No More Internet Anonymity

inkhaton writes "This Article tells of an Orwellian chip that, once installed in your computer (and not by your choice), will allow any website you visit to "read" your identity. The article goes on to describe how many benefits there are for using this to facilitate online business and even suggests some negative points. It ends with "Ultimately the TPM itself isn't inherently evil or good. It will depend entirely on how it's used, and in that sphere, market and political forces will be more important than technology." ... ugh. Well we all know what that means."

Comments

Real Identity?

[mysqlrocks]

Your real identity or someone who used your computer while they were over your house, or someone that borrowed your laptop?

Re:Real Identity?

[ArchAngelQ]

Or the 3117 haxor who used the latest TMP chip crack to change their TMP ID to be the same as yours, which they got from the worm that still can get installed on your machine...

Re:Real Identity?

[incubusnb]

thats what the Library is for. Unless, of course, it becomes law that all public terminals require a fingerprint or retina scan before use to garantee that the user is known.

if things keep going this way...

Re:Real Identity?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. And the moment this happens to anyone, the whole "trusted" part of the acronym becomes just so much bullshit. If there's a company stupid enough to implement some of the ideas in the article ("No more password and user name at the bank's website, just your TMP ID!"), and I know there is, then the worst that will happen is that we'll all have a nice chuckle while we watch everyone involved frantically apologize and backpedal.

Re:Real Identity?

[ArchAngelQ]

The real point of my above comment was: This system is effectively worthless until the fundimental security issues surrounding general use computers is resolved to a better state. It is likely an unsolveable problem as long as 'computers' remain general use computational tools, as general use includes all of the abilities needed to circomvent even the best security. Perhaps not in a timely fasion, which is what has generally been relied on.

Implimenting this in hardware means that it's inherintly less adaptable than software. Which means software will be able to adapt around it. Perhaps not in the machine itself, but it's just data out. It should be trivially easy to man in the middle your own outgoing datastream to be able to incorporate any TMP data you want, likely possible even without additional hardware.

Re:Real Identity?

[Tony Hoyle]

The chip might be hardcoded, but the thing that reads the chip is *software*, which is definately not hardcoded.

I'd give it a week.

Re:Real Identity?

[Crayon Kid]

Identity thieves will have a long field day..

I second that. The more perfect you consider an identification method to be, the more perfectly you will be fooled by a fake.

Re:Real Identity?

[Your Anus]

Yeah, that's great except you might use several different machines on a particular day (home computer, work computer, cell phone). You might also have to replace your machine one day.

Unless you carry around an implanted chip, how is the bank going to know it's the "real you?" Maybe they have a whitelist, or maybe you have to go through some verification process the first time to tie the machine to your account or something, but it sounds a bit hokey.

One other thing that gets me is how does the bank know your computer has a TPM chip. It can ask, but it has to trust that the computer will answer truthfully. If you set up an intervening program that says, "Sure, I have a TPM chip. You can trust me!" and then emulate the TPM, with a fake ID of course, I don't see how the bank can tell the difference. If I can think of that there's already a bunch of hackers who have, and they are all saying "Excellent" in their best Mr. Burns voices.

Good or evil?

[blackraven14250]

Is any technology inherently good or evil?

Question is

[obeythefist]

This is a lot like the MP3 market -

We already have systems that work fine without this invasive technology - just like we already have MP3 technology for making nice MP3 files to listen to and download.

Why then would we pony up more cash or change the way we connect to the internet just for the sake of adopting this new technology?

These approaches for more DRM and more end-user-ownership by the corps is almost always stick and almost never carrot.

Re:Question is

[Tim C]

Why? Because your current PC isn't going to last forever; sooner or later, you'll have a choice - buy one with this module, or do without entirely.

duh

[stoolpigeon]

Ultimately the TPM itself isn't inherently evil or good.
 
I'd like to hear of any inanimate object that is inherently evil or good. Nuclear bombs aren't inherently evil or good, it's just how you use them. Otherwise they just sit there.

Re:duh

[metlin]

But see, there is a difference.

A nuke can be used for only one thing - cause destruction. The only positive use it might have is to threaten the other person with destruction. It has been created with the specific purpose and intent of causing mass destruction, and nothing else.

On the other hand, a tool like this is genuinely built with the idea of being useful. Can it be misused? Yes. Can it be used to cause harm? Yes. But can it also cause good when used right? Yes.

