Slashdot Mirror
UK Government Pushing For 'Trusted Computing'
Motor writes "As has long been expected — we are now beginning to see governments pushing for the use of so-called 'trusted computing' — chips installed in all computers that effectively remove control of the PC from its owner. While there may be security advantages to some of the ideas, few can doubt that it represents a fundamental shift in the IT world. A radical move away from an open technology landscape and towards a system that denies all access unless you have the right credentials. Governments will demand the right credentials to access their services — meaning approved software stacks (i.e Windows) with the right digital signatures. Vernor Vinge had it right ."
My Linux machine is well-protected and I don't need your meddling nor do I need Microsoft's.
Here is what we'll do.
We will create and use our own internet and if you have one of those chips on your computer, we'll disable your access to it. Thanks Government for giving us a way of checking if someone is controlled by you!!
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
The U.S. has been doing it to itself with an insane tax code, and product liability laws from the netherworld. Europe is going down the road of not trusting its people.
Will handing Microsoft that kind of power make the internet more secure?
Sounds to me like someone is using the windows bogeyman to scare slashdot.
Fuck. Off.
I will be the final arbiter of what runs on MY computers. Not some nebulous "trusted computing" that is in the back pocket of proprietary software conglomerates. There's no point in it unless the real agenda is to wrest control from users' hands. (The recent "secureboot" crap for Windows 8 is a prime example.) It's my computer. It's my data. It's not yours. It won't ever be yours. And no amount of fearmongering will convince me you have my best interests in mind.
Kiss my ass. No, really. Not on the left cheek, not on the right cheek, but RIIIIGHT in the MIDDLE.
It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
Europe is not a country.
....and no one pushing for it.
The union is for all intents and purposes
And the UK isn't europe!
That's true of just about every computer designed in the US via MW link. The fact of the matter is that there is no sure way to protect users against “Alpha Male Syndrome” etc. when it occurs in government agents. You can't obtain enough employees to see the data of that military psi level. You will wind up with a room full of skitsing employees as soon as they find they super-stud revenge target. So it is technically incorrect to allow this, and always was ...
The purpose of existence is to make money.
Actually, no, Richard Stallman had it right long before Vernor Vinge.
DRM has never been about getting paid, it has always been about keeping control. And for all the shit Microsoft got about Palladium, the Apple zealots sure turned a 180 in 2007.
But the zealots are right about one thing - the iPhone is the future of computing. And that future is a boot stamping on a human face, forever.
Since Europe is not a democracy (since the unelected commission holds final authority, overriding everyone else's), it's obvious that it will go down the path of every other oppressive government and lock down much more than just computers. Censorship laws are already in place protecting the feelings of politicians and certain minority groups (the justification being that muslims will kill lots of people if you tell people/publish that muhammad was a child-rapist, so you need to "keep the peace". Why is this censorship ? Because "this is the truth" is not an acceptable defense like in libel laws. If the truth "hurts" inter-ethnic-group relations, it's illegal)
Because the certificate authorities have a really proven track record.
Also, it really helps against buffer overrun exploits which in now way is a common thing...
The usual bollocks, in other words.
I found a fast warez site: http://warez.it.kth.se
I agree on all counts except for one thing ... If you click through to the article (Vinge had it right), she's talking about his idea that it rises slowly without any disaster to get people to go for it. Surely Vinge built on ideas from others, everyone does. But they're specifically talking about how accepting we all are (will be?) toward it. In his Rainbows End, a character specifically says that we traded freedom for safety, implying that it was a willing transition.
Imagine if you weren't allowed to use roads because a bus company complained about your driving 3 times. --skunkpussy
Government exists to make us all safe and secure and there's nothing that government can't do better than individual people. /sarcasm
I would welcome a system with a strong wall against the installation of malicious software but ultimately the owner of the device should be in control.
And just as much I realise the vast majority of (Windows/ OSX) computer users find it out of their league to decide what is safe or unsafe software, a devilish dilemma!
Yet no more devilish than handing this over to the aforementioned bureaucrats.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
The article quite clearly states that the government wants *its own* computers to have TPM installed, it doesn't mention anything about home users.
Each constituent country can and does flout European Commission directives. New legislation requires ratification in each country, and almost every 'agreement' and policy has exception states and nations which have implemented the policy so badly it fails to meet the required legislation.
