Christoph Engemann

Master Quality Authenticated (MQA) is a new audio format promising studio sound at home and no DRM. We take a critical look both at the sound-quality aspects as well as on the DRM story of MQA.

Master Quality Authenticated (MQA) is an audio format introduced in 2014 promising to deliver studio sound at home. Marketed aggressively mostly to audiophiles two claims are central to MQA: no DRM and better sound through “deblurring temporal inaccuracies” introduced by ADCs and DACs in the signal chain. MQA is backed by the three major labels Warner, Universal and Sony and has support by a number of indie label rights agencies as well as by the Recording Industry Association of America. Rollout has started in 2016 and at IFA 2017 the major labels asserted their backing for the format. Streaming services Tidal, Deezer and Pandora as well as Groovers (Korea) 7digital and HDmusicstream offer MQA-streaming at a higher price-point as their regular offerings (20.- per month instead of 10). Companies like Onkyo, Pioneer, Sony, Rotel and NAD offer hifi-products supporting MQA and some smartphone makers like LG incorporated it too. MQA consists of a container format and a licensing regime for audio DACs. MQA files will play on any redbook-capable device and can be freely copied. The lowest bit of the file is used to store compressed spectral content above 24k and a control bit. If a MQA licensed DAC detects an MQA file it will “unfold” the high-rez content and turn on a blue light on the DAC. A lot of effort for a switching on a blue light ;) This talk will both scrutinize the DRM-regime of MQA and the sound-quality narrative. In the context of the latter we will look at MQAs assertion that the Shannon-Nyquist theorem is inadequate for audio-sampling as it purportedly introduces “temporal inaccuracies.” MQA claims to have incorporated “new psychoacoustic research” and advances beyond Shannon-Nyquist in sampling theory. The exact nature of this innovations remain unclear as MQA technology is proprietary and no independent third-party research is available. We will discuss these claims and show the status of the numerous MQA reverse-engineering efforts. So far it is know that MQA is PCM-based, uses minimum-phase filters and destructive compression for parts of the spectrum. It also lowers the available dynamic range and exhibits no behaviour proving any of their claims made in the marketing material. Still MQA at least managed to get the almost unequivocal support of the audio-press and at the same time is hotly debated online. With regards to the DRM aspect we will look at the marketing strategy of MQA and show how the company so far successfully controlled the narrative by narrowing the understanding of DRM to copying. The MQA DRM uses a both symmetric encryption as well as a PKI-component to authenticate files and devices. The DRM involves a clever mix of permissive licensing towards behaviour like copying while discriminating access by level of quality. Here we will discuss in how far such licensing design might be a model for future DRM-deployments and marketing. Finally we will discuss the systemic dimension of MQA in the context of music-streaming and control over assets like content, playback-devices (DACs) and licenses. With the platforms controlling the streaming market and playback devices (iPhone, Amazon smart speakers etc) on the one side, the record companies owning the content on the other side, MQA seems to attempt to establish licensing leverage for the content owners.

Other people: Anton.schlesinger@studio-singer.de

The military use of Drones has profoundly changed warfare and is a central aspect of the globalized war on terror. The public debate including the respective talks at prior CCCs is dominated by questions of the ethical and juridical aspects of Drone use. This talk tries to shift the focus towards the enabling dimensions of Drone warfare.

Using source material from public documents of academia, the US-military as well as from the Snowden publications I will show that Social Graphs and graph-analysis are central for the War on Terror. In this context Drones have at least two functions: 1. they act as data-gatheres, collecting visual and SIGINT (phone) data necessary for graph-generation and -updates. 2. they are deployed to shape Social Graphs: that is destroy particular nodes with kinetic means where the kill decision are made on the basis of graph analysis. I will show that there is a rich academic literature on graph analysis of terror networks revealing an ongoing debate about algorithms able to inform such decisions. On this basis I will argue that in the War on Terror Drones and Social-Graphs need to be understood as interdependent systems and that the debate needs to be informed by a deeper understanding of the history and current state of graph-analysis. The talk will conclude with questions regarding the strategic and geopolitical role of Social Graphs.

Talk introducing NSTIC and COM 238, i.e. the current digital identity policy proposals in the USA and European discussing their similarities, differences and possible conflicts.

In the past two years both the US Government as well as the European Commission have declared their intend to create “Identity Ecosystems” and are actively pursuing the creation of regulatory and technical frameworks for digital authentication of their citizens. Both the USA and the European Union expect the implementation of state-recognized digital identities in the coming three to five years. The American initiative is called “National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace (NSTIC), its European counterpart “electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the internal market“ (COM(2012) 238). Given the scope of these programs, the number of people affected and the fact that identity technologies necessarily have to negotiate conflicting values of individual liberty and social control, it is reasonable to expect that the developments around NSTIC and COM (2012) 238 will become dominant in the debate on the future of the Internet. In my talk I will introduce the basics of the White Houses NSTIC initiative and the European Unions COM(2012) 238, explaining the common traits as well as the conflicting aspects of the electronic identity programs of two of the worlds largest and most influential state entities. I will outline how both programs share the assumption that providing “secure” and “trusted” identities is essential for the future development of the Internet, is necessary to fully realize citizenship status on the Net as well as to foster further economic growth. I will also scrutinize the importance and function of the term “transaction” that is prominent in both NSTIC and COM (2012) 238. Subsequently I will show that NSTIC and COM (2012) 238 differ fundamentally in their view on the role of the state, of the private sector and of civil society in providing and controlling the standards, protocols and infrastructures of digital identities. Here I will outline how the NSTIC employs a neoliberal market rhetoric, declaring that “the Identity Ecosystem should be market- driven“ while the European Union follows an etaistic vision of governmental identity provision. In this context I will show the importance of the different approaches between Europe and the USA concerning the relation of existing offline and online identity solutions. The goal of the talk is to raise awareness to the importance of these programs, to enable an understanding of the paradoxes of digital identity provision and its function in both enabling and sustaining statehood and capitalism. The talk will close with a statement locating the differences between the European and the United States approach in the larger conflict on the question of means and legitimacy of intervening and regulating capitalism. Duration 40 mins + 20 min discussion, presentation style will be slides and accompanying talk, discussion afterwards.