Microsoft Is Playing A Dangerous Game... One Which the United States Could Lose

LXer Feature: 25-Apr-06 This article is a response to "Microsoft Is Playing A Dangerous Game... One Which Linux Could Lose", which appeared on LXer a few days ago. In his article, Ken Starks argues Linux could lose because of the anti-Linux tactics of Microsoft, including Port25 and DRM-technology. While Ken and I are both lobbying for Linux, and I think the same about DRM, I don't agree that Linux will lose. I feel obliged to inform US citizens about a bigger danger: The US as a country will lose because of Microsoft tactics, and not Linux. Most important, they will lose because of DRM.

First a personal note. While this article is very negative about the US democracy, don't think I don't like the US and its citizens. It's only the system, and the people representing that system. I live in a free democracy (The Netherlands) because US citizens gave their lives for me sixty years ago, and I own a computer and many other thinks because US citizens invented those. I like a lot of movies made by Hollywood movie studios. Though this story might look like an anti-US rant, it is more an attempt to warn US citizens for the dangers they are facing; I can't be silent if their freedom and democracy is at stake. And, just like the American people cared about our freedom and democracy, now it's time for me to care about their freedom and democracy. So, see this as an attempt to help.

A second note: More or less, this story is also applicable to the EU.

'Democracy'

From my viewpoint, this is how the United States 'democracy' works:

• American people buy a lot of things. They buy a car from GM, fuel from ExxonMobil, a desktop with Microsoft Windows on it, and they buy films from the movie studios in Hollywood. As a result of that, the group of American multinationals, called group X here, becomes rich.
• The American multinationals in group X have big ambitions. They want to become even richer. Therefore, they need to be more important and more powerful. The law is sometimes a hindrance to this ambition. Therefore, the law has to be changed.
• American multinationals give money to political parties A and B. They don't give it for free: they want something in return for it. To remind the politicians of their duty to do something in return for group X, they hire lobbyists. This can be seen as a kind of clientelism, a term normally not interrelated with the US by most people.
• Laws are passed, and hindrances are taken away, in favour of group X. The politicians of political parties A and B don't demand ecologically sound cars in favour of GM, they don't sign the Kyoto protocol in favour of ExxonMobil, and they pass the DMCA in favour of both Microsoft and the movie studios in Hollywood.
• To make this all _look_ like a 'democracy', political party A and B organize elections, using the money of group X. People can vote for party A, funded by group X, or vote for party B, surprisingly also funded by group X.
• In proposition logics, this is known as or-elimination: You vote for party A, and as a result group X wins, or you vote for party B, and as a result, group X wins. Since there aren't any viable alternatives for group A and B, group X always wins.
• Group X becomes more powerful and more important. Because the laws politicians pass for them, they can become richer. As a thank-you, politicians may stay on the positions where they are, and group X passes more money to party A and B.
• The vicious circle becomes round, and all stays as it is for a while.

In the short term, this is very good for the American economy; the American companies become richer and richer, and the US economy grows. Therefore, group X can spend more money on innovation, research and development. As a result of this, the United States gathers more 'intellectual property' and becomes technologically more advanced.

Sometimes, people complain, and want a part of their lost democratic powers back. That's OK, since group X can pass any law to stop the people from complaining. If you look close at this system, these people pay group X to pass laws to stop them from complaining and from regaining their democratic powers.

Breaking out of the vicious circle

• Stop buying products from group X
• Start a revolution,
• Wait till the system collapses

The first isn't going to happen, because US citizens don't understand the system they live in, and moreover, simply need, and more important, _want_ the products from group X. The second is happening as I write, but in a polite, not chaotic way. For example, separate US states are following the Kyoto protocol, getting around the federal government. The third is also happening, and that's what the rest of this article is about.

As told, party A and B pass laws in favour of Microsoft. They make it a criminal offence to circumvent DRM or use Windows without paying for it. As evidence, look at the article Microsoft helped write Oklahoma computer law.
The law forbids 'fraudulent or illegal' activities. As a result of that, Microsoft may delete any file from your computer which it finds 'fraudulent or illegal' without breaking the law. If you rip mp3's from an old Beatles LP you legally own, Microsoft might say: 'Hey, those mp3's don't have the right DRM permissions, so they are illegal, and we are legally permitted to erase those mp3's from your computer'. The question who's going to control what's illegal and what's not, is not answered as far as I know. Therefore, Microsoft can erase any file from your computer if they find it to be 'fraudulent or illegal', which might be the case for anything Microsoft doesn't like, like this anti-Microsoft article on my harddisk right now.

Worse: Because Microsoft is dependent on political party A and B in their ambitions to grow further, they might do that parties a favour and delete anything from a computer that those parties don't like. And, because Microsoft needs the Hollywood movie studios to gain money from the DRM technology, they might delete anything that the Hollywood movie studios don't like.

State security

• Microsoft doesn't like Linux, because it's an opponent. Since Microsoft is not able to destroy Linux on its own, it calls party A and B for help.
• Party A and B need a reason to help destroying Linux. Microsoft helps them, and reminds party A and B of the so called 'intellectual property'.
• An important person from Microsoft threatens some big countries with WHO measures if they don't respect the intellectual property owned by Microsoft, which, as he says, are infringed by Linux.
• Microsoft lobbies with all kind of US government-institutes to make them use Microsoft Windows instead of Linux, saying it's more secure, and costs less.
• As a result, US government will use Microsoft Windows everywhere. If the desktops with Microsoft Windows are featured with DRM technology, Microsoft has access to all documents on this computer.
• There's a terrorist Z. He wants information about the things the US government is doing. Since their might already be terrorists working for Z _inside_ the United states, what would be the simplest way for him to reach his goals?

