Slashdot Mirror
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."
If you don't like it then don't buy it.
DEMOCARACY IS DEAD!
wheres the lineup to join the liberation front, its time for a revolution!!
/. is overrun by bed-wetting elitist nerds
let it be known, for anything other than servers, a *nix OS sucks
I'm so mad I can't type. The idea that something can be put into a tool that I buy weather I want it or not, and then we will see if my privacy invasion is good or evil latter makes me want to throttle someone.
The tone of the article gives me a good idea of who to start with.
San Francisco Photographers
Not to mention: stolen hardware, secondhand hardware, rerouting/spoofing techniques, etc.
Identity thieves will have a long field day..
technology is nuetral, its the people controlling the technology that choose a side.
i'll garantee you the biggest backing for this technology comes from the RIAA, MPAA and the CIA
/. is overrun by bed-wetting elitist nerds
let it be known, for anything other than servers, a *nix OS sucks
Of course, all a hacker needs to do is keep an older model x86 or PPC system around. Obsolete computers are a dime a dozen, and you can keep them running for decades.
And we are moving closer and closer to disposable PC's, anyway. In less than ten years, I predict that brand new, complete systems will be selling for less than $50. Got my computer's ID? So what, I throw away my computer every month!
But what is their purpose? We cannot simply evaluate things by their inert state. We also have to factor in their reason for being. A gun isn’t made just for the purpose of propelling an object at high velocity in a particular direction (there are superior devices for doing that), it is intended to destroy something as a result.
This type of thinking might be carelessly superficial in some circumstances. You are right to an extent, but that should not keep you from further consideration.
Join Tor today!
Intel quickly made the serial number disabled by default, and few web sites ever started using it. If people *really* have issues with such a system, they won't use it, and they won't buy products that require it. If they don't buy it, companies won't sell it. If it's an issue, media attention can get people to vote with their dollars and keep it from being a standard. The only thing that worries me, though, is the Microsoft comment. If somehow Windows requires this system, it'll become a de facto standard. But MS has tread pretty carefully so far - e.g., restrictions on how often you can activate a copy of Windows are pretty lenient. But we'll see if that holds. Even still, though, MS won't want to make consumers buy new PC's or accept something they don't like in order to buy the new Windows for fear of losing business. So it comes down to whether people really oppose this or not.
I produce electronic music and write little games. Have a look.
My vote is yes. The Internet will route around it by gradually dividing from what is currently called the Internet. Most people will use what used to be the Internet, and will consider it to still be the Internet. A minority of tech savvy people will be running on an alternative network, and will consider their network to be the Internet.
There will be one way links between the Internet and the former Internet (new can suck data from old, but not the other way around). The new Internet will be under the radar, but will be a hotbed of technical innovation. In time the new Internet will appear on the radar, as the majority hear of it and decide that they want to be able to do all the neat things Internetters can do as well. The majority join the Internet. The Internet gets 'tamed' as large companies join it. The Internet routes around the damage by breaking away over time. The cycle repeats...
Of course, all a hacker needs to do is keep an older model x86 or PPC system around.
And watch it not get an IP once all the major last-mile ISPs have switched to Trusted Network Connect, a framework that involves "trusted" dialer software that assesses the state of your computer using its TPM. Cisco has a similar competing framework called Network Admission Control.
Speaking of avoiding hardware that prempts the need for spyware to be implemented in software, Does anyone know of a list of hardware that consumers should avoid?
If not, does anyone want to start a wiki entry or something similar?
(All I've found so far is http://www.againsttcpa.com/tcpa-hardware.html ) But I will be searching more in-depth later
Am I open minded towards open source, or closed minded towards closed source?
People...please, stop and review your history. Does no one remember Intel doing this exact thing just 5-6 years ago with the first PIII chips? Do you see any chips with serial numbers embedded in them like that today? No...because it was a colossal FAILURE! That's when Intel began to slide and AMD began to rise to power. Why? Because AMD saw a need, and that need was to NOT have this kind of tech. So many people, including myself, started switching to AMD chips. And Intel eventually yanked it because of the market share they were losing. They never really recovered after that, especially when AMD started beating them on processing power-per-watt. So please...just take a deep breath, calm down, and look to your nearest underdog to fill the need...
