What is Digg?197 Comments
- kujeger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9And what happens if I sell my computer?
- schwit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Looks 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. - mushoo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6So any self respecing geek will have two machines. One for the legal, boring web. One for the 1337OMGHAXXORZINTARWEBSFTUNOOB, where everyone will be hacking gibsons galore.
- fedgers, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Goddamit, why do people do NO research! Just look up DAA for goodness sake. This will get you started: http://www.zurich.ibm.com/security/daa/
For those that can't be bothered to read, DAA = Direct Anonymous Attestation. It's a method of attesting that a device is trusted whilst remaining anonymous.
Please, please look at the TPM specification before posting this kind of stuff. There is a whole section about privacy. They are going by the W3C's P3P guidelines. - t35t0r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4You already have TPM in your machine if you own one of these:
http://www.tonymcfadden.net/tpmvendors.html
It probably isn't turned on however and even if the system powers it up it cannot be accessed unless your OS gives outside processes access to read the device. - mancat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Yeah, I remember how well this went over the first time that Intel tried it with the P3 serial ID.
- jayhawk88, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3What's interesting here is the emphasis being put on hardware being responsible for determining who you are. Obviously with people like Intel, AMD, and Microsoft (one copy of Windows per machine) behind this you would expect it, but it's totally the wrong way to go about things.
People are comparing this to drivers license, but that's not accurate. Your drivers license is tied to you, not your car. Regardless of what Intel and AMD would like you to believe, the Internet has turned the computer into a commodity, much like the car. Ownership aside, it doesn't matter what car you drive, it performs the same function: getting you from Point A to Point B. Computers are the same; it doesn't matter what computer you use, it takes you to the same internet. Right now of course it's not that simple because people are still tied to their individual machines somewhat, but it's pretty clear that in another 10 years or so this probably won't be the case. Already technologies exist where a person could live a reasonable digitial existance without even owning a computer, keeping all their information online accessible from any internet-ready machine.
If you want user identification, you need to build systems around the idea of identifying the user, not the computer they are using. - drycounty, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I don't think it's going to be nearly as easy to implement as this article states. Again, what happens if you are running Linux, MacOS, etc.? And what happens if I buy a used computer? Or sell mine?
- bariswheel, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Sounds like a driver's license to drive a car on the road....
makes sense....a little scary, but makes sense.
I think this is inevitable. You're probably going to have a choice to have TPM on your computer or not....if you do have it, you have access to much more webspace...if you don't, you're going to be subject to a poor man's web...this seems to be where the platform is going...what do you think? - aztekm30, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I find it funny how america is built on freedom, yet there own companies find ways to control there own people. America is about profit, and it will cheat steal and kill to make as much money as possible. “Power corupts, absolute power corupts absolutley.”
- Zorn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Just don't buy the product.
- diecastbeatdown, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2i'm glad people remember the P3 incident from Intel. They thought putting your info in the chip was the way to go, wrong. nobody bought it, people were pissed and they got really bad press over the matter. same goes for what is coming up, will you buy one? from the sounds of it most likely the answer is no judging from the comments.
things like this and palladium and any other type of way to control things are usually either disregarded when people chose to simply not make use of that technology.
google on the other hand, they already have your identity under wraps based on ip and login credentials so don't worry - it will come eventually if we want it to or not. - Oddball_One, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Bad, very bad. 1984 here we come.....
- Lewisham, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This is a load of crap. I just wrote a grad term paper on Trusted Computing.
1. The TPM never ever authenticates who it is to third parties. It uses an obscenely complicated process called DAA in its remote attestation protocol, which means its ID is never broadcast. What it does is verify what software you are running. It does NOT NOT NOT log you into anything. It doesn't release its serial number. This is just false. The only inference you could make is that you ship a software package with an unique ID to each user, and then when you request the hash of the software, you would get a different one for each and could infer identity by that.
2. The TPM does not in any way shape or form validate who you are. This is just pie in the sky BS. It validates what machine it is on, and whether it recognises the state. That way you can't try and circumvent protections by booting into a different OS.
The only thing the author gets right is "Ultimately the TPM itself isn’t inherently evil or good." It depends how it is used. All of this stuff is already possible in software. It just isn't done. Why? Because it's bad business, as Sony found out. The TPM makes bad business easier, but it doesn't make any more sense to employ it for those reasons. - lasermike026, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I will not buy a computer with this CRAP in it. I will support companies that oppose this CRAP.... am I making myself perfectly clear?
