RSSWindows Rights Management Debut Draws Concern
By David Worthington | Published September 4, 2003, 5:01 AM
The latest manifestation of Microsoft's unified DRM technology roadmap has been made available for download.
Windows Rights Management (RM) is designed to extend Windows functionality to permit "DRM friendly" applications such as the forthcoming Office 2003 suite to lock down sensitive documents from prying eyes. The RM client provides fine-grained content protection across all product lines.
Windows Rights Management Client 1.0 entered beta testing last February and currently runs on Windows 2000 SP3, Windows 98 SE, Windows Me, Windows XP, as well as Windows Server 2003.
Users who want to open e-mail messages with restricted permissions must first download the rights management add-on for Internet Explorer – a "light" version of the RM client that reached beta in May.
According to OASIS's Cover Pages -- the mouthpiece for a not-for-profit consortium that seeks to drive e-business standards -- the Internet Explorer add-on will enable broad intranet and Internet portal scenarios by presenting rights-protected HTML to clients.
Both client-side technologies are engineered to work in cryptographic harmony with Windows Server 2003's Windows Rights Management Service (RMS) layer, formerly known as Tungsten.
A bounty of applications will surface from the addition of rights management to Windows.
"Rights management technologies have a broad application for a breadth of users. The need to protect digital assets extends far beyond the film and recording industries to include personal information, corporate information, and commercial content," a Microsoft spokesperson told BetaNews.
In the instance of the newly christened Office System 2003, permissions may be set to prohibit a confidential e-mail from being forwarded, printed or copied. Aside from the parties engaged in the dialog, only law enforcement -- with a proper warrant -- can access its contents.
Under the Hood
Microsoft's Windows RM technology utilizes certain Internet-based services during a process called machine activation. During this process, a hardware specific system component is created and saved on each device. This bit of information is the key to unlocking and accessing RM-protected content.
Microsoft briefed BetaNews on its efforts, stating that an effective rights management solution requires tight integration between the breadth of system components and devices, and must take into account the various touch points, pathways and destinations for digital information. Redmond says it is working with the industry as a means to this end.
Additionally, Windows RM requires a .NET Passport to authenticate users, such that everyone viewing protected content must have an active Passport. A certificate is also produced during the enrollment. In all, the security mix incorporates encryption, digital certificates and authentication.
Enterprises running Windows Server 2003 will have the option to "use active directory to do user authentication rather than Passport," according to Microsoft.
Critics Question Ulterior Motives
While document security is paramount, Microsoft's RM has drawn the ire of some critics questioning the company's motives.
Microsoft Watch's Mary Jo Foley wrote in an editorial earlier this year: "If you are a big company or organization with lots of correspondence and documents you want to keep secret, Windows RM is, indeed, a blessing. If you are a whistleblower, a journalist, a lawyer, a cop -- or anyone who has the audacity to want to use software other than Microsoft Windows or Office -- you should be very afraid."
While Microsoft has countered these claims and determined that its software should remain "platform agnostic" by supporting industry standards, critics harp that alternative operating systems must use XrML (Extensible Rights Markup Language) in exactly the same way Microsoft does.
Standards groups such as OASIS have been encouraged to "improve interoperability and reduce redundancy" by converging on a core and single set of paradigms. But these groups claim that the fix lies in the control Microsoft exercises over ContentGuard, the primary author of XrML.
Microsoft, together with other industry heavyweights such as Xerox and Sony, has held a small stake in ContentGuard since 2000.
In response to the barrage of criticism -- mainly the prospect of corporate and governmental malfeasance -- Jon Murchinson, product manager of Microsoft's security business unit, told BetaNews, "Windows Rights Management Services (RMS) no more hinders whistle blowing than do currently available and widely used methods such as printing documents on watermarked paper, numbered distribution of hard copy documents, and the use of shredders."
Murchinson continued, "Whistle blowers will still have the means necessary to bring suspected violations to the attention of the proper authorities. In the most notable cases, the whistle blowers had access to information through the normal course of business that led them to believe something was amiss. If they had been using an RMS-enabled application or server, they would still have had access to the same information and could have taken steps to notify the proper authorities of their suspicions."
Industry watchers expect Redmond to invest significant effort and dollars toward rights management in the future.
"Microsoft will continue to make major investments in rights management technologies that help our customers address their technology needs," said Murchinson, who foreshadowed significant innovations.
Microsoft currently offers RMS as a free trial, in addition to posting related pricing and licensing terms. Content protected by an author who opts out of the trial can be viewed for three months by those with valid .NET Passports.
Drm may be used to a computer users advantage. With the amount of data being used in the computer industry today people need to have a certain amount of protection with in there computer as well as products.
This is a perfect tool to inhibit this type of behavior. Firstly, with this tool people can protect there works from prying eyes.
Now with the enclosure of instant messengers, encrption tools individuaols can use there knowledge an expertise to perpature a tool to extensively take there data and protect it.
This tool will be good to protect others from taking what you own.
However since the tool has no open source addictives towards this the fact remains that drm will be used for u.
yours truely;
micheal mitchellson
Score: 0
|Its amazing... everytime microsoft comes up with a technology that can really help in productivity, or business security or whatever, people find a way to turn it into something evil that they are doing or something they are doing to help someone else be evil.