No matter which way you look at using a nuke, you end up killing people and destroying large areas. That is definitely not true for a tool like this. It is not built with the explicit purpose of destruction, rather, it is built with the explicit purpose of facilitating something.

That something is up to you.

Using a nuke is evil. Period. It does not matter what your justifications are, unless you're blowing an asteroid out of orbit or something equally improbable, the nuke has been built with the explicit goal of threatening people with destruction. Same goes for a gun - it does not matter that it can protect, it still is built with the purpose of ending life.

You cannot say that about, say, a pen. Can I kill someone using a pen? Sure. But can I also do good? Absolutely. It is not built with the intent of causing harm, rather, it is built as a tool to facilitate something.

That is the difference. And that is where your nuclear analogy fails.

Cheers.

Re:duh

[metlin]

You're right. But you forget the assumption you made - that the Russians also had nukes. They have nukes, you have nukes - instead, they don't, you don't. Which one would help you sleep better?

It started because they had nukes. If neither party did, this would not have arisen.

Or maybe you enjoyed all those drills of scurrying under the tables in the event of an attack? A nuke can only be used to attack or to threaten. It's explicit purpose is to destroy. Period.

By comparing the US and the Russia, you are making a moral judgement - but the fact remains that it the nukes were used, it does not matter who used on whom. They would destroy. In that sense, they are evil.

Re:duh

[intnsred]

I'm glad it was Harry Truman and not you who made that decision in 1945.

Why? We're not really going to trot out that rubbish about needing to use nukes against Japan, are we? A few points to consider:

* Before the US dropped nukes, Japan was already sending out requests for peace through several countries. The sticking point was that the Japanese wanted to keep Hirohito as a figurehead emperor -- the exact same deal the US privately agreed to.

* Before the US dropped nukes, Japan was so defeated that the US could park battleships off the Japanese coast and shell at will -- without response.

* The much quoted figure of "1 million" US casualties in the event of a Japanese invasion is sheer fiction. The War Department put the figure at two hundred thousand casualties (horrific yes, but certainly not 1 million).

* General Leslie Groves, military commander of the WWII Manhattan Project to build an atomic bomb, said bluntly, "There was never, from about two weeks from the time I took charge of this Project, any illusion on my part but that Russia was our enemy, and the Project was conducted on that basis."

Nutshell summary:

We dropped nukes on Japan in WWII for two reasons: to see them work in action and, more importantly, to show the USSR that we can and would use them.

Re:duh

[Vellmont]

Nice to see such black and white arguments like:

Using a nuke is evil. Period.

But then you say....

unless you're blowing an asteroid out of orbit or something equally improbable

So it's evil. Period. with the exception for times when it isn't. Either it's "evil. period" or it's not. You don't get to make exceptions. That's what that whole "period" business is about.

Nuclear weapons aren't terribly usefull, it's true. At one time people were considering using them for mining operations. I believe that turned out to be fairly impractical. One could argue that posessing nuclear weapons has lead to greater stability of the world. I don't know if that'a a very sound statement, but it's something to consider. What I'm getting at is that nuclear weapons are a tool of deterence. There hasn't been a major world war since they were invented (that is rivaling WWI, WWII, etc). That's pretty much the limit of the use of nuclear weapons. There's a LOT more ways to use nuclear weapons in a bad way than a good way.

But, getting back to the analogy I think it's a good one. TPM, like nuclear weapons is far more likely to be used for evil than it is for good. People make the argument about how "objects aren't inherently good or evil, it's how you use them" and that's obviously true. I think this argument really misses the point. The question we want answered is "should I create this tool?" not "is this tool good or bad?". A vaccine against smallpox can mostly be used for good things. I suppose you could use it to vaccinate some people and not others, then release smallpox, but that's unlikely.

So, what I'm getting at is the argument that "it's just a tool" is a load of garbage. All tools aren't equal in what they can do.

Re:duh

[jcr]

We're not really going to trot out that rubbish about needing to use nukes against Japan, are we?

Depends on your definition of "need". Truman was faced with the choice between using the nukes, or mounting an invasion. His duty was to defeat Japan with the minimum number of Allied casualties. The fact that he saved a lot of Japanese lives as well was a bonus.

Japan was so defeated that the US could park battleships off the Japanese coast and shell at will -- without response.

