Slashdot Mirror
Pentium IIIs Banned in Arizona?
Ryan Radecki writes "News.com reports that Arizona lawmakers are planning to introduce a bill that would ban the Pentium III due to its usage of a serial number for PC tracking and identification. The bill would ban chips with serial numbers, computers with chips with serial numbers, prohibit state and government agencies from buying computers with said chips inside, and prohibit the manufacture of said chips in the state, which would be an intriguing situation for the two Intel fabrication plants located in Arizona. "
Welcome to the state of Arizona, where it's illegal to own an Ethernet card.
- DCR
I always knew that USA politicians were nutcases.
Microsoft makes people reboot their computers all the time for stuff, all they need to do is incorporate the code into an IE "update"
I agree, this is a violation of Intel's rights. I don't necessarily agree with the PSN, but this legislature is completely against the ideals of free enterprise.
fscking morons. I'm this close to recouncing my citizenship in the US and moving to, say, New Zealand. Don't get me wrong, I love my country and everything it (used to) stands for, but it's being run by a bunch of goddamn morons.
Have you kicked a politician today?
The scary thing about all this serial number stuff
isn't that all of a sudden our computers are
identifiable over the network. The scary thing is
that these serial numbers are going to be registered and broadcast in IP packets. This is different than the examples cited above. I mean, how many people are there browsing the web from the console of a server? Enough to make it economically rewarding to track them? Of course not. And if I'm not mistaken, NIC addresses on ethernet cards aren't really broadcast netwide. They're more for identification for local network protocols such as bootp and dhcp and stuff. Currently, if a website identifies you, it's by either a cookie or by your IP number, both of which you have a bit of control over. In this case, Intel is branding about 85-90% of future personal workstations with a serial number that really you can't be sure you can control the access to at this point, for the sole purpose of identifying you over the Internet, not just to your local network or the manufacturer/service provider of your machine. And of course websites, seeing the mass adoptation of the standard, are going to take advantage of it. And of course, someone conceivably at this point could find a way of turning it on without the average user being aware of it. I agree the law is dumb because it is unresearched and ill-informed, but the spirit of it I definitely agree with.
What about the MIPS chips, which have ID's in
their CPU's?? Looks like we're not the only
"fuckin' DUMB" people here.
-thomas
It's pretty sad. This news doesn't shock me at all. You see, I'm an AZ native. I've lived here my whole life. We've had Evan Mecham the crook, 22 state officers arrested for accepting bribes in the AZ-SCAM investigation, Fife Symington, our former Governor, in prison for stealing old people's money, and Senator John McCain marching forward in an effort to ban what he calls 'internet smut' a.k.a CDA-II, stomping all over the first amendment in the process.
:-\
Hazzah.
And yes, this could hurt Intel in a very big way, seeing as how the they have a multi-billion dollar fab down in Chandler, AZ. Unfortunately the stupid fuck doesn't see how it will hurt AZ business. With Sumotomo, Motorola, Allied Signal, and Intel all in AZ in large numbers (read: multi-billion dollar investments), this place has been nick-named the Silicon Desert. Hopefully this stupid fuck won't scare Intel and friends to move someplace with friendlier law makers.
Protecting privacy is one thing, but banning the chips is as bad as forcing everyone to buy the chips. It's the government deciding that they know what's best for me in both situations.
A bill banning the _use_ of the serial number might be more appropriate.
Only Arizona. They seem to have a higher than normal number of nuts.
Considering that this has been a feature of most non-x86 CPUs for at least 20 years, I'm not sure that it is much of a problem. How do you think they do per CPU locks on unix software?
But do they transmit their serial # across the internet? This is the biggest issue.
Rep. May is a first-year state legislator who obviously is trying to get his name known. He represents a district (Central Scottsdale, North Tempe, and NE Phoenix) where there are NO Intel plants.
He probably figures "Why should I spend years making an ass out of myself when I can do it in my first 3 weeks in office?"