- t35t0r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2you can't solder SRAM out of your CPU
- saitoh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It might just be me, but it seems like something that would be very easy to spoof if it's just like ordinary HTTP protocol...presumably the browser will decide what information gets sent, and if you can find out other peoples IDs then i'm sure this is going to create alot more identity problems than it'll solve.
- tetfsu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm digging this not because I agree with it (probably like most everyone else) but because this needs to be known. This is pretty scary stuff. People will say "but if you're not doing anything "illegal" then you won't have to worry. I think that's bull. It's still an invasion of civil rights.
Just my 2 cents. - horanghee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"And should a media or software company come up with overly Draconian restrictions on how its movies or music or programs can be used, consumers will go elsewhere."
Should read "And media and software companies will hide notifications of Draconian restrictions in 10 page user agreements." - Ribald_Jester, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I love how everyone thinks these chips can simply be "modded" to remove them. I tend to think it will be incredibly difficult to remove them and that once TPM is enabled, we are stuck with it.
What I'd like to see is the ability to disably *all* of these so called features in the BIOS.
Fat chance of that happening.
Welcome to the new police state. We are your new overlords. - tonyellard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1jayhawk - The thing about cars though is that cars have VIN numbers. When you register your car with the DMV, and get a copy of your cars title, and get insurance, you are connecting yourself, specifically through your SSN most likely, to your car and it's VIN.
Now, that's not what they are proposing for computers...yet...Imagine if you had to register your computer like your car though. Your computer's "CIN" (Computer Identification Number) associated with your SSN and anyone on the internet being able to tell exactly who you are.
Pull that out further...What if a "bad guy" on the internet sniffs at your packets, gets your CIN, searches a government database and gets your SSN, Drivers License number, etc. Then gains remote control over your computer and now can order all the credit cards he wants to from the comfort of your zombie PC...
And what if flying monkeys shoot out my ass... - deepsub, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"I think this is inevitable. You're probably going to have a choice to have TPM on your computer or not"
I'll pick or not. And so will alot of other people.
"if you don't, you're going to be subject to a poor man's web."
Based on what? -Your- speculation? The web was better when it was 'poor' anyway.
Like someone said before, what if the machine is sold? What if my little cousin, while using my machine, accidentally accesses a terror or hate web site? What if some hacker defeats yet another attempt at corporate facism? What if... someone spoofs my 'unique identifier' to 0wn my machine?
The intended audience for this is the entertainment industry, and I'm sure they're salivating at the prospect, but as happened with so many other serialization schemes, this too will be beaten, either in a hackers garage, or in the courts.
This 'chip' is a really bad idea. - twollamalove, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Another main point. Perhaps we've all forgotten that Apple's will be using Intel chips soon. Does anyone think that Apple will be against using TPM in the MAC OS? I think that's pretty distorted. I would estimate that Apple will try to race to this technology with MS. Don't forget, there's more money in wooing the entertainment industry than in wooing the consumers.
- r00tarded, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I don't think it'll have any real affect on purchasing as the vast majority of purchasers only care if it's 1) cheap 2) "fast" 3) being sold in their neighborhood Walmart, BestBuy, etc.
Consumers, for the most part, are stupid. The things that you or I would care about as "techies" are lost on the majority of consumers. - Wookie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's a good thing the open source community has a contingency plan for this scenario: http://www.opencores.org/pnews.cgi/list/or1k?no_loop=yes
We have our own RISC CPU now. - antonbondar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1and the next step after this chip hits the market is going to be the fact that it is going to be illegal not to have one..
insane. - NiX0n, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Boy I hope they don't expect this to be fool-proof. Anyone who really wants to spoof one of these TPMs, will. It's only a matter of time.
I think people are underestimating the number of internet active devices will be in our household in the next decade and beyond. Putting limits on the number of devices capable of accessing some web content for the sake of security is a gross inconvience. What is to happen when the devices, previously identified by our banks (and others), suddenly die and have to get a new board? Do we have to go through some tedious procedure of contacting our bank (and other secure sites) and reverifying our Identity? At that point, what is the point? If we have to reverify our identity on every new machine we use, why not just leave it at that. Jayhawk, I agree with you, developing better user identification is higher priority than developing computer identification.
I think corps are using Internet Security as a smokescreen for better DRM and Copyright management. As much as that sounds like a paranoid conspiracy therory, I wouldn't put anything past these big corporations. - twollamalove, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Another plus for the TPM is that your computer will be able to make sure that it’s really a legitimate e-commerce site you’re connected to, and not some phishing-style fraud."
