Discussion in 'privacy general' started by faterider, Jul 13, 2008.
Thanks for the reply. Much appreciated.
wow...It seems like this is going in circles or you are not reading and trying to comprehend my posts at all because you keep repeating the same thing even after I clearly explain my points using common logic.
Therefore, ONCE AGAIN....in reply to your statement in your last post...."good article, and it proved my point even further. DRM means jack, DRM is NOT sending personal information to anyone except ITune, Microsoft, whoever. The COMPANIES are sending that data elsewhere."....How can you prove a point that "DRM means Jack" when DRM could possibly be a threat or it may not be a threat depending on what exactly its capabilities are? DRM is implemented differently by different companies. DRM may be sending data elsewhere or it may not depending on what its capabilities are.
Regarding your statement..."P.S, the statement about not being able to say antivirus software protects your computer is complete bull."....Hmmm...I used that statement as an example that just because AV software "SAYS" its AV software (as in rouge AV software you can mistakingly install) or when you are comparing the different levels of effectiveness of different types AV software. The point of my comment was not to say that AV software can't protect your computer....MY point if you took the time to understand it was that the term "AV software" varies, its level of protection varies and just because it has that label does not mean it in fact does protect your computer. The same is with DRM...it is not a computing standard...it is a generic term. So as I explained with the comparison just because something has been labeled as having DRM technology does not mean that you can determine whether or not it is a threat or not.
I am not here to post contradictions to other members posts or arguments about other opinions about privacy threats as if I am in a contest to win the 1st place trophy for post battle of the month. I could have ignored your original reply but I have tried to explain my opinion on why Vista DRM is a concern for me but you seem to want to prove that I am wrong about it. I have already explained several times why I am concerned. If you choose not to be concerned then that your free choice.
You also continue to use the same ridiculous arguments that other threats are more important. Certainly this is a security forum and there may be other more important threats but last time I checked this thread was based on whether "Windows built by design to be a spy" so I have been discussing that specific topic and not the topic of whether or not Vista DRM is a bigger privacy threat than other security threats in this forum.
I have read many other posts you have made in this forum. I have agreed with your opinion in many of those posts. I know you are capable of having a discussion based on logic. Therefore, instead of trying to prove that you are always right with statements that are unrelated to the topic of this thread....I hope that you (dw426) actually take the time to carefully read all of my replies. If after reading my replies you still find any flaws in my logic please let me know.
Ok, last go round for me on this. ONCE AGAIN, DRM means jack, and jack with a capital J. DRM ITSELF is harmless (unless you've been playing "Steal that MP3"). The IMPLEMENTATION is nothing more than what the software is used for and how it resides on this system. If you want to bring an "evil DRM" example into this, I'll do it for you: Sony's recent DRM implementation that saw the DRM software acting, ACTING like a rootkit by hiding itself and being very hard to remove. It still was not a rootkit simply because it still did nothing more than be the license checker it was made for.
Again I say I do not need some photographic evidence or whatever to show people DRM is what it is, read about it yourself. Your data-gathering issue doesn't make sense either. Tell me, why would anyone but Sony (in the example above) need to know whether you have a legit license for the music on your system from them? Sony doesn't need to have their DRM call to anywhere other than home. If 3rd parties need data, Sony can easily provide statistics to them. 3rd parties want email addresses, statistics on type of music listened to (again, using the Sony music example), how often music is purchased, and so on, which is easily available without DRM needing to "spy" on you.
And don't bring in rogue software and levels of effectiveness to try and prove a point about not being able to say antivirus software protects your computer. Rogue software is a type of malware (in my book), so not even applicable to this discussion. And level of effectiveness is judged by too many factors to bring it up also. They all protect you, just in varying levels determined by features, definition updates, cleaning ability, and so forth.
I'm sorry if I seem rude, I don't mean to come off that way. But, you're simply over-analyzing what DRM is and how it works. It's nothing more than software designed for one function only. It doesn't matter how the software is installed, it matters what it does, and what it does is prevent illegal copying of DRM-enabled material (well, should prevent, but again we see how that goes).
I understand your concern, and I may have gotten a little "feisty" with my replies, but really, DRM itself is ok (we may not like it, but it is harmless). Now as far as the whole deal with Sony making their implementation act like a rootkit, no, I don't appreciate that, but it still doesn't bother me that badly considering the DRM software was hiding itself, but still performing the same function. One other thing I'd like to add about the antivirus thing, they all still perform the same function as well, they'll all protect you from viruses, but there are a lot of if's in that, just as there are in many security solutions. An antivirus that doesn't have a signature for a particular virus won't protect you from that virus no matter how top notch the product is.
