>> >>> snipped-for-privacy@nospamplease.cox.reallynospam.net (T>>>> Sort of how the FCC has pretty much admitted that anyone with a
>>>> modicum of technical knowledge will be able to defeat the broadcast >>>> flag.
>>> I think you've mentioned this before, but what does it mean? The
>>> system as originally conceived requires the digital representation of
>>> flagged content to be protected by encryption on bus and media. I
>>> have more than a modicum of technical knowledge and I don't see an
>>> easy way around the proposed system in concept. Has the original
>>> system been abandoned? Or are you aware of some implementation flaw?
>> *Somewhere* in the TV set, the signal has to get decrypted, before it
>> can be presented to the CRT, or other actual 'display'.
>> Thus there *is* a "cleartext" signal running around inside the box.
>> Thus, someone with a reasonable amount of skill can 'tap' the cleartext
>> signal, and "voila!"
>> And there's always the "idiot method"-just point a camcorder at the TV.
> Thank you for that. Of course it runs clear somewhere in the set -- all
> you need to do is tap that signal.
Except that (according to the original proposal) it won't run in the clear anywhere you can "tap" without relatively sophisticated die probing equipment. Are you aware of some change in the approach or are you just assuming that the manufacturers will screw up the implementation? If the latter, remember that the original proposal also incorporates key revocation for compromised device families.
Funny you mention the camcorder. A coworker and I are geeks to the nth
> and considered that the only thing they can never stop.
Except that that has nothing to do with defeating the broadcast flag.
Dan Lanciani ddl@danlan.*com