If a major linux distro had released something like this (and it was included in say, OO) noone would be worried that companies using linux and OO would soon be able to hide their evil little secrets more effectively...
I'm excited about this technology. I think its a move in the right direction for DRM, and i don't think there was a company more capable of pushing DRM forward than Microsoft.
I tested it in beta form with the office 2003 betas, and it seemed to work great. Once it was setup it was pretty seamless considering it was a beta product working with another beta product.
I guess people will do what they want and complain about what they want - doesn't mean they're right...
Score: 0
|You're right. Just because you complain doesn't mean you're right.
Not everyone is complaining about the ability of this to increase business security or whatever you want to refer to it as. The complaint is simple. Microsoft has a monopoly over home and business users. Microsoft is in control over this rights management scheme. They're not about to share it or make it interoperable with others. Therefore, competing software is forced out because it cannot be used to access these documents. Since "everyone else uses it," you are forced to buy Microsoft. People are left with virtually no choice. A business can't just pout and sit in the corner mad because they can't open files from some other company. They'll be forced to purchase the same software in order to do business. Market share increases and budgets must be inflated to cope.
I'm not sure where on Earth you were going with the Linux and OOo comment. The concern is that DRM will squash those out of use, due to an intentional exclusion of an interoperable format used by Microsoft. If there were some way to open these DRM documents in OOo, nobody would complain because now they at least have a choice. I can use _my_ software to open up a document if I _choose_ to. Or I can choose not to open it at all. But I have that ability. I'm not forced to purchase someone else's software. That makes it/them evil.
Score: 0
|"Its amazing... everytime microsoft comes up with a technology that can really help in productivity, or business security or whatever, people find a way to turn it into something evil"
You're absolutely right. If Linux did this they'd be "Protecting Privacy". Since Microsoft did it, they're trying to thwart whistle-blowers and the cops.
Nevertheless, this scheme seems Byzantine in it's complexity. And, the more complex a security measure, the more likely it's to be circumvented. Often by a very simple and obvious counter-measure.
The DataRat
Score: 0
|My comments were meant to soley address the concerns about WRM/DRM making it more difficult for whistle blowers, investigators, etc. I didn't mean to address any of the complaints about microsoft being monopolistic and having control over the whole system - i'm tired of listening to those after all these years, so i don't address them anymore.
I was just astonished that people were taking that track to complain bout a microsoft product (maybe i was so astonished bcause the focus of this article _wasn't_ on their monopolistic practices, as i've become so accustomed to reading.
As for the Linux and OOo stuff, sorta the same thing. I wasn't talking about interoperability (though isn't this whole thing based off a standard, supported by multiple companies, not just Microsoft? i'm not positive, but that was the impression i got). I was simply saying that this sort of criticism (the "we won't be able to tell if Company X is stealing IP because their employees won't be able to forward their emails to us anymore" criticism, not the monopolistic criticism) wouldn't be occurring if it weren't Microsoft creating it.
That's all.
Not arguing monopoly crap here.
Score: 0
|Do you mean Byzantine in its usage complexity or in its implementation complexity?
From a user standpoint it seemed to be fairly straight-forward.
I'm guessing you meant implementation though - and to that i have no response, i haven't read much into those details - i just tested it to see that it worked :)
Score: 0
|"Do you mean Byzantine in its usage complexity or
in its implementation complexity?"
Implementation.
Mark Twain in a private correspondence once quipped:
"I would have written you a shorter letter, but didn't
have the time !".
This is true with software development, too. In security
and privacy measures it's absolutely critical. Complex
solutions only present a lot of target points for
possible attack.
Your Friend,
The DataRat
Score: 0
|Do you have links to more information on the implementation of it? I don't know much more about the implementation of it that is stated in the article above.
Score: 0
|I think you've missed the fact that the PUBLISHING party would have to enable these DRM schemes. If the PUBLISHING party only wants certain other parties to be able to use their property in ANY way they see fit that is on them, not on Microsoft.
Score: 0
|"Do you have links to more information on the implementation
of it? I don't know much more about the implementation of it
that is stated in the article above."
You don't ~need~ any further information than what was stated
in the article above !
From your posts, El Raton can see you're both an astute
observer and someone of considerable reasoning facility.
Think about it:
This privacy/security solution spans...
1.) MS Office-2003, not just a very complex computer
application, but a SUITE of such applications;
2.) MS .Net which not even Microsoft has been able to
adequately define in it's scope and purpose;
3.) And, a downloaded client app beyond what recipients
already have in the way of their standard MS Office
installation and existing e-mail reader.
It don't get any more complex and Byzantine than THIS !
Targets for attack-and-circumvention present themselves
EVERYWHERE. This ain't integration ...it's disintegration.
It's like ~actual~ war: Where the defending force has to
protect all points equally along it's strategic line. But
the aggressor for victory need only concentrate his offense
against a single point for a breakthrough.
Thus all perspicacious Generals keep their defensive lines
brief and as compact as possible. Microsoft -in contrast-
has contructed a Maginot Line !
The DataRat
Score: 0
|I didn't miss that point. Since we are talking about accessing DRM-type documents, my comments were made with the assumption that we were discussing documents that were protected. Obviously if someone does not protect the document, then it's not an issue.