Edit: I thought I should address one other issue, and the Sony example is a prime example: Vulnerabilities. There was a flaw in the "cloaking" functionality of Sony's DRM (cloaking functionality was the reason it acted like a rootkit) that enabled trojans to install to the DRM folder of Sony, and use the cloaking function to hide themselves. DRM itself was still not the problem, it was the flaw in the cloaking function that was the issue, and vulnerabilities pop up in all software, it's simply what happens when imperfect humans create things.
I have thoroughly read all of your replies and although I believe your responses are well intentioned you still have provided no logical arguments to rebut the points I have made concerning "Vista's extensive DRM technology" as a possible privacy threat. It is as if you spent zero time and effort thinking about any of my replies to your posts. So instead of continuing on about this I will also agree to end this back and forth posts debate and again leave you with the final statement that I made in my previous post.... "If after reading my replies you still find any flaws in my logic please let me know."
Since you claim I haven't read any of your posts, have you read MINE? Have you looked up DRM and what it does? If you don't believe me and want to find DRM to be what it is not, please, do a Google search. You'll get facts and you'll get hogwash from paranoid people thinking DRM is some magical link to the CIA,NSA, whoever you want. There's no point going back and forth with someone who WANTS to find evil where there is none. The "logic" argument is getting old, what isn't logical is not looking up the facts and continuing to try and get people to give you answers you want to hear. I don't do that. I gave you logical reasons as to why your data is not likely to get sent out all over the place. If you did read any of my posts, especially in this part of the forum, you'd see I'm quite possibly the most paranoid guy here, so if I'm not afraid of DRM, be willing to bet there's a reason.
There is no "logic", just facts. Just look things up, you'll be a lot more comfortable if you do. If you want to look DRM up and find the truth, please do so you don't keep worrying yourself over problems that aren't there. I cannot make you do that though, the choice is yours.
Edit: Ok, I'm going to help further, to try and "prove" what DRM is. First, compliments of Wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management.
Up next, the guys that HATE DRM: http://www.eff.org/issues/drm.
The only "privacy" issues involved are that you can't do what you damn well please with digital media unless you break the DRM on said media. Again, DRM systems can have holes in them, but so does every other piece of software on earth. It still does not change how DRM works. If DRM software has a vulnerability in it that enables data to be sent out in a way that is not normal of that software, it is still not a privacy violation of DRM, but a flaw in that particular DRM software, not ALL DRM software. DRM is a concept, the software behind it enables that concept. If you think about it in that way, your DRM worries vanish.
If the DRM software in Vista has a vulnerability that allows a trojan or something else to install and steal data, then yes, there is a "privacy risk" with Vista's DRM...a risk that is destroyed with a patch, just like any other software. Does any of this help in any way at all now?
Yes, as I already stated in my previous post if you had read it....I thoroughly read your posts. You have basically been arguing as a way to explain your own points instead of rebutting my original statement....
"Sadly... Vista with its extensive DRM technology was probably designed more than any other OS before it for this purpose."
You have used numerous posts in this thread discussing generalities of DRM which is not what my first post in this thread was about. It was specifically about Vista and its DRM technology relating to privacy threats... NOT general DRM related to privacy threats...but.... the VISTA OS AND ITS DRM RELATED TO PRIVACY THREATS!
I have now spent almost an entire day asking for you get back on the topic of the first post I made in this thread. I have asked you over and over to provide any information or knowledge how my opinion about VISTA AND ITS DRM TECHNOLOGY being a possible privacy threat is wrong. You have completely misunderstood most of the arguments in my replies and you have continued to rant about your views about general DRM. I am burned out from trying to explain my opinion to you concerning Vista and its DRM.
I wish you the best of luck in all your other thread debates.
Ok, I've officially given up. DRM is the SAME FRIGGING THING regardless of the OS used, how is that so difficult to understand? Vista did not create and does not enable some "super duper special unbreakable" DRM technology. If you would bother to use a search engine, you would have found out in the first few results that the DRM tech in Vista was BROKEN by hacks before Vista even came out. In the last couple of posts where did I go off-topic? Please, inform me. I'VE spent the entire day trying to show you that DRM is DRM is DRM no matter the method, no matter the OS. I can't make it any simpler than that.
Edit: Last attempt. Ok, I'm linking some things for you, these from the early days of Vista that scared people into thinking their content wouldn't work:
Now, the TRUTH:
http://www.slyck.com/story1394.html: Pay close attention to the following from this link:
"Since the hack bypasses PatchGuard, does it compromise Vista's security (as in anti-malware/virus security, not DRM security)?