Besides, Intel's lobbyist will pay him a visit next week and draft its own legislation (a standard practice here in Arizona).
These are the same holier than thou ppl that banned all oral sex in Arizona in the 80s...I lived there 24 years and finally escaped to California. That was the law that made me into a libertarian.
/. girl
A
This bill is nothing to phear.
It is simply a bill that is going to be introduced by a lone gunman. In order to pass and be enforced, it would have to be cleared by the state house, then the state senate, be signed by the governor, and then survive state and/or federal court actions by Intel. As soon as Intel lobbyists hit the halls of the Capitol, the show will be over.
It will not happen.
I will add that I am pretty disgusted by the ignorance of the press and the rest of you (except some) who forget that software runs the show, not the Evil Intel CPU.
I also have mild surprise that Intel didn't anticipate this and do a better propaganda job. But hey, 'tis hard for an engineer to second guess the 50% of the population with below average Intel-ligence.
I'd like to ask Mr. May a question.
Mr. May,
Let me get this straight... Youre going to introduce legislation *banning* Pentium III's from the state of Arizona..Are you on drugs, or are you
simply retarded? I guess we should do away with license plates too! After all, (gasp!) they can be used by people to track where you go in your car! Infact, while we're at it, we should do away with the entire numbering system, and revert to relativistic measurement, like "alot", or "more", "a little bit", and "less". Then we could fix that pesky budget of ours.
With legislature like this running the state, no wonder the high-tech sector stays the hell away from AZ. In any event, i'd appreciate a reply to my question. Discovering that you might be A) On drugs, or B) mentally retarded may affect my vote in upcoming elections. You can reach me at my
office below.
Eagerly awaiting your reply,
Bowie J. Poag
--
Bowie J. Poag
UNIX Systems Manager, Computer Graphics Facility
Department of Chemistry, University of Arizona
Old Chemistry 329B Office: (520) 621-2691
This law won't pass but I'm sure Intel would've if people (not unlike Steve May) didn't speak up against the privacy problem. This isn't about ethernet cards and you know it.
Depends on the card. My ancient 3c509's don't let you. SOme newer ones do. It's really just asking for problems if you change them, though.
It's not the gummint's job to protect you from your own stupidity. Noone's forcing anyone to buy a Pentium III. This is unnecessary legislation. Every time we let the government tell us another thing we can't do, we all lose a little freedom.
IP packets don't "work that way," no, but they are wonderfully impartial about what data they transfer. You won't have to re-write the socket layer. You re-write the application layer. Add a non-standard "CPU-ID:" header to HTTP. It's not that hard; it's damn near trivial.
Of course, that makes it terribly easy to spot, but I'm not worried about the stealth-transmission scenario. I'm worried about the web sites that say "Turn on your cpu-id to get access to our coolest new feature" once PIII's become popular. Wouldn't Intel pay for such a promotion? They'd pay my company, no question: other similar companies have done the same in the past.
Witness the way that Javascript is necessary for many sites to be usable. All Netscape had to do was write the browser and add features that web sites wanted to use, and eventually sites don't bother to code for people without JS. A per-CPU ID number is incredibly valuable to membership-based web sites. Want to permanently ban an abusive chatter? Want to have a backup profiling/path-tracking scheme if they disable cookies? You bet you do.
Welcome to the wonderful world of choosing between giving away your privacy by enabling the CPU-ID, or becoming a second-class netizen barred from many commercial web sites.
Joy.
That's just the problem. I don't _want_ to move. I like the idea of what America claims to stand for. I like what it _stood_ for years ago. I'm just hoping that someday, everything will get back to sanity, and our government will begin to work for _us_ and not itself.
Buy AMD stock! :)
Indeed, this move is every bit as dumb as the idea about using CPU IDs to authenticate e-commerce. We do need parts with machine-readable serial numbers; we *don't* need to let anybody else see the numbers.