Score: 0
|"I didn't mean to address any of the complaints about microsoft being monopolistic and having control over the whole system - i'm tired of listening to those after all these years, so i don't address them anymore."
I was merely presenting an opposing viewpoint to this. However, regardless of whether or not you want to bury your head in the sand about it, they were found guilty. So it is relevant.
"I was just astonished that people were taking that track to complain bout a microsoft product"
Again, it's because it's relevant. The article even eludes to the amount of control that Microsoft has over this standards process. If they're not buying out voting bodies, they're employing voting members. To me, it's not that they *are* a monopoly, but it's *how* they are a monopoly. Those comparisons can be made cross-industry with legal monopolies such as cable and utility companies.
"I was simply saying that this sort of criticism (the "we won't be able to tell if Company X is stealing IP because their employees won't be able to forward their emails to us anymore" criticism, not the monopolistic criticism) wouldn't be occurring if it weren't Microsoft creating it."
I have to disagree with the Microsoft comment here. However, from this stand-point - protecting trade secrets, IP, etc. - I agree that DRM has its place.
Score: 0
|It does seem rather complex when looked upon in that fashion - but i'd have to argue that there is little way to avoid that.
Office is a complex set of complex apps. That's a given, obviously, but what _good_ AND _useful_ set of office applications won't be just that?
The only tie-in to .NET that i see with this system is the .NET Passport use. You'd have to have some sort of repository or something similar to this, and i have no personal faults with .NET or the .NET Passport (though i do agree that Microsoft seems to change directions on its "vision" for .NET a little too often for my comfort)
The downloaded client app is one place where i completely agree - that seems overly complicated, and not at all intuitive when i started testing it. Not sure what their point is there.
So at least partially, i think this complexity is necessary for _any_ system like this.
To me, that just means that each individual communication channel (between the distributed portions of the whole scheme) should be based on sound, simple standards for secure communication.
I'm surely no expert on that sort of thing, but it seems to me like that could be achieved fairly effectively and efficiently.
Can you envision a system with less disjoint parts than the current one? (maybe leaving out the downloaded client part, since we agree that makes no sense). I'm curious to see what i'm not thinking of.
Cheers!
NiN
Score: 0
|"Can you envision a system with less disjoint parts than
the current one?"
That's the trick, isn't it ? If the Computer Rodent did it'd
be "DataRat RM" rather than "Microsoft RM" !
There's some general principles which can serve as guidelines,
though. Without creating a dissertation, one we could touch
upon here is compartmentalization: It's smart to isolate your
solutions both conceptually and structurally.
Microsoft seems to have done the opposite by offering a common protection for everything from audio CD's to Word docs to
e-mail. First, this makes the overall package more complex than
otherwise necessary. Secondly, it draws more potential attackers
working against the same protection system.
Software protection schemes have a history of eventual
circumvention. Why establish a comprehensive single-solution
where a broad spectrum of media get bypassed with one evasion ?
The more compartmentalized and dissimilar the particular
solutions are, the less vulnerable the entire RM system is.
It's an example of "good complexity" where the individual
units are specialized but simple.
Marketing, of course, dictates the opposite. Big corporations
don't want to offer (or have to develop) a lot of different
packages. Yet, who more than Microsoft is in a position to do
just that ?
As to how to get a system with less disjoint parts, your
favorite rodent would work mightily -if he were Microsoft- to
eliminate the .Net component. Encryption keys don't require
a central universal repository, and El Raton would work from
THAT model instead of dotNet.
Naturally, this ~isn't~ what Microsoft has in mind. .Net is as
much a business strategy as a software solution. Microsoft will
attempt (and has) to intrude it as many places as possible
...even where it's participation proves counter-productive.
Your Buddy,
The DataRat
Score: 0
|perhaps you should all take a quick peak at http://www.againsttcpa.com and then make up your minds - rather than listening to press releases
Score: 0
|"The complaint is simple. Microsoft has a monopoly over home
and business users. Microsoft is in control over this rights
management scheme. They're not about to share it or make it
interoperable with others."
Which would be true regarding ANYTHING that Microsoft did, and
effectively disallows them from producing ~any~ new products.
Now, that wouldn't bother the Computer Communists, but the rest
of us see it as a stupid and ideological position. Microsoft
shouldn't be forced to commit corporate suicide because it's
been too successful !
El Raton would further argue that Microsoft's "monopology" is
practical rather than coercive. It ain't like Microsoft owns the
only railroad tracks from Point-A to Point-B and you either use
'em or transport your freight by horse wagon.
For desktop OS, Microsoft has at least two competitors. For
office suite, at least one. For database, several. Etc. Etc.
This ISN'T a use-Microsoft-or-do-without situation !
All cavils aside, everyone except WTO rioters can see that
Microsoft's success has been based on the best product at a
price people are willing to pay.
Regarding the RM issue: Having to download a ~free~ reader from
Microsoft to view a rights-protected document hardly seems
monopolistic.
As far as Microsoft "being in control of rights management"...
there's lot to be said for unified and universal standards.
One of the principle reasons Open Source has failed so far to
penetrate the desktop market (>2% market share) is this very
matter.