Well shit I've fed the troll.
The European Union is specifically not a country, not for any intents or any purposes. What the EU has is a common foreign policy and a system of rules that minimizes the impact of national borders on commerce.That's it. And the common foreign policy is on top of the foreign policy of each member state, not a replacement for it. The EU is much more a loosely federated club with very lax rules and even laxer enforcement.
Wanna know what a weak federal government looks like? Look at the EU.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
This sounds less like requiring a TPM for access to, say, the jobcentreplus website (i.e. requiring TPM for the general public) and more an attempt to stem the tide of embarrassing governmental data breaches, i.e. requiring new government and MOD hardware to be a bit less rubbish in terms of data security. Requiring new hardware to access government services for eh general public won't happen, simply because there'd need to be a way to grandfather in all the non-protected devices in public libraries, distributed through government programs, etc.
Unless you read the UK tabloids in which case the EU is akin to the USSR and has its evil tentacles interfering in all aspects of our lives.
"Nothing was your own except the few cubic centimetres inside your skull"
George Orwell 1984.
Offtopic. The US tax code and product liability laws are completely unrelated to this story. You might make an interesting argument that governments world wide are moving further and further away from trusting their citizens, and this is yet another salvo in that battle. A relevant example from the US would be the Senators who are making noises about removing the ability to directly elect Congress.
Governments will demand the right credentials to access their services
When I want something from the government, I'll might be obliged to use their approved interface. But when the government wants something from me, they'll have to use mine. Paying my taxes, for example. If Windows crashing becomes a plausible excuse for not filing a return, the gov't is going to have a serious revenue problem on its hands.
Realistically, the revenue department will always have to allow paper returns for this reason. And the staff required to process them. The only way to minimize this requirement (but never totally eliminate it) is to reduce the barriers to using their on-line interface. Not raise them.
Have gnu, will travel.
I.E. No-one who could actually present a bill before parliament.
This has come up before and it'll come up again, but it's not gonna happen. If this was anything more than an unnamed bureaucrat saying "this would be handy" then it might pique my interest but otherwise it's no different from an MI5 spook saying that tracking everyone's browsing would be useful to the security services.
By that I mean yes, it would be useful, but even if it was technically possible parliament wouldn't consent to such nakedly draconian measures. They may seem a bunch of fatuous blowhards but they're not total idiots and they do have some moral standards.
If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
I wonder if Owen Pengelly has friends with financial interest in 'trusted computing' firms. Someone must be feeding him this line I guess.
Korma: Good
The problem isn't having a TPM module in your computer, it's having one without knowing its secret keys.
Even if every computer would have such a module, because one needs such a module to run Windows, for example, that doesn't mean that the computer vendor wouldn't be willing to give you the keys to the module for some extra profit. Especially if, for example, your computer is manufactured in a somewhat less "Western" country than the UK, say, China? Last time I checked, at least a few computers were manufactured there, no? (nod, nod, wink, wink)
Or possibly, for example, some of the Chinese companies who design/manufacture these TPMs might be less interested in investing (or rather, in their eyes, wasting) money to design them to be invincible against side channel attacks (like power consumption attacks)?
Even if the computer does have a TPM, there's no way to check from your trusted OS that the TPM hardware is properly designed to be resistant to attack.
I agree on all counts except for one thing ... If you click through to the article (Vinge had it right), she's talking about his idea that it rises slowly without any disaster to get people to go for it. Surely Vinge built on ideas from others, everyone does. But they're specifically talking about how accepting we all are (will be?) toward it. In his Rainbows End, a character specifically says that we traded freedom for safety, implying that it was a willing transition.
I'm reminded of the main title sequence for that Babylon 5 spinoff "Excalibur", where the Technomage Galen intones, "Whom do you trust? Whom do you serve?"
RIght now, I trust my computer systems because I know they serve me, and only me. If that changes, computing will be a very different place, although the bulk of humanity may never realize it.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
"One of the government's leading IT security officials has said trusted thinking will play a significant role within the forthcoming security strategy.
The technology, is installed on a chip in people's brains and uses cryptography to authenticate actions and verify that only authorised thoughts run on it.