That was the case in the invasion of Okinawa and several islands before that as well, yet the Japanese managed to inflict heavy casualties on the landing troops.

We dropped nukes on Japan in WWII for two reasons: to see them work in action and, more importantly, to show the USSR that we can and would use them.

In your opinion, some sixty years after the event. Since it was Truman, not Groves, who gave the order, Groves' opinion is quite beside the point. Truman said he ordered the use of the atomic bomb to end the war, and I take him at his word.

Even after the bombs, the "let's fight to the last man, woman or child" faction still came dangerously close to taking over the Japanese government.

-jcr

i like it

[antiaktiv]

(In fact, with TPM, your bank wouldn't even need to ask for your username and password -- it would know you simply by the identification on your machine.)

Now the people who break into homes don't have to sift through dirty underwear to maybe find a few crumpled up dollar bills, they can just turn on the pc and transfera couple of bucks into their bank account. Aaah, the modern age.

Any power will be abused. Mod redundant.

[shanen]

Not just this post, but the thread. Actually, I think this is already a 'design feature' of IPv6, and that's coming, too.

Anyway, I'm not sure there will be any such thing as privacy in the near future. Right now it's already becoming a luxury good, and pretty soon only millionaires will be able to afford it.

There is a solution, but no guarantee we'll reach it. We need to define an individual's personal information as belonging to that individual, and any use or reference to that information should only be with permission, and based on some good reason. To put actual teeth in such a legal principle, I think it needs to be coupled with a right to store your own information (presumably on your own computer). Without such a basis for protecting privacy... Well, you'd better get use to appearing all over the Internet when you least expect it.

This would make encryption mandatory

[republican gourd]

This will never fly, and not for the reasons we would hope for.

Here are the scenarios:

1) Chip reports stuff, but data stream is wide open, so middlemen can change whatever they want.

2) Chip reports stuff, but with shitty encryption so the gov't can still do its wiretaps and echelon won't break. System is hacked within a couple days and the whole 'chip' idea becomes worthless.

3) Chip reports stuff, but with robust encryption. The site you are talking to knows who you are, but people between you and them can't sniff your actions other than knowing that 'some sort of communication took place'.

Plus variations. This could actually make webs of trust (a la the direction that Freenet appears to be going) more secure, since you know that your neighbors haven't been man-in-the-middled.

Re:So what

[raventh1]

Where there is a will there is an option.

Re:So what

[ZachPruckowski]

If you don't like it then don't buy it.

1) People likely won't know about it, and Joe Average will just buy it with his computer not realizing the problem and risks.
2) There are only so many hardware providers. What happens when they all carry it? Unless you like build your computers from scrap, you'd be stuck with it. And at some point, they'll just start carrying them on all processors or something. This was made by an alliance of AMD, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Microsoft and Sun after all. If Intel joined the fray, the computing world would be sunk.

latter-day cryptanalysts?

[thatguywhoiam]

There is a solution, but no guarantee we'll reach it. We need to define an individual's personal information as belonging to that individual, and any use or reference to that information should only be with permission, and based on some good reason. To put actual teeth in such a legal principle, I think it needs to be coupled with a right to store your own information (presumably on your own computer). Without such a basis for protecting privacy... Well, you'd better get use to appearing all over the Internet when you least expect it.

I've been thinking about this; the problem is the legal route to this is pretty much a nonstarter already. But maybe there is a loophole; I think we should all start a church. The Church of the Super Paranoid, or something like that. That way we could cry religious persecution if intrusive privacy-stealing measures are used against us. I'm certain I would have no problem convincing a sizeable chunk of the Slashdot population to swear and affirm (on a stack of punched cards) that their right to crypto and absolute mastery over who sees their porn stash is both vital and indispensable to the very core of their identity. I think it could work.

At the very least, the crazy fundies will lobby for laws that would help us... :0

How is that related to this?

[quickbasicguru]

I fail to see how this is like Communism.

This relates to Fascism much more than Communism.

I dont think we are ready for this just yet

[oztiks]

What about the plathora of secuirty issues we are faced with today, combine that with a preempted identity management system and you spell disaster.

It would bring on a new level of phishing one that would be alot more difficult circumvent and alot easier to exploit once the phiser has what he needs from their victims.

Engineers and techs are very smart people but sometimes they lack the day-to-day vision around the issue.