The DataRat
Score: 0
|"Microsoft shouldn't be forced to commit corporate suicide because it's been too successful !"
I would agree with you had Microsoft gained their "success" morally, and ethically.
Score: 0
|Enterprise level DRM for documents has little or nothing to do with TCPA.....so what's your point?
And of ocurse, as I ask all the lemmings who throw that URL around....What SPECIFICALLY are your compaints about TCPA? Obviously it hasn't been abused yet (since it doesn't exist) so specifically what are you afraid of?
(Perhaps, like so many others, you are afraid of losing your ability to violate others copyright right and steal others intellectual property?)
Score: 0
|"due to an intentional exclusion of an interoperable format used by Microsoft"
Uh sorry, but the format chosen is interoperable, open, and standards based.
The complaints about it are based ont he fact that OASIS (a competing, yet unoffical, standards body) defined additional "standards" that they want to force Microsoft to use and Microsoft laughed at them.
Score: 0
|The idea of tcpa is a good one - the way the american government and large corporations want to implement it is not. Using a trusted computing model to improves security has a lot of merits, using it as a big brother tool does not. I don't want to be restricted on what hardware i can buy and use with my system just because microsoft says so. Open source software doesn't stand a chance if tcpa becomes compulsory - none of the developers could afford the signing or the prison sentence and fine. Answer your question?
Score: 0
|who is this "linux" person you keep talking about? Linux isn't a company, it's an open source platform - so why are you portraying it as a company?
Score: 0
|>If a major linux distro had released something like this (and it was included in say, OO) noone would be worried that companies using linux and OO would soon be able to hide their evil little secrets more effectively...
perhaps because they wouldn't stand to gain any profit from it?
Score: 0
|"I would agree with you had Microsoft gained their
'success' morally, and ethically"
Well, ~not~ in the supposed "morality" or "ethics" of
Open Source socialism. Anti-capitalists will always view
Capitalism as "immoral".
Out of the realm of college student idealism and naïve
utopian social schemes, Microsoft's business ethics are
within the range of acceptability.
Certainly no worse than Linix stealing Unix code !
Facts are, competing OS ~have~ been available (Mac, BE,
Linix, and many others over the years)...
...AND PEOPLE JUST HAVEN'T WANTED TO BUY 'EM !
Microsoft's position is the result of free choice rather
than monopoly.
The real immorality and bad ethics are those of folks who
condemn Microsoft for being successful. They want to destroy
Microsoft so users have less choice rather than more choice.
Linux can't compete head to head with Microsoft because
Open Source products are inferior. So, instead they seek
to destroy Microsoft as a corporation. THAT's the ~real~
anti-competitive monopoly position !
The DataRat
Score: 0
|"Anti-capitalists will always view Capitalism as "immoral""
That's funny. You have to resort to lies claiming that people are "anti-capitalists" when you don't agree with their opinions. If you dig deep enough you would discover that I am more "capitalist" than you are. ;-) My belief that Microsoft is not a good company does not make me a communist, nor does my choice not to use their products. I'm glad that you can't see things that way, it just shows what sort of person you really are.
Score: 0
|"You have to resort to lies claiming that people are
'anti-capitalists' when you don't agree with their
opinions. If you dig deep enough you would discover
that I am more 'capitalist' than you are."
We can only judge you by your expressed opinions, which
...from what El Raton has seen... are of the caliber of
a rebellious teenager.
What makes you "more capitalist than thou" ? You had a
sidewalk lemonade stand when you were 8 ?
Your Buddy,
The DataRat
Score: 0
|>We can only judge you by your expressed opinions, which
>...from what El Raton has seen... are of the caliber of
>a rebellious teenager.
You can only pass judgement because you are afraid of the truth.
>What makes you "more capitalist than thou" ? You had a
>sidewalk lemonade stand when you were 8 ?
LOL, is that all you've got? I am a self employed consultant contracting to one of the largest teleco's in the United States of America with whom I have spent the last 3 years of my 9 years of self employment. I make over 3 times the average *FAMILY* income in the USA, and I am still a *SHORT* ways away from 30. I am the American dream Mr. Datarat, what are you? What can you bring to the table? I am basing my opinion on my 9 years of experience with Microsoft and Microsoft's product line. I'm paid to support Microsoft products (Among many others of course.), yet I choose not to use them outside of the office. How are you forming YOUR opinion? I have been a Microsoft customer since the 80's. I've been folowing Technology and Tech news for years before I ever entered the industry as a professional IT consultant. What's your story?
Have a nice day LOL.
Score: 0
|"I make over 3 times the average *FAMILY* income in
the USA, and I am still a *SHORT* ways away from 30"
Regular yuppie, huh ?
You sound like Sean Penn and Johnny Depp who -while
having greatly benefited from the American system-
spurn the American Way in favor of it's enemies.
Assuming your brag is even half true, you ought to
be ashamed of yourself for being anti-capitalist.
Of course, socialism generates no wealth for anybody
except the leaders of the proletariat ...so most of
you guys live off capitalism while attacking it.
The DataRat
Score: 0
|Awww poor DataRat has no real argument so he has to go back to his original troll.
Score: 0
|"DataRat has no real argument so he has to go back
to his original troll"
What ? ~Your~ argument about who has the biggest pee-pee ?
