don't care that they're gambling with the futures of the studios! There are other groupn of devs to buy up, milk, and slaughter. You keep paying the inflated prices so the Publishers only need to make a few big hits to stay in business.
Now, to solve the artificial scarcity problem there are a few solutions, some less savoury than others:
o Ensure artificial scarcity can not be circumvented -- This leads to DRM and closed computing with permanent spyware installed.
o Tie the game to a service -- This way the publisher is still providing some work, running a server, but the quality of service drops as usage goes up (Protip: That's bad for sales), and leads to games being unplayable without subscription, and planned obsolescence.
o Stop selling copies, since they're not rare at all. Instead sell our ability to make new content -- to do work -- because that's what is actually scarce. This means having a good reputation, and even releasing a few details of the game up front, like playable demos, to earn investment -- It's a DRASTIC change in the marked, but this is also the ONLY way to end piracy.
As a race, we haven't adapted to the realities of the Information Age yet. We're still clinging to artificial scarcity and trying to sell information as if it can be a physical thing. We haven't yet adjusted to the SIMPLE idea that you only get paid when you're doing work (like everyone else does). THAT is the REAL problem, and the above solutions apply to all information markets, from Software to Music & Movies.
If you can't sell ice to an Eskimo in the Ice Age as a valid business strategy, why would you think you could sell 1's and 0's to folks with computers in The Information Age?! As someone who benefits by holding copyrights over the works I create, I say: We must end all copyright. Once we remove the incentive of artificial scarcity I can actually get paid a fair price for doing the work you want us to do, and end the rein of the Money Leaching Middlemen (Publishers).
Note: there's nothing wrong with charging a subscription for a game service, but forcing a subscription fee where none is required is called rent seeking.
Re:Gosh (Score:4, Insightful)
Right. "Freedom requires responsibility" is a meme authoritarians came up with the undermine freedom; you'd think it would be obvious, as "responsibility" always ends up meaning "do what we say", but a lot of people are taken in.
You have the freedom to speak, and the responsibility not to speak against the government (or not to say something which might upset The Children, or teach them something not correct). You have freedom of religion, and the responsibility to make it the right religion. You have the right to keep and bear arms, and the responsibility to limit this to single-shot muzzle loaders kept at an approved range. You have the right to deny soldiers the use of your home, but wouldn't it be irresponsible and unpatriotic to do so? You have the right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure; but your responsibility to prevent terrorism requires you to assume the position.