Plus, im sure there'll be a bunch of eager hackers waiting patiently for this to come along, if they are able to stick linux on an ipod i'm sure they'll be able to get around this.

the evil bit

[Daltorak]

The Evil Bit is inherently evil! :-)

We all know what that means...

[humphrm]

>ugh. Well we all know what that means.

Sigh. Yes. Everyone will just sit around slashdot whining about it, and not lift one finger to get control of it via their elected officials.

TPM ALREADY HAS linux support

[Foktip]

BWAHAHA! Dude, have you compiled a kernel recently? It does have support for this - only the kernel states it as a module that can be used in conjunction with the chip, to store "key data" seperate from the system, to increase security, or something. Mayby it will allow Linux to selectively use the TPM chip where required for authentication (i do my banking etc across 3 computers, identifying anything on a per-computer basis can be stupid). The TPM chip is far from just an identifier, its got memory and can be used for other general things.

Its more that, in Linux, the TPM chip will be used for security (good), and in winblows it will be used for ease-of-use/profit (evil). So, im guessing in Linux you'll be able to spoof ID's

Re:Cars have VINs and license plates

[Ph33r th3 g(O)at]

Just as soon as I can kill or maim someone by operating my computer recklessly, we can talk about mandating publicly visible identifiers for them.

Evil vs. Good

[CupBeEmpty]

Well I never really considered little yellow cloth stars or number tattoos "good" or "evil" in and of themselves... but you know while we are at it lets brand everyone's social security number on their arm... you know so you can't lie to women at bars about being Leonardo DiCaprio.

Re:... and look how well that turned out!

[6*7]

" Intel quickly made the serial number disabled by default, and few web sites ever started using it."

It is not like the CPUID is the only part of your system that has a unique ID. Just think about the hardware address of your networkcard. Sure some people change them but very very few change them periodically and with the introduction of IPv6 and its automatic address discovery soon everybody will know your MAC.

Re:Cars have VINs and license plates

[jim_deane]

Cars have VINs and license plates to identify them on public roads. This places some limits on driver freedom but is hardly Orwellian.

TPM, or something like it, could end up in the same category.

You went to McDonald's for lunch...did they record your license plate and/or VIN? Did you drive up to your bank to make a deposit, and if so, did they check your license plate and/or VIN before letting you access your account? Did the city government make record of your license plate and VIN as you traveled through various intersections? Did the park and recreation department take a record of your entrance and exit times when you visited city park?

Basically, just go back and look at all of the arguments that were made when Intel proposed the Processor Serial Number as a GUID. The arguments remain, and will always be, completely valid.

Jim

Do you plan on keeping your IP?

[tepples]

What I won't do is install software that turns over the 'trust' it creates to an outside entity.

Unless all broadband Internet access providers that serve residences in your area start to require that you use a kernel and apps with a specific signature dictated by the ISP.

Re:This is circumventable.

[tftp]

Not to mention, there is nothing to prevent you from using a browser that supplies false information.

Unfortunately the Universe may grow old and die before you manage to compute a valid data packet without having access to the private key (which is burned into the chip and can't be read back, ever.)

For example:

1. Computer says: "My public key is 0x1234...89"
2. Remote site says: "Ok, dude, mine is 0x9876...01. Do XOR on this data that I encrypted just for you: ... ciphertext follows."
3. Computer says: "Ok, I decoded the ciphertext using my private key. The data is this, encrypted for you: ... ciphertext follows."
4. Remote site says: "Ok, you got it right, I reckon you do have access to that private key, and so your public key is also yours, and so you are who you say you are. I trust your data now."

If you break this sequence then the authentication fails.

Emulators

[mwvdlee]

This chip is about the easiest security measure to work around of all time: Use a PC emulator which also emulates the TPM hardware.
It might not make for a very fast computer, but it'll be fast and cheap enough for the average nigerian scammer to invalidate the entire case for the TPM chip.

How this could be a good thing.

[Temporal]

Imagine if you could create as many identities for yourself as you wanted. You could go so far as to create a separate identity for every single site you visit, even. Imagine that you can program your web browser to invent dummy identities automatically in order to accomplish this. There; privacy issues solved.

The nice part about this system is that you'd never have to enter a password or a credit card number again, and no one would be able to steal your identity without stealing your physical computer.

Time to bail!

[Hoi Polloi]

Digital rights, Patriot act, loss of privacy...screw it, I'm moving to Alaska and building a cabin.