Speaking at a seminar on the subject he said the security strategy, expected to be published in mid-November, will revolve around four key objectives. These are making the public safe and ensuring the country is one of the best in the world for businesses; making the country more resilient in the face of terrorist attack and better able to protect its government's interests;
"Building the most effective police in the world will not help if you are suffering from intellectual property theft, like people telling others about a movie they have seen" he said. "Trusted thinking underpins security and can underpin growth, providing confidence in transactions, expanding markets and making them function more efficiently for corporations."
Pengelly added that he is now working with a security team in the Department of Business to work out what enforcement methods the government could provide to encourage the take-up of the relevant standards.
The UK does not produce anything except some biscuits and cereals (biscuits = cookies).
They are way down on the list of things we make; our pharmaceutical, engineering, chemical and booze industries are much bigger. Here's a moderately recent list of UK exports.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
We have a saying "Count your fingers after you have shaken hands with a Britisher".
Janis Ian once said something similar: "I always check my wallet when leaving a record company executive's office" or words to that effect.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Let's just assume that the EU is a superset of standard government models. It supersedes the levels below it, although has the anti-democratic bend that you call lack of a vote.
Regardless, UK, EU, or W/E, it's going to have a potentially devastating impact on freedom of information and self-determination in my opinion - should it be allowed to go ahead. I'm not saying this as simply a geek either. I know people who honestly *prefer* a linux-based system for more than just it's freedom. They consider it *better* than Windows.
Honest disclosure: I am a dedicated linux user.
It's easy to imporve security by taking away most of the functionality, but in most cases it isn't worth it.
Since Europe is not a democracy (since the unelected commission holds final authority, overriding everyone else's)
You read too many British tabloids.
The EU Commission answers to the governments that appointed the members.
As a matter of fact, many European countries have a government that is not directly elected but governs in the name of the elected parliament.
To make it clear to a UK audience, the members of such a government are appointed by the elected parliament, they are not members of the parliament.
It is an unholy alliance of the French and Brits that veto's any attempts to give such powers to the democratically elected EU parliament.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Capriciously enforcing unjust laws does NOT justify keeping around the mechanism by which bad laws are produced....
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
hold your fire - 00x the "new" james bond come will ! :-) ...
- at least queen Elizabeth so said !
- Queen the king is tired
Before they start pushing out essentially untested technologies onto the public, shouldn't they test it on themselves first? If it does indeed offer "something better" let them test it on themselves and their own infrastructure first. Check to see that everything runs as it should and if not, what adjustments are needed to make it work. And most importantly, identify how it can be done fairly and without excluding various parties from participating in the marketplace.
If it can't be done without fairness and equality in the market, then it shouldn't be done.
I'm all for limiting the damage that infected Windows machines can do, but I get the feeling they aren't considering much beyond MS Windows. The wikipedia on the subject discusses some of the problems that would likely come from the use of TC. I won't go into those details but will recommend at least skimming over the page to see it. (Is a link really necessary? I guess so...) Will there be a list of requirements of how NOT to implement TC to ensure a fair and level marketplace?
Before anyone says so, I know they aren't particularly interested in fairness or equality because they don't really know what it means.
Great video about how we can break away from these "controls".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1I3uiqeG-g
This sounds like it will start an industry. Companies building devices capable of having ID codes changed, much like a MAC address, will find themselves a large customer base.
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
As usual, the slashdot crowd gets it wrong.
How is it an invasion of privacy if the government is using a secure identification system to validate who is connecting to government services? You wouldn't want some scam artist stealing your taxpayer dollars, so instead of authenticating with a username+password, the government can more securely identify you with username+pin+TPM/Smart Card and more readily provide you with the expected service (DMV, Social Security, Welfare, etc.).
The government, if it is smart, does not need to mandate an entire software stack. It is much harder to exploit a box than it is to steal a password, so the use of secure hardware to authenticate would be a good step forward.
The article looks like it is talking about government computer systems. This sounds like something perfect for government (or even business) computer systems which need to be heavily locked down to prevent theft of sensitive data. Hardliners like rms may call this an attack on peoples rights but quite honestly if I found that someone had been doing a lot of the things that he calls freedom on our work systems they would be fired immediately.
A chip that allows utter control of a computer remotely, and security advantages ?
underground crime networks wouldnt blink an eye and would not waste even a '0-day' before they hack them to their advantage.
Politicians are stupid from an i.t. perspective. They shouldnt be allowed to talk on anything i.t.
Read radical news here
youre so naive.