How to interpret:
If an online vendor like say Newegg doesn't join our coalition, the TPM module will tell the user it's phishing. It's perfect. - Chango_Family, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I for one welcome our new ID overlords.
Crap, wrong forum! - etx313, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Thats why I use an apple."
God you people are stupid. Apple is all about this *****, and they already put TPM in their new hardware. - SmeRndmGy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1maybe this will give the AMD fanboys some humility.
- aaarg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Thats why I use an apple." (this infinitely retarded comment came from silverdragon and was then repeated by other lovers of the mac)
you mac fanboys are freaking ridiculous....if you RTFA then you see it includes IBM and AMD (which if AMD does something then Intel will or vice versa.) you think steve is gonna make his own processor because he loves people with iSuck stuff? say no to drugs dumbass
on a positive note........this will be cracked in short order and sony is the devil - DogWings, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1- if it's built into the chip, how will building your own computer do any good? are you going to build your own chip?
- using a mac make a difference once they start using intel chips
- 99% of people use windows, and ms could sneak the same type of thing in with an automatic update if they wanted. maybe they already have it, who knows?
- the loss of privacy sucks, but welcome to the modern age. privacy is already dead. - ilselu1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Inconceivable! Big Brother loves this ***** fo sho. Bastards.
- Elranzer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Which motherboards will support privacy and which won't?"
Unfortunately for AMD fanbois, AMD's will be those that won't. - there, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1
In the corporations defense---there is ZERO wrong with companies choosing to put TPM in there products. If you don't like it-- don't buy their product. They shouldn't be forced to sell you anything. Free country.
However having said that, it would also be unethical for them to try and create legislation that FORCES consumers (at government gunpoint) to buy TPMed hardware/software.
In practice if they play hardball with DRM portion of TPM, they'll be crushed in terms of sales by competitors that don't. So it seems probable they might try to legislate TPM (backed my RIAA and MPAA). More likely they will just lull consumers into slowly adopting TPM by creating moderate chaos with non-DRMed products (Ala MS version of Java, or IPod DRM) rather than flat out flipping a switch denying access to everything completely.
As for hackers...sure they'll beat TPM-- corporations already know that dah. However it will probably require a hardware hack which is a lot different than a software crack. Besides DMCA making such a thing a criminal offense, you will have to find someone to physically alter your box and pay for it.
Ultimately the strategy will lose though. Companies tend to focus on profit and couldn't care less about the "big picture". Here it is.
Computers are bought to access content not to watch bits go flying by.
Bottom line:
A. You don't sell 40 GB Ipods to millions of users that paid for all the music to fill it up. We all know this Steve. We think your great but you need to get off the DRM pulpit.
B. Users have no reason to upgrade their computers if they can't afford content.
This is a battle between content providers and hardware companies. They're just too blinded by greed to realize it yet. They play both sides of the coin then blame the consumer when consumers (just like them) naturally do what is in their best interests.
Wake up boys--the consumers are the ones that made you billionaires. Don't mess around with us. We have long memories once we reach our breaking point. All you need do is ask US car manufacturers how their sales are doing. I have no problem buying Chinese products that will be cheaper and better for my needs.
If you remove users ability to access content (legal or illegal) they'll have less incentive to buy your product (and more to purchase others) or simply just not to bother upgrading. This will kill innovation.
Basically you need to figure out which pocket you want to take from consumers--hard or soft. We simply don't have money for both.
The way I look at it software,music, movies have fixed costs to produce but are not a scarce resource like hardware and are infinitely cheaper to distribute. Therefore the rules of economics are obviously different to some degree. The MPAA and RIAA had a window in history where they make wads of cash without any real competition. That window is now closing with the Internet and they're going to be forced into real competition as alternate distribution channels exist and profit models (e.g. free--subsidized by ads)
That's liberty. Hey Rupert have some sense of consistency here. You can't whine about less government intervention then cry to the government for legal subsides (e.g. DMCA) because the new economy is creating competition.
All you hollywood types. This all applies to you. And Gates, why not have an ad based windows?
There are alternative to all out information war and draconian government tracking. All that does is breed paranoia for everyone and create a warrior class of lawyers you'll have to pay billions to anyway.