This is - put simply - the best thing I've seen law makers do in my lifetime - ever. Intel's serial # system demands boycott, and ought to be illegal. It's high time the government started fighting 1984-like developments, not making them.
Ethernets have nothing to do with tracking technology. Intel's plan is a direct attempt at violating the basic civil liberties of everyone. The goals of tracking with serial numbers are simple: control, control control. Intel's single motive is to violate people's privacy, and I refuse to accept that they aren't aware - and don't think - that they are attempting an invasion. Their plot is evil - pure and simple.
Kudos Arizona. There's hope in this illfated country of ours.
Intel cannot make any chip it wants to make. I'm sure the exploding chip or the heroin chip would be outlawed.
Dynamite is legal, why couldn't intel manufacture an explosive chip?
I'm surprised that you guys haven't seen the real issue. Intel's proposed SN scheme was a proprietary proposal. Non-Intel chips would not have this needed serial number. If you bought a $300 PC with the X86 clone chip, you might find yourself locked out of Disney Blast.
Intel once had 100% of the X86 market. Now that's down to only 75%. At one time, Intel was selling the Pentium II chip for $500. Can't do that with a $300 box. Clones of the Pentium chips have been out for a long time, but no one bothered putting them in PCs until the price of PCs started dropping below $1000. At that point, the price of the Intel chip became a substantial part of the price of the PC.
After all, is tracking the serial number of the hardware really a great way for tracking consumers? What if someone orders something from work and at home? They'd have two serial numbers. What happens if the person upgrades? You'd loose track of the customer.
Besides, there are millions users of non Intel computers out there. If this scheme did catch on, do you think these people would simply throw out their computers? Nope, someone will simply write a piece of code to create a virtual serial number. If you can create a virtual serial number, then you can change it anytime you want. In fact, people with Intel PCs who want their privacy will also use virtual serial numbers that they can change at will.
Nope. The whole purpose is simply to give people a reason to pay extra for a box that says "Intel Inside". It's almost an admission from Intel that there really isn't any reason to pay that Intel premium anymore.
As for this Arizona legislator. He's simply pandering to the voters of his district. Come election day, he can use this bill to demonstrate that he's pro-privacy.
A bill like this dies quietly in committee. The whole point was to get a lot of publicity. Heck, how much do you want to bet this guy will take full credit that Intel backed down? In November 2000, he'll run ads claiming how he stood up to Intel like David did to Goliath. While his opponent took campaign money from Intel.
No matter what you say about politicians, sooner or later they do listen to voters. When a politician acts really stupid, it's probably because he's pandering to some voting group. Remember, in a democracy, you always get the government you deserve. A scary thought, really.
That post doesn't even deserve a response. Garnted, I'm responding now, but only to say that the person's opinion is foolish.
There is still ban! It was *created* in the 80s by the damn AZ legislature. An no, I didn't leave because of the stupid laws, but because of the goddam 120 degree heat. And also the fact that the only thing worse than a town full of hicks is a metropolitan area of 2 million hicks (that's Phoenix).
Stupid laws (I can't give my husband a blow job in AZ) cause people to disregard the important ones (like not killing someone).
/. girl
What a poser legislature. Willing to make an ass
of themselves banning something that will die it's
own death of natural causes (Intel's serialized
chips would be doomed to failure; any software
or consumer with a positive IQ would ignore this
extra "feature")
But at the same time their police can break-and-
enter and forfeit civilian property. Don't
see these legislators doing anything about that...
Then stop bitching and whining about it with idle threats of renouncing your citizenchip. Of all the things you could do to make a difference, that would be the least effective.
Of course, if you're not in Arizona you can't say squat. Well, you can but it won't make any difference. We'll do whatever the hell we please here in Arizona, and if it pisses you off, we'll be that much more determined to do it.