Read radical news here
No need to panic: this is a suggestion from an UK civil servant. Even if it did became policy one day the work would be farmed out to a least-cost supplier, the project would be 5 years overdue and 6 times over budget. If it ever made it into anyone's home it would be cracked by 12 year old in her lunch break :-)
the common foreign policy is on top of the foreign policy of each member state, not a replacement for it.
While nice in theory, this is not true. Member states cannot override European policy, because any dispute will eventually be brought before the European court of justice, which overrides the national courts. The European policy sets a minimum. Members can go above and beyond European rule, but they cannot ignore it.
That is indeed one of the reasons why this will not work: there are people using all kinds of different OSes, including all the mobile ones, desktop OSes and whatnot. If the UK government were to only allow devices with the trusted computing built-in both the hardware and software they'd be instantaneously removing access for everyone who is used to using mobile devices to access those services.
Another case of government not understanding technology, yet still pushing everyone to adopt it.
oh, i think it understands that part alright. if you have TPM and signing keys to it you can run whatever you like. this is pretty cool feature for servers and workspace hardware. if you have the keys, that's it.
BUT the whole point here is not about technology so much as about taking away people's access to the hardware they supposedly own (which, coincidently, would also nicely decrease number of "kinds of different OSes" people use and even number of their versions). and there are a looot of organizations besides the government that would benefit from such unethical and dirty move. and all of them don't give a damn about how people do and/or want use their hardware. it's about lockdown, it's about using your tech in a way someone else devised for you.
and that "mobile devices" industry you speak of has been like that for years, maybe decades.
ever heard about signed or even encrypted altogether OS kernels; bootloaders that check those signatures and deny boot; boards that modified in a slight, insufficient way to benefit its performance, but sufficient enough to make unfeasible hassle of bringing up its support in another OS without insider knowledge ? you should have, HTC recently made quite a news with graciously giving away keys to some of its customers. a rarity.
all while Nokia's N900 allows you to run Maemo, MeeGo, Android, pure GNU/Linux (which means that pretty much any distribution is not a problem to get running) and this list is short only because:
1) some core software components are still closed and spec-data is not available
2) proprietary OSes vendors have no interest in allowing anyone to run their OSes without their explicit permission since its purchase by end-users is not in theirs business plans, only shoving down users throats by the middle-men is.
it's short but for others it's nonexistent, an even bigger rarity in contrast to the majority where you, a customer, just fucked without an option (and no, being a forced luddite by not buying any tech is not a real option).
a Portable PC, not just "phone" or "tablet", but even Nokia don't want you to have it and deliberately shutting down N-projects and providing shitty marketing and lousy distribution for N900, N9 and refuses to sell N950 altogether.
it's just one small step for this shit coming to desktop, general computing, world. this kind of step.
of course it can be easily mitigated by legislating a law obligating PC vendors giving away keys together with hardware. but who would want that ? not many enough people.
so, "not understanding" that people "using all kinds of different OSes" is not the case here. they just don't give a fuck about people's needs. most people don't give much fuck about their needs even and prefer to lie to themselves that they take joy and happiness in unquestionably serving their abusers needs, bathing in willful ignorance until their very death.
PS: i must say, Slashdot's comment-making page is ugly, awkward, unproductive, slow, as if it were WYSIWYG while actually being embarrassingly featureless, mess.
like it were made to mostly write small, substance-less, inflammatory comments or nothing at all. or maybe i'm missing something.
who dares wins
Yeh the EU so doesn't have any elections. Apart from the ones it does have every five years. You Europhobes need to come up with a new song.
Speaking at a seminar on the subject organised by Wave Systems,
Wave Systems' entire business model is built around DRM-enforcement hardware, a business model they've been failing with for at least a decade (they also have backing with lots of venture capital from companies hoping it'll eventually pay off big, so they can afford to to continue to fail for years to come). Since he was speaking at an event they sponsored then of course he's going to endorse "trusted" computing. It was just a sound bite to keep the sponsors happy and make sure they covered his speaking fees and lunch bill, nothing more.
There are actually decent arguments that we should go back to having the Senators represent the states. I'm not aware of ANY decent arguments that this kind of thing should be mandated.
(The primary argument that the Senators should represent the states is that the Senate has gotten in the habit of mandating that the states do something, but not providing any funding to implement the requirement. If you demand that something be done, you ought, at minimum, to be required to pay for it's being done.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Because it really can't happen.