- my three cents (pretty long post :) - dravidian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is retarded. And all you Mac fanbois that think you're immune from this need to think again - Apple has already done this with iTunes and their restricted music files. But I have no doubt that people will find a way to bypass this crap the same way we've bypassed DVD and other copyrights
Dont these companies get it? You cant supress the free nature of the internet and mankind. All its gonna take is some company to spit out a compatible chip that doesnt have this and people will buy them. - bitz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The internet had anonymity? That's news to me. You want a anonymous internet, there is only one that works and is fast, http://www.i2p.net
Then again most of you probably don't want it, are not smart enough to use it and lets face it still use junk like kazaa and internet explorer. - SenatorPenguin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It doesn't matter if this is opt in. If it becomes widespread enough, all major institutions will force you to enable it to use their services. They will require you to turn it on just like they do cookies and javascript. Eventually, everyone will require it just because they can, and we will be stuck to the edge of the internet. Not that I don't like the open-source-Linux-Mac-toting edge, but the thought of not being able to use Paypal, banks, airlines, Amazon, credit cards, etc. online without TPM really pisses me off.
- pauls101, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If they get away with this, it will only be a matter of time before it's required (by an ISP, for example) to access the 'net. I'll pick up a few extra mobo's, but not thousands.
The sad thing is that it would be good to be able (sometimes) to prove one's identity on the internet (ebay sellers, etc.) That might turn out to be a slight side effect, but I flat out don't trust my government, much less sony and friends, to use this technology. They're at least as much my enemy as any terrorists (never met one of those), and a lot more pervasive. And they want to enslave rather than merely kill. - clevershark, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Some people will accept any loss of rights and privacy if you raise the specter of 9/11 -- no matter how completely irrelevant the measures are.
- madjack3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin - burndive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is exactly the same thing as the next-gen DVD formats having "managed" copy. It's DRM, and all that matters in a DRM system is that enough people have it and are ignorant that it takes away their rights (or they just plain don't care) to make a viable market. They can then release content only to those who wish to participate in their little controlled environment, and not to anybody else.
It's an outright lie to say that this doesn't hurt those who don't wish to participate in "trusted" computing. They will be excluded from the market, in the same way that not having the Mark of the Beast excludes you from buying and selling in the book of Revelation.
No, "trusted" computing is not the Mark of the Beast. But I can't imagine it's all that different in principle.
My point is that most people will buy the BS that this somehow protects them, and buy into the system. And it *will* protect them. It will take away their responsibility for safeguarding their computer and put it in more capable hands. They will go on about their merry little way, and will have no objection to MicroSonIntel/AMD/Whatever totally controlling their box and removing or preventing "untrusted" activities. Meanwhile those of us who believe that what we do on our machines is none of their damned business will have to chose between giving up our freedom and privacy by installing their DRM, or not doing business with the "big dogs" at all.
Eventually, all movies will be released only in content-protected formats, and all music will be DRM-ed. Eventually, all computers will have this chip. Unless of course there are enough people who aren't willing to give up their rights so as to make such a move by the industries economically unfeasable. - tannergdog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"It also checks the software running on the computer to make sure it hasn’t been altered to act malevolently when it connects to other machines."
How?
...and then this... "....post 9/11," Yeah, you don't have a security story until you can tie it to 9/11, do you.
Crap article. - streetstealth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1FTA: "There would still, of course, be ways that you could access your bank or e-commerce accounts from other computers when you were traveling, but the connection wouldn’t be as secure as using your own computer."
Then TPM is by definition useless. Either you force the use of TPM for all users (impossible), or you leave a weaker link open. If your house has a 12" steel reinforced vault door in front and a standard door with a deadbolt in back, which one will a thief try to pick?
Agreed, the article is pie-in-the-sky BS. - outside4, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It will give "sheeple" a false sense of security. Some people just can't accept now that to be free means that some abuse freedom, and little ideas like this only hamper "freedom" because those that seek to abuse it will always find a way.
Also sounds like a great way to hamper free speech in countries by giving governments (China?) a more easier way to track messages from computers and cell phones.
They say my chicken is free-range. Too bad we aren't... - freedompower, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1OMG, I can think of many way this will make the Internet LESS secure if people start _relying_ on this thing. This will be so much fun to hack.
- adam.skinner, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Windows computers will enforce this. Linux (and other roll your own operating systems) will make it optional. And they will also allow you to send fake ident for those sites/etc that require it (probably generating a new one every so often).
- databyss, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1No banking or company that provides a useful internet service will restrict you to this.
What good is an online service if you can only use it from one computer? Not useful to me. - digitarius, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The questions will not be:
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?
But rather: Which ISPs will even let you log in without this? And how long will it be before politicians are bribed into thinking that this should be required to be even able to play music or movies on the computer? Or even in DVD players?
The implications are frightening. -
Show 51 - 100 of 193 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is