DR
Score: 0
|And your argument is that everyone that believes any company has done wrong is a communist. I'm surprised you haven't brought religon into it somehow. LOL If you want to get technical. I answered your question, and you came back with nothing but crap.
Score: 0
|interoperable, by your definition, is extremely subjective
Score: 0
|"Answer your question?"
Nope.
First of all you still haven't answered what this has to do with the article above...or with DRM at all. Seems like you're just looking for any place to rant regardless of whether or not it is on topic.
Secondly, you claims that you will be restrcted on what hardware you can use, that open source software will suffer, and that signing will cost more than developers can afford are all pure speculation with no evidence to back them at all.
Score: 0
|"interoperable, by your definition, is extremely subjective"
Oh really? Perhaos you would care to show us what part is not 100% standards based and compliant.
The "interoperability" that OASIS is asking for is ridiculous. They defined their own unofficial standard and now want Microsoft to use it instead.....which, interestingly enough, is the exact same complaint they made against Microsoft originally.
Microsoft switched to a 100% standards compliant format. Anyone who can't interoperate with that has only their own incompetence to blame.
Or can you give us some concrete example of how the 100% standards compliant format used is "not interoperable"?
Score: 0
|seems ogman was right about you
Score: 0
|If you have no supporting evidence to back your claims, then just say that they are pure personal speculation rather than presenting them as facts.
Unless of course you have something to back your claims...but your silence on the point so far would seem to indicate otherwise.
Just seem sodd that you advise people to not make up their minds based on press releases, but instead want them to do so based on wild speculation.
Score: 0
|I was actually considering buy Office 2003, but once again as soon as I think about purchasing from Microsoft the price goes up. All those folks figuring out TCO's for software should add a new factor - Price of Personal Privacy. Not to mention the already proven inability of Microsoft to successfully implement anything like DRM. Heck, half the time I try to use a .Net password to log into messenger lately the servers fail. I'm supposed to trust this system to protect mission critical documents and e-mail??? I have full confidence that WRM will make it impossible for me to delete SPAM, but will protect little else. No wonder the Linux folks don't advertise much. Microsoft provides incentives like these to help move customers. I'm going to go take a closer look at Open Office and Evolution. Heck, even in a windows environment, OO and Pegasus looks better.
Score: 0
|I log onto .net sites many times a day with narry a failure for as long as I can remember. I find it hard to believe that you have problems 50% of the time. If .net only worked 50% of the time we would certainly hear about it in a big way. So please keep your big exaggerations out of these threads and stick to opinion or fact.
Score: 0
|"So please keep your big exaggerations out of these threads and stick to opinion or fact."
Let's see...because my experience is different than yours, mine is an exaggeration. And you know what is happening when I try to log in how??? I'll have to ignore you suggestion that I change anything about my postings.
Score: 0
|My take on it would be that since your experience is obvuiously NOT what the majority of people experience (yours would seem to be a very small minority) it would be much more likely that your problems are related to your particular situation and not indicitive of problems with .NET security/authentication in general.
I think you also missed the part where Enterprise customers (the main target of this) will use local AD rather than .NET
Score: 0
|I have no intention of arguing with anyone about .Net or messenger. The problems that have plagued that system are well known by annyone who has read even one non-microsoft website. My connection is perfect and my configuration works with every other web service I use. This is a minor point which unfortunately seems to have gotten under the skins of a couple of you who feel the need to defend .Net to the death.
As for you second comment, I have to assume you did not read my original post. Although I am concerned that something like WRM will eventually find it's way into a personal computer situation, I am much more concerned about its effect on business. If mission critical data, documents or email fail to become available due to a bug in this system, that is going to cost someone a lot of money. Given Microsoft's spotty record on software functionality as well as security, I see a lot of room for concern. If you do not share that view, by all means implement the program.
Score: 0
|"The problems that have plagued that system are well known by annyone who has read even one non-microsoft website."
Then provide some link to reliable sources to back your claims.
"My connection is perfect and my configuration works with every other web service I use."
Ah, millions and millions of people use the service every day without probelms...YOU have probelms...but instead of lookign at your own configuration you blame the entire system. Then how do you exlain the apparent fluke of it working without problem for those millions of others?
In short, PROVE that it's the system itself and not you or your configuration if you want us to discard the overwhelming evidence contradicting you.
"Given Microsoft's spotty record on software functionality as well as security, I see a lot of room for concern."
But that's the point here....we're stating that the "spotty record" you refer to is a figment of your imagination.
You also seem to have overlooked that in the very business scenario you claim to be so concerned about it isn't .NET handling DRM....it's Active Directory. So show us the "spotty record" for AD functionality. Please.
Score: 0
|I'm not going to waste space on this site linking you to info you can and likely have read on your own. I have reviewed some of your other posts here and you seem incapable of accepting that anyone may have a point other than you. Therefore, I shall have to ignore any further posts from you in response to mine.
Score: 0
|I for one cannot find the references you say are out there, so please go ahead and waste this valuable space and indulge us with your citations.
Score: 0
|I'd have to agree about the passport - ebay for one won't allow you to sign in (or place bids) with a passport account half the time. Using the normal login always works fine.
