Talk:Vassar CTF Essay

From Wise Nano

DRM claims a bit thinly supported

"In addition to maximizing profit, this sort of strategy should greatly reduce any humanitarian concerns regarding the distribution of MNT products. The public generally accepts the existence of restricted software without resentment. "

I don't know what you've been reading, but I know of all kinds of resentment over restricted software, movies, and music. Surely you must have heard of the Free Software movement, which is entirely built upon "resentment" of proprietary software restrictions.

As for music, a day doesn't go by when someone somewhere on the Internet is cursing some form of Digital Restrictions Management imposed by corporate profiteers. The resentment is so bad, Apple's iTunes Music Store - the largest legitimate music download service - permits people to bypass their Fairplay DRM by burning unrestricted CDs of music they purchased. Sony has even gone so far as to have their customer service people //teach// people how to crack the DRM on cds they sell - essentially inducing their own custoemrs to commit a federal felony under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 1998.

"Nanostructured physical objects can be made more difficult to hack than either software or contemporary hardware, so the restrictions on use built into MNT products can be more robust than those built into today’s printers or software."

Modern DRM for digital media is consistently broken, and is not even implemented in the strongest technically feasible manner in many cases. Even if it were implemented correctly, it is simply too easy to circumvent using the "Analog Hole". What, exactly, makes you think Nanofactory DRM or Trusted Computing ("Trusted Manufacturing"?) will be any different? Do you have any references to ANY even theoretical research showing how DRM could be effectively applied to nanofactories? If it were possible, don't you think we'd have working DRM systems today for digital media?

DRM failures for music, movies, and software are not that big of a deal. Nobody ever died from cracking a DVD. Applying a consistent failure of a technology as DRM to REALLY dangerous systems such as nanofactories is pure folly. In doing so, we risk being lulled into a false sense of security, turns out to be far more dangerous than even deploying nanofactories without restrictions of any kind, since it disarms users of the means to protect themselves, and deceives them into believing they are protected when they are not.

--Nato Welch http://n8o.r30.net/

Nanofactory DRM may be more robust Chris Phoenix, CRN 18:51, 10 May 2006 (CDT)

Nanofactories won't have an "analog hole" in the same way media does. The closest equivalent would be reverse engineering. Of course, if the whole product can be scanned automatedly to generate a blueprint, and if an unrestricted nanofactory is available to execute said blueprint, and if the product didn't include some built-in DRM of its own that would have to be hacked, then there'd be a pretty big hole. But those are pretty big ifs.

Most of the public doesn't seem to resent copy protected software. (Media is another matter.) If the public resented appropriately, they would resent end-user licenses. Some of them are pretty abusive; and the whole concept is abusive as implemented. But people just blindly click "I agree" without any clue that they've given Macromedia the right to audit their system and included another two dozen license files "by reference."

Any computer is a general-purpose bit-reading mechanism. There is no equivalent general-purpose nanostructure-reading mechanism, and there is no strong commercial reason to make one available to the public, and it would be very useful in circumventing restrictions, so it's likely to be a highly restricted technology. If nano-DRM works, such tech may even stay restricted for a few crucial years.

Unlike data files, products may detect scanning attempts and scramble themselves. (There need not be an off switch; you can run a nanocomputer for decades on a ridiculously small amount of fuel.)

Good point about the false sense of security, if/when the hypothetical nano-DRM is finally cracked. But I don't know whether your "means to defend themselves" argument holds up. The Internet has lots of general-purpose data paths and processors, and no restrictions, and lots of white-hat programmers, and only a few major black-hats. When I stop receiving spam, I'll accept that argument.

Chris

No DRM claims were made

I absolutely NEVER suggest that public access to nanofactories is controllable. The whole discussion is about maximizing profit for a company making nanofactory products. I talk about restrictions on nanofactory products. Restriction on existing products work well. Hardware hacking almost never happens. How many people do you know who have modified their discount printers to remove the restrictions on printing speed? The sort of product I am talking about is, for instance, a nanomanufactured car that won't work outside of Ghana. This will enable it to be sold for less to a poor market without cannibalizing first world sales.

Michael Vassar