I wanted to repeat a comment I made in the thread about Cory's talk - as I'd be interested in the answer.<p>Many of today's printers, scanners and image editors already ship with restrictions designed to prevent the counterfeiting of currency. In effect general-purpose digital imaging has already been restricted.<p>What I wonder is how are these restrictions implemented, legally? Do laws or regulations require it? Or is it ad-hoc? Are OEM vendors persuaded or paid to implement it by the proprietors of the pattern matching technology (who in turn sell it to currency mints), or they concerned about vicarious liability if they don't?<p>I'm interested because this may serve as a template for how other restrictions are implemented in future.
While this is something that we have to remain vigilant about (case in point, vigorous opposition to SOPA), I think the cat's much too far out of the bag to actually worry about general-purpose computing itself.<p>To effectively prohibit <i>any</i> general-purpose computer, the government would effectively have to forbid the sale of transistors and solder.<p>What Microsoft, Apple or any particular hardware or software company chooses to do might be objectionable and annoying but it can hardly threaten open computing itself: I can always build my own PC and install linux.
I saw Cory's talk at the 28c3 in Berlin. There is a video available here: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg</a><p>You might agree not on everything but I think it's a great talk to give non-technical people an idea what might happen.
I find it somewhat ironic that DRM, SOPA and all the other various techniques designed to prevent copyright infringement are being championed by the politicians of a country who's attitude towards firearms control is "guns don't kill people, people kill people".<p>Movies don't download themselves, people download them.
Whether hardware is locked down or not, it will soon become quite obvious that it is the internet that has all the value. Be it an open, a general or proprietary device, they will ALL see their value diminish without and within the network. This network cannot be unborn.
If this happens, does this mean that manufacturers or vendors will have to practically <i>give away</i> computers? They're already so cheap that even the slightest tech-savvy consumer will just go ahead and pay a tiny, small premium for the ability to do whatever.
Cory is a tremendous fiction writer, but this particular article isn't. Sure the government passes bad laws. They always will. How did prohibition work out?<p>A talented hacker has much more power than any official. If people want 'locked' systems that can't be hacked it shouldn't ruffle your feathers. They're not hackers.<p>If you close the door on reality it <i>will</i> come in the window every time.<p>The sky is always falling. The end is always near.
The article raises some interesting points, but I think the author makes a major error by misusing the terms 'spyware' and 'malware' multiple times throughout.<p>The term 'spyware', in particular, has a well-defined meaning which indicates that the malicious software is communicating data back to the creator in order to exploit the user unknowingly. The author of this article uses the term to refer to non-general-purpose computers, and I think that's exceptionally misleading. The iPad could be considered a non-general-purpose computer, but most people would not go around labeling it as coming pre-loaded with 'spyware'.