expert from the University of Auckland, New Zealand, released a whitepaper in which he raises the following concerns against these mechanisms: Adding encryption facilities to devices makes them more expensive, a cost that is passed on to the user. If outputs are not deemed sufficiently protected by the media industry, then even very expensive equipment can be required to be switched off (for example, S/PDIF-based, high-end audio cards). Some newer high-definition monitors are not HDCP-enabled, even though the manufacturer may claim otherwise. The added complexity makes systems less reliable. Since non-protected media are not subject to the new restrictions, users may be encouraged to remove the protection in order to view them without restrictions, thus defeating the content protection scheme's initial purpose. Protection mechanisms, such as disabling or degrading outputs, may be triggered erroneously or maliciously, motivating denial-of-service attacks. Revoking the driver of a device that is in wide use is such a drastic measure that Gutmann doubts Microsoft will ever actually do so. On the other hand, they may be forced to because of their legal obligations to the movie studios. The Free Software Foundation conducted a campaign against Vista, called "BadVista", on these grounds. Reaction to criticism Ed Bott, author of Windows Vista Inside Out, published a three-part blog which rebuts many of Gutmann's claims. Bott's criticisms can be summarized as follows: Gutmann based his paper on outdated documentation from Microsoft and second-hand web sources. Gutmann quotes selectively from the Microsoft specifications. Gutmann did no experimental work with Vista to prove his theories. Rather, he makes mistaken assumptions and then speculates wildly on their implications. Gutmann's paper, while presented as serious research, is really just an opinion piece. Technology writer George Ou stated that Gutmann's paper relies on unreliable sources and that Gutmann has never used Windows Vista to test his theories. Gutmann responded to both Bott and Ou in a further article, which stated that the central thesis of Gutmann's article has not been refuted and the response of Bott is "disinformation". Microsoft published a blog entry with "Twenty Questions (and Answers)" on Windows Vista Content Protection which refutes some of Gutmann's arguments. Microsoft MVP Paul Smith has written a response to Gutmann's paper in which he counters some of his arguments. Specifically, he says: Microsoft is not to blame for these measures. The company offered this solution as an alternative to not being able to playback