Score: 0
|I seriously doubt that you looked. A five minute google provides numerous sources to make both side of the arguement. A point made on either side can easily be shown to have some validity. You merely wish to find a way to continue discounting someone else's opinion, valid though it may be, and I won't be playing that game with you either.
Score: 0
|Okay, then please provide me with the search criteria you used on Google that return this weatlth of information.
Score: 0
|As a general rule of thumb, anyone who doesn't want to "waste time or space" providing citations to back their claims is usually someone who made bogus claims and got caught at it.
Score: 0
|The DataRat has to wonder if one of the zillion freeware screen capture products easily available for d/l on the Internet won't circumvent this overly complex (indeed Byzantine) protection scheme. Can't copy or forward an e-mail ? No biggie ! Just screen capture it and e-mail it out as an attachment.
Score: 0
|Try screen capturing a 100+ page document.
Score: 0
|Surely there has to be a way to copy and paste the text to another location - making it able to be printable.
Score: 0
|i'm _pretty_ sure i read that screen capture doesn't work either... i forgot the results of the tests when i was playing around with it
Score: 0
|you could always just take pictures with a camera though ;)
...but if you're that desperate to get info out of a document...
Score: 0
|Ur kidding right, microsoft spends millions on DRM so people can copy and paste text into a new document and be printable..... I don't think so.
Score: 0
|extremely easily to do an infinite number of pages quickly. you can use macros or even windows scripting:
Set WshShell = WScript.CreateObject("WScript.Shell")
WshShell.Run "Word"
WScript.Sleep 500
WshShell.AppActivate "Microsoft Word"
' send appropriate keys to open your file...
WshShell.SendKeys "{PRTSC}"
' paste into your favorite app....
' and then continue down the page
WshShell.SendKeys "{PGDN}"
.....
Score: 0
|"Try screen capturing a 100+ page document".......You get many of those 100 page e-mails ?
Score: 0
|"you could always just take pictures with a camera though"
Actually, Ell Raton ~wasn't~ referring to a PrintScreen or
any copy/paste. Instead: An actual screen capture where the
e-mail is 'photographed' as a jpeg (or other graphics file).
Sure, you wouldn't want to have to do this with a dozen
e-mails a day. But, if it'd work, it would allow a perfect
reproduction of the protected e-mail with all it's contents
in a distributable form.
There's dozens of freeware applets for screen capture
(including capturing windows or portions of windows) typically in jpeg or gif format. Which can them be viewed
in small freeware graphic viewers like IrfanView (or
be-converted to text with OCR tools).
The DataRat
Score: 0
|You speak on the authority of someone who has tried this. Did you actually get this to work? The PrtScr is disabled from doing screen capture, so I doubt seriously that your script will work. The only way I could see this working is if you have an additional screen capture program running, then you might be able to automate this process.
However, when you consider that this is a version 1 implementation, it is bound to get more restrictive as the hardware lends itself to it. From what I can tell it is a great step in the right direction and at least puts in place some barriers from easily spreading confidential information. With this, someone has to go out of the way to intentially spread it. With intent, I bet it is a lot easier to file suit.
Score: 0
|Actually, DRM prevents copy/paste or any other methods of "rebroadcasting" the data.
HOWEVER... If there is some dedicated whistle blower all they'd need to do is put it on a VGA2TV converter then record it with a VCR... So... Meh.
Anyhow... Yeah... I have no problem with DRM. But... Since Microsoft has made this... It must be a plot to do harm to the world. Damn them!
Score: 0
|There are several problems here:
The only way to prevent circumvention is to cripple the operating system (disbling screen capture, copy & paste !?!).
Microsoft controlling DRM will increase their power, market share and their ability to invade your privacy (don't you think Microsoft knows how to circumvent their own technology -- do you want Microsoft to be the only entity that knows how to circumvent DRM?).
Why are we suspicious of Microsoft's motives? Remember:
This is the company that embeds your personal info and MAC address of your computer in any document created with their software.
This is the company who uses their Media Player to gain access rights to modify files on your hard disk (read the EULA!).
This is the company that stole Stacker's compression technology (in DOS 6.0) and then kept that company in court until they could develop their own technology.
This is the company that lost a lawsuit to WordPerfect (for not releasing parts of the SDK accessible to their own programmers). Kept Wordperfect in court until that company became insolvent.
This is the company that just lost the case against them charging them with draconian monopolistic business practices (which they still seem to be doing -- thumbing their noses at the Justice Department).
This is the company that lost a lawsuit to SUN for violating contract agreements not to bas****ize JAVA.
This is a company has used new versions of it's OS to disable competitor's application software.
There's more and more and more --- but doesn't everybody knows Microsoft's track record????
We are supposed to trust Microsoft ???????
Score: 0
|>This is the company that embeds your personal info and MAC address of your computer in any document created with their software.
And provides a method to remove said information from the documents. Its in there for a reason, but it can be removed if you're that scared
>This is the company who uses their Media Player to gain access rights to modify files on your hard disk (read the EULA!).
Gee. I'm sure microsoft really wants to screw up all my files. Or maybe they just want to be given permission to install updates or the like without getting sued later for not having permission?