There's nothing I can't stand more than a fair-weather patriot. Millions of people are trying to get to the US and obtain citizenship from abroad and you're willing to throw it all away (or the thought has crossed your mind) because some ignorant representative introduced what he thought was a good privacy bill. Better to point out the flaws in his bill then to jump ship altogether.
the government-- federal, state, or local--
should keep their hands off tech. the idea of tech
legislator is almost as smart as software patents.
in otherwords, leave it alone, stupid.
anything that moves as slow as the gov't should
stay clear of fast moving industries.
if this gets passed, the ramifications would be
horrendous. smart cards, "big iron", and untold number of other chips would become contraband. and for what reason? some guy that doesn't know his bits from bytes thinks its wrong for pentium 3s to have ids.
Do you think I'd actually run MS crap? We have way too many doze newbz at /.anymore...
- RF (dfelker@cnu.edu)
For those of you that isolate yourselves within the Intel realm (including the legislators) and those who just want anything so that you can scream "conspiracy"... Most other platforms have some sort of hostID that is unique to that computer. Sun, HP, SGI, etc. all have some sort of unique number for that computer. It's no big deal. It's actually a good thing!
-t
Arizona is sending Intel one HELL of a message:
Privacy is king!!!
Too bad the message is suffering from a case of bad delivery.
(babylon@netroplex.com)
This is getting totally nuts. Next the bible
bangers are going to start associating Intel
with the Beast in Revelations. And then
Art Bell will get into it. People are going
to burn their mobos in the street. Right before
the nukes hit.
Whatever you think, this is turning into a
media disaster for Intel. I don't mind having
a serialized CPU, as long as it's quiet about it.
-kabloie
OK, I know how to track the IP numbers my browser requests and receives from with Win31 with the Trumpet dialer - just check the menu entry.
In Linux, how do I do the same thing? Theoretically (so far), this would tell me who my processor ID is being sent to.
I'm the kind of person who tails the cookie file out of curiosity.
even tho the polititions seem to be rather ignorant
:)
of the whole thing...it seems like it might be benefitial by
forming intel to relook the whole idea....its not like
this would pass anyways...
and being from arizona...its not true that....screw it
we're all nuts...all of us.
3.Just because we've quietly accepted hostid numbers and permanent MAC addresses doesn't mean that's right.**
..grumble, grumble.., ok, you can change your MAC, this works ok in shared network environments, however as you move into modern switched network environments this becomes a bad idea. (ex: said switch drops you from Group or VLAN like a bad habit because your MAC changed.) Anyway your MAC drops out of the picture when you hit the first router anyway. How about you choose better things to be paranoid about?
The serial # would have been great to get rid of anonymous cowards!
/., then we'd fix those useless bastards.
We could have had a little program that fed the serial # of your machine to
Wait, I'm useless....whoops....I blew my big chance...again.:-(
Enough is enough. Governments in supposedly democratic nations are there to represent the people and perform tasks like protecting their privacy from corporations and the like. The corporations responsibilities are only to their shareholders, not their employees or the public at large. This is the problem with you economic rationalist/libertarians - regardless of all evidence to the contrary, you insist that the market will act in a decent, responsible manner. Learn to think in the least bit critically and you may remove the "money is always right" blinkers from your eyes. Corporations are generally run by short term, short sighted management types with much more concern for their own pocket stuffing than any greater good.
Any of you thought what this might mean to intels euro sales where they already do have strong privacy laws, or are you taking the standard US world view. US and them, and them don't matter.
Governements are only bad when their citizens don't take responsibilities for their actions.
S Hird
Such action from Intel and from Big Government do not surprise me at all. I have no trust nor confidence in either.
Fortunately, I have some damn fine computers, running hte OSes I need to live my cyberlife and make my money, and NONE of them use Intel CPUs. Furthermore, I have no plans to ever buy another Intel CPU in my lifetime (which may or may not change).