Doing this, would essentially be as effective as blocking & filtering sites are today. Literally every ISP in Sweden (and most of Denmark) already does this, but it never worked for them, it never will. As long as software is SOFTware, it will be circumvented, rest assured.
All that it does, is scaring the general public, the average Joe, those that have no clue, those that rush forward and purchase the most expensive Anti-Virus protection package they can get, the very same people.
It's as hilarious as the Password control in Microsoft, Microsoft Denies all flaws, the government associates believes it blindly, so if a kid at school loses his password, and the Admin password is unknown - for every Windows Ever Made - the support people, Microsoft certified and all, master degree in science & engineering and whatever, are completely blind to the real world - every single password was broken in less than 10 minutes, on every system available.
Same deal. It simply can't be done.
Trusted computing my pale white butt.
What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
> I'm reminded of the main title sequence for that Babylon 5 spinoff "Excalibur", where the Technomage Galen intones, "Whom do you trust? Whom do you serve?"
Wow... you mangled the quote and added bad grammar.
"Who do you serve and who do you trust?"
Choosing to use who and whom
Here in America the southern states thought that too. I wonder what would happen if a nation that was economical important to the EU were to try to withdraw.
"For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice" -- God
Where you sit drooling and not involved, I mean come on... that was the ideal right? Stupid drooling and desiring to buy and be like those on TV.
That declined with the Internet, and of course the loss of financial control and distribution of media.
The powers that be don't like the Internet right wikileaks?
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
There are too many issues of lock-in and lock-out associated with so-called "Trusted Computing", in particular the potential to block users from installing their operating system of choice on the hardware they own.
So far the TPM initiatives deployed by the vendors have failed one after the other. X-Box, PS3, smart phones -- every TPM system I know of to date has failed to provide the protection promised, while restricting freedom of choice by the general public.
As a result, the only ones who really benefit from TPM are those who want to implement hardware DRM (digital restrictions management.) I'm not willing to give up my software freedoms to support the media companies.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
> I'm reminded of the main title sequence for that Babylon 5 spinoff "Excalibur", where the Technomage Galen intones, "Whom do you trust? Whom do you serve?"
Wow... you mangled the quote and added bad grammar.
"Who do you serve and who do you trust?"
Choosing to use who and whom
{sigh} Grammar Nazis.
I cut & paste it from somebody else that mangled it.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Then its the beginning of the end for most of us, and the computer world as we know it. I hope you like your 'appliances' ( like ipads and various locked down phones, and toasters ) as that is all we will have soon.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
The iPhone is dead
Long live Android
Quotes are supposed to be accurate. Half-remembered paraphrased revisions shouldn't be presented as quotes.
So why would I trust anything either of them want to force to be in my computer? I'll just "opt-out" of that and if they want to force the issue, I'm sure there will be ways to disable it...
thousands of software engineers, developers and coders would lose their job, because nobody is buying their "untrusted" software. So they get no money, become very poor as they have no other qualification, and then rob a bank or innocent passengers or do other criminal work. But of course the security of my computer is more important =)
1. The Government.
2. Corporations.
So, I'd have to say, No. (for when the US tries to make this same move)
Be seeing you...
The TPM is passive and can't do any checking on it's own. The first thing that does any verification is the Core Root of Trust Measurement, Which resides in the BIOS Boot Block. The CRTM is supposed to measure (verify) itself and the BIOS proper, then execute the BIOS. If you hack the CRTM, isn't the whole thing hosed? You can report any combination of hardware and software you like.
404: sig not found.
Quotes are supposed to be accurate. Half-remembered paraphrased revisions shouldn't be presented as quotes.
{sigh}
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
I...love big brother!
First you speak of a country. Then you talk of Europe. What is wrong with you?? It's NOT a country bit a continent
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2006/jun/29/guardianweeklytechnologysection5
Vinge was an OPTIMIST. The "SHE" (secure hardware enviornment) is a dangerous and probable prosal but only one of five scenarios.
No, it is "whom" in both cases. John trusts him; Joan serves her. Note the case of the pronouns.
{sigh} Grammar Nazis.
I cut & paste it from somebody else that mangled it.
The Nazi defense. Don't blame me, I blame the guy I was listening to.