Besides, when the revolution comes, your computer will be the last thing on your mind...
I was poking around on my new AMD64 machine the other day, and I ran dmidecode. Can anyone explain this?
Or perhaps all the 1337 h4x0rz will just do what they already do, sniff the traffic, steal some ID's and used them. Why does it matter if this is a TPM or your username and password?
r eshold=1&commentsort=0&tid=95&mode=thread&cid=1426 1329
SSL is pretty secure method for doing web-transactions. It's not perfect, but a TPM isn't going to make things any better. You can still hack around SSL if know how to use google effectively for research.
Once you know the method for how the server shakes hands with the TPM you can usually spoof it. Not to mention this would be a publicly available process so that all the webmonkeys of the world would know how to build a "secure" site with it. Even if it wasn't readily available to the public, it'd still be like trying to movie or software piracy. Where there's a will there's a way.
And what this guy said too :
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=171227&th
When all the new computers have TPM chips, and old Dell Optiplex 150s and P2 laptops cost more than a car, my parents are going to eat their words regarding my computer collection in their garage.
Wasn't this the original intention with the Serial ID on Pentium III microprocessors?
i just put in
In order for any web site to "read" my identity (assuming the chip is installed), data from the chip would need to be sent over HTTP. So, if you are not using a browser capable of sending it, or your OS does not have a driver to access the device, the device is useless. Not to mention, there is nothing to prevent you from using a browser that supplies false information.
If this were done purely in hardware, the data would be encoded in the network layer, which means that the data would not leave the subnet (assuming current network technologies used on the internet).
Then if your bank has TPM software, when you log into their Web site, the bank's site also "reads" the TPM chip in your computer to determine that it's really you. Thus, even if someone steals your username and password, they won't be able to get into your account unless they also use your computer and log in with your fingerprint. (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.)
So when my bank decides to allow only TPM-style logins as means of (nominally, I'm sure) lowering fraud, and therefore lowering it's insurance costs, I'll only be able to check my account infos from the computers I own and are registered to my name. And what happens when someone sells a used computer? Is there going to be some central database where TPMIDs are refereneced to an identity and some method of changing that to facillitate used hardware transactions? That introduces a whole new vector for fraud. Am I going to have to visit an office to show ID and register used hardware?
What was it?
It's the same one I have now, a link to ReOpen911.org.
To your last point, yes, anyone who believes that the US was complicit in 9/11 is an idiot, regardless of how many people share the delusion.
That's illogical. First, calling millions and millions of people "idiots" speaks for itself. But humanity's basis of defining reality is when people accept something as fact. We have no scientific proof of God, but does that make all religious believers "idiots"? Ignoring the philosophical aspects, there are many, many questions about 9/11 that remain unanswered.
Looking at it historically, we know that the US gov't has deliberately lied to the American people to start wars. We also know that the highest echelons of the US military have advocated killing Americans in large numbers in order to whip up popular support for their desired war.
We know that during the 80s, a pseudo-gov'tal group who Bill Moyers -- he himself involved in LBJ's Vietnam-era lies -- called the "secret" or "shadow" gov't did not hesitate to break US and int'l law to wage a war of terror with mostly surrogates. The shadow gov'ts "punishment" was a presidential pardon.
We know from testimony of some of Bush's highest advisors (e.g. Paul O'Neill) that Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq since his first days in office. We also know firsthand (i.e. Richard Clarke) that Bush did not want to go to war against Afghanistan after 9/11, but instead wanted to invade Iraq.
Recent history tells us many things about 9/11: that Bush himself publicly lied about seeing the first plane hit the south tower, that Condi Rice's Sep. 2001 promise to the world to show evidence that Bin Laden committed the attacks is still unfulfilled, and that the WTC leaseholder's claim of accomplishing a demolition of WTC building 7 during a terrorist attack (which is what he claimed in a PBS interview) is highly implausible.
There are dozens and dozens of valid, huge and very important questions which remain about 9/11.
The laughable whitewash of an investigation, the official "9/11 Commission", certainly did not answer any serious questions. That investigation was funded with far less than the gov't spent on Clinton's Whitewater investigation, consisted only of people selected by Bush, and had the scope of their investigation limited to only what Bush wanted investigated.
It's long past time for a fully-funded, independent investigation into 9/11.