No, because even with PatchGuard disabled, malware that runs in kernel-mode still needs to be signed (unless code signing is also disabled). PatchGuard is more of a method of disabling insecure, badly written drivers that hook into the kernel, such as Anti-Virus or Intrusion Detection systems that don't use the proper documented methods of receiving system events.
Again, my work on PatchGuard was only an idea: since there have been multiple documented ways of bypassing PatchGuard from kernel-mode, and since my method allows access to the kernel, then my method could also bypass PatchGuard. I have not written the code to do so however, and I am told that the methods that can bypass PatchGuard are being patched in Vista."
Do you see any privacy-related issues in any of these? No, everyone was up in arms because they THOUGHT Vista would break their systems, kill their movie/music files. I'll leave it at this, Vista's DRM is the same DRM that's in everything. The ONLY difference is Vista's version is more thorough. That is IT.
Yeah right... I seen some other info Today, and Now know what needs to be done. This is BS. because Like I said, I get hits from them When just Browsing, Not p2p'in or anything like that. Heck, I'm pretty sure there has been some established connections even when doing nothing at all, ie., Not running any Program or Browsing, just sitting idle and connected. Even when idle and using a outbound firewall.
Have you checked your system for malware/viruses? What is this "other info"? Just because you don't get hits when only P2P'ing doesn't mean they still aren't ad servers or some other 3rd party connected with the website. Just about every website on the net has a connection with some other party in some way, even your ISP might have connections that are popping up. If your system is clean and your firewall isn't alerting, you're fine, it's just normal traffic.
Edit: Oh, hey, is it possible some of your software may have installed some 3rd party app that relays data back to a 3rd party server maybe? Check this thread to see what I mean: https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=214340
...You said that "DRM is the SAME FRIGGING THING regardless of the OS used, how is that so difficult to understand?"
YOU ARE WRONG. I have given you many examples in numerous posts in this thread explaining this over and over and over and you seem to have a mental block about this. Your statement even contradicts the same articles you said you liked ...from the links that I posted for you... wikipedia and the PC World article which talk about what DRM is and as they explained ...DRM systems are implemented differently and DRM is nothing more than a general TERM...like antivirus software or web browsers (IE, FF, etc.) ....and no...versions of those are not the same either and they also offer varying levels of protection and security...and they are implemented differently (IE was originally designed as an integral part of Windows)... and no...Vista is not the same as XP and no...Vista's implementation of DRM technology(s) is not the same as all other forms of DRM ( It was extensively designed into the Vista OS). That has been the point of every single reply I have made to you for the almost the past twenty four hour time period. I am afraid that if don't get it now you never will...and I am sorry that you can't comprehend this after I tried my best to explain it to you with my posts.
You've got to be kidding Did I ever say that DRM used the same implementation or "version"? No I did not. Did I even BEGIN to compare XP and Vista or Vista to anything else? No I did not. How is this going past your head?! I said DRM is the same thing meaning the same function, YOU misunderstood that to mean the same implementation. Whether you like it or not or want to comprehend it or not, antivirus and web browsers DO DO the same thing they are meant to do, a browser is a browser, an antivirus is an antivirus they BOTH DO THE SAME FUNCTION regardless of whether it's Firefox vs IE, or Avira vs Avast.
You just want to win this thing now because you've gone off the privacy track and hopped on to the general terms one. For the last time, DRM is DRM, antiviruses are antiviruses, and browsers are browsers. They do the SAME thing regardless of brand/type/features. You wanted to know if privacy was a factor in DRM, I showed you links explaining that the problem with Vista's implementation of DRM was NOT privacy, but the ability to play certain files, which were proven false. If you don't want your digital files checked for licenses, then sure, you can say you have a privacy issue. I even explained the privacy issue could be problematic if there was a flaw in the particular implementation, such as the Sony issue. Would you like me to get Bill Gates here to explain? I can tell you he'll be LESS forthcoming about DRM than I have been. And if you're so upset about my replies and think they are bulls**t, look things up, once again, at Google. What I find most disturbing about your inability to understand me is the fact that I spent nearly 24 hours arguing about it.
I have been 100% consistent about what I have been talking about through ALL of these posts in this thread. How do you want me to spell it out for you before you understand what I have written? I have been talking about "MS VISTA and its extensive DRM technology"...and yes MS means MICROSOFT and VISTA is their OS (which is an abbreviation for OPERATING SYSTEM) and DRM is a general TERM for DIGITAL RIGHTS MANAGEMENT. YOU are the one who disagreed with MY OPINION. Before disagreeing with someone's post maybe you should TRY to UNDERSTAND what they are saying and TRY READING their replies.
