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."
Your real identity or someone who used your computer while they were over your house, or someone that borrowed your laptop?
Bradley Holt
Aren't we all Testuser from Beverly Hills, CA 90210 at test@aol.com?
Your computer may be broadcasting your IP address to the world as we speak! Or so I've heard.
My TPM will have the following information.
.. then I guess it's back to my C= 64...
Richard Cranium
9191919 Nunya Street
Overstock, MO 64999
901-555-5555
And if I can't do that
= Grow a brain...
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.
I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
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.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
How else will the Anti-Christ keep track of you, and keep you from buying or selling? However, the mark is supposed to be in your forehead or palm of your hand. OK implanted RFID chips then.
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
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.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Tin Foil Router! Limited time! $99.99 with 802.11X! Stop those nasty data packets from going through to the websites you visit! www.x10.com
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.
But good to see the mainstream press catching up to it. This chip is part of a larger effort by major software developers and hardware manufacturers to mostly stop piracy in all forms and control what you can do with your computer and when.
Read the TCPA FAQ, and take a look at Against TCPA, an anti-TCPA site if you're interested. For an alternate perspective, you can also view the official Trusted Computing Group site.
Personally, I hate it, I don't think it will succeed, and I will *never* buy a computer with such a module installed.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
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!
I can't look at porn anymore :(
I suggest we refer to this hardware cookie as a shit biscuit.
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
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
... selling desoldering stations, tin-foil hats and faraday-cage panic room kits ...
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...
>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.
-- "In order to have power, I must be taken seriously." -Mojo Jojo
> Forcibly installing such chips into our computers is, well,
> illegal.
Nobody is (yet) proposing to forcibly install anything on your computer. They are proposing to make it nearly impossible to find a computer for sale without a TPM chip and impossible to get onto the Net with a computer without one. So far as I know that is not illegal.
I agree with the rest of your points.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
I was poking around on my new AMD64 machine the other day, and I ran dmidecode. Can anyone explain this?
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
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:
If you break this sequence then the authentication fails.