Don't become afraid immediately: The US government really isn't that stupid. At the moment of writing, it uses Linux, because of all these issues. But that's only for really secret things. For 'less secret things', like information of departments of the police, the US government might still use Microsoft Windows, with the DRM technology enabled.

Lets see another example of how bad DRM technology can be for the US economy: A very bright person at American car manufacturer G, GM for example, discovers a great way to make cars run consuming one third of the fuel than in the past. In some country, China for example, there is a company Y, willing to steal that technology. Regrettably, the company of the inventor - company G - uses Microsoft Windows with DRM technology enabled. If you were company Y, how would you steal this technology?
Do I have to answer this question? I'd say you'd crack the Microsoft DRM servers, and gain access to all technical information company G has to offer.

Needless to say, there are more obstacles on the road. What if our doctors, psychologists and hospitals used Microsoft Windows with the DRM technology enabled? Microsoft could read all about my medical conditions. And if somebody at Microsoft with access to the server has some debts, he could scan desktops for credit-card numbers, or for information to blackmail some persons.

What if Microsoft doesn't like some person K, for example because that person K writes critical articles about Microsoft? That's simple for them: They could dig in all kind of files to find dirt; psychological, medical, police files and so on.
In the same way, if political party A does more for Microsoft than political party B, Microsoft might help to find dirt about a candidate for party B. Since American elections are for a great deal about finding dirt about your proponents, this is a rather likely scenario.

More abuse of DRM

With the aid of the Microsoft DRM servers, Microsoft could make really advanced databases (Google is already doing this) containing all kind of information about individuals. No need to say, this database would be extremely vulnerable to abuse by anyone wanting to abuse it, in the same way the administration of my country was abused by the Nazis in WWII. In the same way, the US Army could easily find out if people were gay, and after that, firing those people (this happened in the past).
I should add, this isn't the fault of the database, but it is the fault of the abusers. Nonetheless, we should learn from history, and make sure our administration isn't abused again. Therefore, we should ask ourselves the question if we want to enable such a database.

DRM technology is also a threat to freedom of speech. This is, because DRM technology has a system of read-permissions. If I don't have the permission to read something, I can't read it.
Now, let's say, there is a document which criticises the US government. All the government would have to do, is not to give other people the right to read that document. In other words, the technology would be a great help to censorship.

This would also be an ideal situation for the companies in group X. For example, we take the memos from the Halloween docs. Via a confidential memo, it came out how Microsoft saw Linux as a threat, while they said in public, Linux wasn't a threat. So, the memo made them look rediculous. Memo's which followed that memo, also brought money flows to light which probably were forbidden, from Microsoft to SCO.

Microsoft could have prevented the memos from becoming public, if the documents were under a DRM-system. If that was the case, the people at Microsoft could have given those memo a 'self-destruction' date, and people outside Microsoft wouldn't have had the rights to read the (encrypted) documents.

This would be very handy for a company which broke the law: Justice could'n read their DRM-containing documents without the rights, and the documents would self-destruct after a given amount of time. Needless to say, not only companies, but also terrorists could use this technology to their likings.

Risks for movie studios

• The movie studios don't want to enable the consumer to make illegal copies
• Microsoft and Intel (the latter being the inventor of DRM) offer help
• They make sure all consumers buy technology to consume DRM-protected content
• Microsoft and Intel are the ones giving out the rights to view movies
• Therefore, Microsoft and Intel could ask a share of the income of the movie studios. If movie studio W doesn't pay the royalties, Microsoft could stop giving consumers the rights to view movies from movie studio W, while those consumers could view all movies not coming from W.
• Consumers don't care if they can't use their equipment to view movies from W, as long as they can watch movies from the other fifteen (or so) movie studios.
• If movie studio W is the only one not viewable with the DRM equipment everybody owns, they will go bankrupt.
• Because the Hollywood movie studios will realize this, they will pay whatever royalties Microsoft asks them.

Conclusion

As a result of this, the countries which still have Linux at that time, and without DRM technology, will have more freedom, and probably also more economic growth.
The United States can seek a confrontation with China, for example because of the intellectual property. If that happens, the United States may take measures, like excise on cheap Chinese products. If that happens, the Chinese products will be more expensive than the American ones, which might sound good for the US economy.
On the other hand, people outside the US end up paying less for the same goods, so things are cheaper for them. So, this is still bad for US economy: the economic war with China will cause inflation because products become more expensive, and it will cause fear, uncertainty and doubt (in an economic way here!).

Preventing this

• Forbid companies to fund political parties. Use federal and individual funding instead, and ensure public notice of all individual funding.
• Forbid DRM in the way MS wants it.
• If there will be any kind of DRM, make sure only a trustworthy third party (read: a party the consumers trust) has access to the DRM servers, and never give companies access to those servers! This party should account for the things they do to the citizens, and citizens should be able to be in the management of this party to control it.