Obviously you either did not read or did not pay attention to my replies. To make it more clear and to joggle your memory since you do not have the patience to go back and review my replies. Just in case you missed it this was in my first reply to your original post where you disagreed with my opinion....
"You also seem to be implying that you understand exactly what went into the Vista code and what its capabilities are with enough certainty to say that it could not be used to spy on you?"
"It's good to know you seem to have all this specific knowledge about Vista and what its DRM technology is capable of because I sure don't."
So...before you accuse me or any other member of this forum of changing their topics maybe you should try reading and understanding their posts before you disagree with them.
...and another thing... why don't you go into some of the other areas of this forum and try to convince the other members that this statement you made is true....
"For the last time, DRM is DRM, antiviruses are antiviruses, and browsers are browsers."
...Go ahead...Make my day!
This has long gone past having a point to continue. DRM does what it does, and you can argue all day tomorrow too if you wish to dispute that fact. NOBODY knows the exact coding for the DRM except Microsoft, so we won't get anywhere with that either, and I never claimed to know it myself. This whole "Canada says Vista violates privacy" is a load of nonsense unless they can prove that just sitting there doing absolutely nothing, the computer connected out to all these 3rd parties. Has anyone ever thought about the fact that Akamai (one of the listed privacy violators) was and may still be the host for some of Microsofts services, including Windows Update? So of COURSE it will connect to Akamai's servers.
If you turn on your internet connection, use a program like Peerguardian that blocks certain IP addresses, you will see that just connecting out to ANYWHERE involves many servers/domains, it's the nature of the internet. DRM doesn't have a thing to do with it. If you consider connecting to other servers when using the internet a privacy violation, don't use it, because that isn't going to change.
HURRAY! We agree on something !!!! ....
"This has long gone past having a point to continue. DRM does what it does, and you can argue all day tomorrow too if you wish to dispute that fact. NOBODY knows the exact coding for the DRM except Microsoft, so we won't get anywhere with that either, and I never claimed to know it myself."
NOW all we need to agree on from my original one line post is that there is a POSSIBILITY that "Vista and its extensive DRM technology" could be a privacy threat. NOT that Vista and its DRM "IS" a privacy threat ...(at least as a threat more than any OS before it)... because we already agree that neither one of us really know whether its a threat...as in your statement above....but just acknowledge that it could possibly be a privacy threat. If you can agree with that then... in fact we are basically in agreement with my original single sentence post.
If you don't agree with the POSSIBILITY that Vista and its DRM technology could be a privacy threat then you could at least acknowledge that I have a reasonable argument to have that particular opinion. This would simply be a disagreement based on the fact we both lack evidence or information to prove it ....so we agree to have different opinions about this. BTW...I have no problem if you disagree with my opinion about this...I have no argument about having differing opinions.
I guess some progress actually could be made during this discussion...hopefully it won't take 24 hours next time.
Lol, I haven't put this much effort into trying to prove a point in quite some time. You and I DO agree we didn't program Vista's implementation of DRM, so no, you're right, we can't say for 100% sure there isn't a problem there. I do still have to stick by my point that a MAJOR privacy threat would LIKELY be the result of a flaw in the implementation of the DRM scheme used. It may turn out to not be the SOLE reason, but the most logical.
When considering the PURPOSE of DRM, then no, it really isn't meant as a privacy threat, just a protection for the licensed files, but when put to actual USE and, given certain circumstances (vulnerabilities and such), then yes, it very well could be a threat. That's been my point all along, I just got a little uppity and hot-headed about it. Your concern is not stupid in any way, shape, or form, I never meant that, it's just that I was assuming you were labeling DRM as a whole as a privacy threat.
Forgive my jumpiness
All jumpy tendencies are forgiven dw426! This thread presented many other general arguments that you were involved in regarding Windows privacy before I posted my Vista DRM comment so the it kind of threw the Windows privacy discussion into a slightly different direction. We were probably following different paths in the thread which lead to some additional confusion.
Its all good and I in turn didn't mean anything personal in my posts. From reading many of your past posts there are probably more topics in this forum that we agree on than ones where we disagree. I actually don't mind differing opinions since that much of what this forum is all about. Its great we could finally have some agreement about a topic in this thread while also having some passion about our own points of view.
Stay in the privacy forums long enough and you'll be afraid to sleep at night The world is changing pretty fast, and not all of it is good
Separate names with a comma.