Chuckle.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
The EU would fall apart. Which is why everyone is terrified of pissing off Germany in the current banking crisis.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Have we finally arrived at an unescapable "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" moment?
-- no sig today
Seriously if the government can waste £12 Billion on a failed NHS IT system, what makes them think they can even get this right, Those pricks in Whitehall don't have a clue about IT and 99% of the time; the people who are hired for such work are just interested in cashing in on taxpayers money and creating failures; then requesting more money.
In theory, if you gave /. $150,000.00 to recruit a team of 20 people being paid $75,000.00 each to design a fully working system, it would be done in less than a year and all the government would have to do is pay for the hardware and infrastructure costs. Job done.
for someone who gives a crap, such as yourself, this maybe look like issues but people who devise such things are not idiots either.
don't you think that "blocking users from installing their operating system of choice on the hardware they own", "failing to provide the protection promised, while restricting freedom of choice by the general public" and "implementing hardware DRM" were actual goals ?
well, i do. there is more than enough evidence for that.
if they wanted to "provide protection" to their customers they would provide access to restricting hardware to them also. unless real TPM customers are not buyers of their tech but media conglomerates and wannabe police states.
which they are.
who dares wins
i'm sure you are, as most people.
and this is why we are all fucked.
who dares wins
"what makes them think they can even get this right"
Lobbyists.
I used to support TPM. I thought it was a great idea for enhancing system security.
I changed my mind after seeing how it ended up being abused in practice. The vendors who've implemented it demonstrated that they don't care about security, they care about lock-in and lock-out.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
You speak as if government and the people are one and the same. How many acts of oppression will it take before the average individual realizes (or admits) that oppression requires a third party (i.e. one that isn't you)?
The third paragraph of the article is spot on. The TPM doesn't control your computer. It merely reports measurements of what's been booted, in a secure way. It also governs access to decryption and signing keys. Your system will run just fine - but you may need to boot a "compliant stack" to gain access to certain government resources, banking data, and healthcare sites. PKI is sufficiently complex that this won't pervade every aspect of computing, if the government and industry even adopt the initiatives.and information. It is always your choice of what to boot. It's soon their choice on whether to let you in based on your decision.
Maybe you should check your arithmetic...
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
EKs never leave the TPM
oh yea. just like how many other digital security technologies which were touted to be even more secure than this.
learn the number one rule of information technology :
if there is ANYthing in a digital format, it can be replicated/faked/reproduced/madeup/imitated/cracked . it doesnt matter what process/method you employ. whatever you do, is crackable/hackable.
Read radical news here
To be honest, I think this bothered me before when it came up a few years ago. The idea, locking down code from boot through apps, is a good idea from a security standpoint. But, as pointed out elsewhere in this thread, thats not necessarily how it ends up being used (vendor lockin) and it ends up being compromised anyway (console rooting).
Still, with the advent of dirt cheap computing, (rasberry pi), a plethora of cell phones, and virtualization, I think there is more than enough opportunity to run the OS and programs of your choice. Computing platforms are simply so readily available, no-one will be able to lock everyting out.
Does that mean the next windows computer you buy may not be rootable to linux? Maybe. If you wanted linux on it, why'd you buy the non-rootable windows computer anyway? Alternately, why don't you just install vmware and virtualize. (Virtualization is a clear winner over dual booting now adays.)
Ultimately, it's just another product differentiator to shop for. But there's no way it can restrict your access to capabilities. And that's how it should be. Trade security for flexibility at your discression.
I do security
Mod Parent insightful
There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
It is courious and somewhat telling that the slashdot community mods down any resonable arguments about the tpm, instead promoting the privacy busting possibilities.
Wow. Nice. One of the first posts I saw that reflected an actual understanding of trusted computing, and its modded down to -1. Congratulations, Slashdot, on providing even more proof that you could care less about technology -- at least at the expense of paranoid drama. Is it that hard to read a specification? I guess so.
even now there are gated networks that are protected by few points of entry, which allow for you to cause much mischief if you break in.
it seems you still havent perceived what im picturing. you can manufacture/fake identities with the proper algorithm or imitation of identification. and there will be computers somewhere, allowing/barring secure channels through those identification, and if not, at least logging that identification.
breaking into such a server/gateway would allow much mischief, on either end of the spectrum.
Read radical news here
Congratulations on the contents of your blog, which incidentally is very interesting to read, go on, bravo. Voyance gratuite