msnbc.msn.com — Several computer hardware and software manufacturers, including AMD, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Microsoft and Sun, have gotten together and created a chip that will be built into computers that will, for all intents and purposes, broadcast a unique identifier that anyone will be able to read when you access the Internet.
Dec 15, 2005 View in Crawl 4
schwitDec 15, 2005
Looks like they want to implement the Sony vision of computing and the internet.Which motherboards will support privacy and which won't?Which OS's will support privacy and which don't?What software and hardware will support privacy and what won't?Answers will affect purchasing decisions.
calzoneDec 15, 2005
optron:"I don't have problem with that. I would want to be totally anonymous only if I'd do something illegal (witch i don't)"This is fine stance until they decide to pass a law against something you currently do.Everyone likes to lump the right to privacy with freedom. In fact, privacy is a weapon and so is covered by the right to bear arms.The whole purpose of the right to bear arms is so that should the government ever become corrupt, the citizens may fight back and re-establish a working government. Remember, government is here to serve us, not the other way around.
outside4Dec 16, 2005
"this will just keep honest people honest"Yes... cause we all need more control.. yes, that's the solution. And everyone will be so safe and content.
catbellerDec 16, 2005
"The whole purpose of the right to bear arms is so that should the government ever become corrupt, the citizens may fight back and re-establish a working government. Remember, government is here to serve us, not the other way around."No. Jefferson and all the others didn't intend for people to be armed so that the people could slaughter Jefferson and all the others. They weren't suicidal.People were armed anyway, so making it legal was no big deal. And back then there was no standing army. To mount a defense against Indians or the French, you raised an army of citizens, who mostly brought their own equipment. Alternatively you used slaves, or hired mercs. There simply wasn't enough money to support huge armories because Yankess were cheap bastards who didn't want to pay taxes.
hadeesDec 16, 2005
can we say modchips
trolleyfanDec 16, 2005
You know, I worry about "Big Brother" too - but in a world where Homeland Security is still using machines with Win95 on them, and manually retyping info to transfer it from system to system (<a class="user" href="http://news.com.com/Aging+computers+hobble+Homeland+Security/2100-7348_3-5995856.html?part=rss&tag=5995856&subj=news),">http://news.com.com/Aging+computers+hobble+Homeland+Security/2100-7348_3-5995856.html?part=rss&tag=5995856&subj=news),</a> is Big Brother actually coming anytime soon?
turminator999Dec 16, 2005
somebody is going to get digg number 1984 real soon, so if you do get a screenshot of it.
ghostaliazDec 16, 2005
Look people are we living in the USA or Soviet Union. I am so tired of these Money grubbing Gov Nuts trying to make us all crooks for a download or something like that. This is getting crazy, but I bet atleast all the computer geeks will think the next time you vote republican. I am sorry I will not upgrade or I will get someone to make my own cpu & motherboard or go and buy it from a foreighn country, but that crap will never be in my machine and all it is going to do is create more hackers because now more people are going to have to learn more advance tech options and ways just to keep our noisey gov out of our biz and computer, plus people if you use Linux I bet it won't work, but you know also there will be hacks around this even if I have to pick up a Soldering Iron because I will never let these gov idiots control something I bought for me and build for me, scr*w them. old shribbled up republican idiots.
lucaskDec 16, 2005
@ Joker Clipper chip was a proposed security encryption protocol, not an ID based system.
outside4Dec 16, 2005
catbeller said: "People were armed anyway, so making it legal was no big deal. And back then there was no standing army. To mount a defense against Indians or the French, you raised an army of citizens, who mostly brought their own equipment. Alternatively you used slaves, or hired mercs. There simply wasn't enough money to support huge armories because Yankess were cheap bastards who didn't want to pay taxes."Maybe you work for the UN?Can't make this into a 2nd Amendment debate here. Talk about major thread drift. But however since this is out there, what you are saying here is patently false; and viewing US history through a view that tries to throw away a huge amount of facts which dispel with what you just said. The 2nd Amendment IS about protecting the freedom and sovereignty of Individual Rights. Without it, allt he other amendments are just words on a piece of paper if common people cannot defend them. This makes socialists or other people who view the power comes not from the people, but the government - nervous.