>This is the company that just lost the case against them charging them with draconian monopolistic business practices (which they still seem to be doing -- thumbing their noses at the Justice Department).
_some_ people (including myself in some cases) don't agree with the laws they were found guilty of violating, and therefore this isn't a reason to dislike MS, its a reason to dislike the laws for us. (read carefully, i said in some cases - in others i agree, i don't think they were innocent)
>This is the company that lost a lawsuit to SUN for violating contract agreements not to bas****ize JAVA.
That had to be one of the most convoluted cases in history as far as licensing rights and "must include", "must not include" type of rulings ever... there was a guy that used to post on here all the time that new alot about it.. where is he now...
>This is a company has used new versions of it's OS to disable competitor's application software.
Or maybe they just didn't feel like allowing poorly written code to have access to legacy code in their system anymore. Its kind of hard to state why a new version of their software doesn't allow anothers to run... but of course people assume it was intentional - it was MS afterall.
MS has no reason to screw me. I use their products because they are the most effective at getting done what i want to get done. I like the idea of this DRM stuff, and if its MS's stuff that gets out the gate first and it works, then maybe i'll use it.
Or maybe i'll find someone else's system to be more effective.
But either way, i won't discount anyone just because of someone else's perceived problems with the company.
I'd hope people would be that open-minded.
Score: 0
|Sorry eddmond, but you really don't seem to know what you are talking about here.
You list seven reasons to not trust Microsoft. Let's look at those seven:
1. (personal info and MAC addess) First of all there is no such thing as "the MAC address of your computer". A NIC has a MAC address, a computer itself does not. Secondly, no version of MS Office released in the last five years does this. Thirdly, no other personal information is embedded in those documents. So this one is a bogus claim.
2. (uses their Media Player to) Despite all the panic about people who are concerned that the EULA give Microsoft the right to do so.....show us even one case EVER where such a thing has taken place. You say that Microsoft "uses" their Media Player to do this. Show us one reputable report of them actually using it in that manner. So this one is a bogus claim as well.
3. (stole Stacker's) Microsoft replaced the compression technology asd soon as they were told that theirs was in violation. An example of RESPONSIBLE behavior on Microsoft's part. So this one is a bogus claim.
4. (Wordperfect) Wordperfect's insolvency was due to a large number of factors (primarily their own senior management) which had nothing whatsoever to do with Microsoft. So this one is a bogus claim.
5. (draconian monopolistic business practices) Wow, show us the court ruling that says THAT. The case in question found Microsoft guilty of some very specific charges. It made no broad ruling of the type you refer to. And the courts don't seem to agree with you on the still doing it or thumbing their noses parts. So this one is a bogus claim.
6. (that lost a lawsuit to SUN for violating contract agreements) Apparently you missed the part where both Microsoft AND SUN were found to have violated the contact. In addition, neither party "lost a lawsuit" over it at all....the suit was settled by both parties after the judge ruled that they had BOTH violated the terms of their contract. So this one is a bogus claim.
7. (disable competitor's application software) ROFL. Show us ANY evidence of this. I can count six companies that have claimed this (Apple and Real being two of the big ones) and in every one of those cases the company making the accusation later admitted that the probelms were related to bugs in their own products, not interference from Microsoft. So this one is a bogus claim.
"There's more and more and more --- but doesn't everybody knows Microsoft's track record"
If the "more and more" are just more bogus claims like these...then it doesn't matter much at all. YOUR track record seems quite clear. Lots of incorrect information. Next time do your research BEFORE you post.
Score: 0
|"there was a guy that used to post on here all the time that new alot about it.. where is he now..."
If you were referring to me....I'm back now. I drop off the radar before and during Burnign Man every year.
Score: 0
|Yes!
In fact i was referring to you.
I had plenty of convos with you (and against a few others) a while back. Always admired your ability to find information to support your arguments.
Just hadn't seen your name listed in a bit (though admittedly i've been paying less attention lately)
Score: 0
|Not completely accurate. It will embed the full name of the user in the file properties and other things like that (which you can see by going to File/Properties in Word).
I vaguely remember someone in the British government (Blair maybe?) getting into trouble over this because Word documents that were submitted had the names of the people who wrote them/worked on them embedded in them. Can't remember what the specific problem was.
But anyway, you can have it not save that information by selecting a single checkbox and then its all safe. (not that i considered it _unsafe_ before)
Score: 0
|"3. (stole Stacker's) Microsoft replaced the compression technology asd soon as they were told that theirs was in violation. An example of RESPONSIBLE behavior on Microsoft's part. So this one is a bogus claim."
Nope..
"16. In late 1991, as a result of Mr. Gates' interest, Mr. Brad Chase -- who was then Microsoft's Group Product Manager and who today is Microsoft's General Manager for MS-DOS -- and Mr. Clow began discussing the possibility of Microsoft licensing Stac's proprietary data compression technology for inclusion in future versions of the MS-DOS operating system.
17. During the ensuing months of negotiations, Microsoft proposed that Stac grant to Microsoft a world-wide license to incorporate STACKER data compression technology and know-how into future versions of its MS-DOS operating system software. Microsoft steadfastly refused, however, to offer to pay Stac any royalty for Stac's patented data compression technology.
18. Mr. Chase made it clear during the negotiations that Microsoft was considering including data compression capability in future versions of the MS-DOS operating system, and that if it were unable to reach an agreement with Stac, it would obtain this capability elsewhere, even though Microsoft believed -- as it told Stac on numerous occasions -- that STACKER was the best data compression product for the DOS market. When the subject of incorporating data compression technology other than Stac's arose, Mr. Clow reminded Mr. Chase and others that Stac owned patent rights to its data compression technology and would enforce its patents against any infringers. At least one draft agreement was provided to Microsoft that included a specific reference to Stac's '009 patent.
19. Microsoft attempted to persuade Stac that its proposal to incorporate Stac's proprietary data compression technology -- or, for that matter, any reliable data compression technology -- into the MS-DOS operating system would, if implemented, have an immediate and adverse effect on the viability of STACKER as an independently marketed product for the DOS market. Indeed, at one point during the negotiations, Microsoft presented Stac with a spreadsheet analysis purporting to detail the adverse impact on sales of STACKER -- Stac's flagship product -- in the event Microsoft and Stac failed to reach an agreement and Microsoft incorporated a different data compression utility in future versions of the MS-DOS operating system.
20. In approximately April of 1992, Stac broke off further discussions with Microsoft in light of Microsoft's failure to present a proposal that offered reasonable compensation to Stac for Microsoft's use of Stac's proprietary data compression technology.
21. In approximately June of 1992, Mr. Chase advised Mr. Clow that Microsoft was obtaining data compression technology for use in MS-DOS, but that Microsoft wanted to offer Stac one last chance to reach an agreement. In the ensuing discussions, it again became clear that Microsoft had no intention of paying any compensation to Stac in exchange for Stac's proprietary data compression technology. Discussions between Stac and Microsoft thereupon terminated for the second time.
22. Shortly thereafter, it became well known to the industry that a new version of its DOS operating system, MS-DOS version 6.0 (``MS-DOS 6.0"), would be released in the first six months of 1993 and that MS-DOS 6.0 would include a data compression utility, which Microsoft was to later call ``DoubleSpace.''"
- http://www.vaxxine.com/lawyers/articles/stac.html
"7. (disable competitor's application software) ROFL. Show us ANY evidence of this."
"50. To reinforce the impression that DR DOS would be incompatible with Windows 3.1, beginning in December of 1991, Microsoft released beta versions of Windows 3.1 containing code that generated misleading error messages when Windows 3.1 ran on top of DR DOS rather than MS-DOS. Microsoft created these error messages for the purpose of creating the impression that DR DOS would be incompatible with Windows in order to dissuade customers from purchasing DR DOS.
51. Microsoft also deliberately attempted to create, and created, incompatibilities between Windows 3.1 and DR DOS. Among those incompatibilities, including incompatibilties that have been publicly reported are the follwing: the inclusion in Windows 3.1 of the DOSMGR callout API and several undocumented DOS calls; incompatibilities due to changes in the XMS (Extended Memory Standard) memory manager interface; incompatibilities due to changes to the Loadhi VxD interface; and incompatibilities due to changes to the use of the microprocessor's "nested task flag," which controls performance of important tasks. Microsoft also changed its Windows for Workgroups networking software so that it effectively performs a check as to whether DR DOS is running, and if so, causes the system to crash."
- http://www.techlawjourna...rts/caldera/Default.htm
I think the rest of your comments are pretty accurate so I won't dispute any issues I do have with them.
Score: 0
|Welcome back old friend. ;-) heh
Score: 0
|>Or maybe they just didn't feel like allowing poorly written code to have access to legacy code in their system anymore. Its kind of hard to state why a new version of their software doesn't allow anothers to run... but of course people assume it was intentional - it was MS afterall.
Perhaps you should take a look at the number of unchecked buffers (i'd count that as poorly written code) that exist in microsofts products
Score: 0
|Stac Complaint:
As we have discussed before, all you quoted was the complain filed in court. A one sided document in which ANY claim, no matter how outrageous can be made. So while Stac "alleged" the items you listed....it doesn't make any of them true.
Microsoft "alleged" that once negotiations with Stac fell through they implemented their own separate compression algorithm. Once Stac complained that Microsoft's code was too similar to Stac's code Microsoft changed to yet another algorithm and replaced all of the code.
DR DOS compalint:
Ditto above. These are not the rulings or findings of a court....simply the allegations made against Microsoft without support.
I can file a suit and allege in the complaint that you're from Mars. That doesn't make it true. (though it would create a legal document just like these two)
Score: 0
|Since the Name it embeds is simply the Name and Initials that the user typed in when prompted after install, and since those values can be chanmged at any time I don't consider them to be "personal information".
Concerns over embedding or transmission of personal information usually stick to information collected by the program rather than information the user entered into the program themselves.
Score: 0
|"I can file a suit and allege in the complaint that you're from Mars."
LOL!!
Yes, I agree I was using the filings as my sources. That doesn't mean I am incorrect. Basically it is a he said she said match between the companies. I don't recall the outcome of the stac case, but the caldera case was settled and I believe it was sealed so the truth may never be known.
Score: 0
|"I drop off the radar before and during Burnign Man every year."
That explains quite a bit. ;)
Score: 0
|