My SparcStations run Linux, Solaris, and OpenStep quite well, and the little Macs and NeXTs I have for application-specific needs also function great as embedded controllers.
Don't like the Intel thing? Support RISC, or CISC producers like AMD and Cyrix.
Bollocks to Intel, M$, and the Gub'ment. Think for thyself.
Contrary to your belioef this would hurt Intel terribly as it has two chip manufacturing plants in Arizona, and the laww would prevent them from manufacturing PIII's. (Also Craig Barret the CEO of intel lives in arizona, so this is actually a personal insult to him.) Anyway such law would only really bother intel in California, Arizona, New Mexico, or Washington, and this is one of the states. It would also make distribution more difficult as any wholesale, or catalog firm in arizona (and there are a few) could not transact in PIII, so you better believe that Intel will spend millions to fight this law, and might even bow into the pressure, and remove the damn ID's. Or like we have CA only versions of cars, because of their crazy air pollution bills, which are different from the rest of the country, we might live to have AZ only version of chips, and computers, and anyone desiring a privacy would buy those.....BUT I doubt it will get that far.....either Intel, or maybe even common sense will stop it....maybe they should ban just CPU, or chipset with ID's as that would not infringe on anything available now (rom tags, MAC numbers, HD ID's, etc....), so lets just watch, and see where all this goes....
BTW I live in AZ, so this crazy law would directly affect me, but I do not thing it will ever pass, because Intel will do something about it.....
It's interesting to note that there are plenty of ways to "fingerprint" things like CPU's, monitors, and keyboards. One example is the RF signature (every oscillator is unique) created by the motherboard/CPU combination. This signature can be read from monitoring equipment across the street (and some say even from space).
The point is that embedded serial numbers aren't the only way to identify a piece of electronic equipment and banning any single method wont serve any purpose (other than the one which is obviously intended here, a political one). So we ban these built in numbers this week. What are we going to do next week, ban the laws of physics to prevent detecting things like RF signatures or keyboard clicks?
Intel isn't the only one with large semiconductor operations in Arizona. I believe that Motorola has a major facility there as well. I find it VERY strange that the state would try to push these folks out of the state (Hello Intel and Motorola, those of us in Idaho could really use the jobs).
Let me see if I understand this...Arizona did something stupid (banned oral sex), and that prompts you to do something stupid (become a libertarian) in response?
It's hard to see how Arizona could craft such a law to withstand a Constitutional challenge, so I doubt Intel is trembling in their boot ROMs over this.
You guys should go out more!! NOT everyone has an OC-12 connection to their provider!! stop being so elitist and think about the average joe!! most folks don't even have a damn network card!! but *EVERYBODY* has a CPU!! that's why it's so scary!!
I think indeed a nice point would be to make
is that Intel chips are crap. I don't care what
stupid Aldus Huxley crap Intel stick on it's
wafers. Guess what kinds of chips i don't and
wont buy! Actually i think what worries me more
is just the essence of the idea.
General electronic wares incorporating a
range of chips which "track" people
Does AZ plan on not giving a shit about any systems still running on Big Iron? What about all that data they must have still sitting around on 9 track tapes processed by these systems? This story has got to be bullshit.
I like the idea of the government standing up for privacy in an age where it's becoming so easy to monitor everyone and everything. Admittedly it'd be better if people had a real choice and could just not buy the chip, an exec's real fear. This is such a strong statement, though, since it's a government official in an intel populated state with a lot to lose for the sake of privacy. I like the idea of my anonymous chip, and if the standard-setter starts doing it, I may not have a choice anymore.
detroit
Damnit, Fastolfe, what you don't seem to get is that given Microsoft's documented track record, this paranoia is JUSTIFIABLE. We're talking about a company that saw fit to secretly grab your entire directory structure when you upgraded to Win95. This is the company that answered your complaints by saying they needed that data for tech support, when their tech support said they weren't even allowed to look at it. This is the company that coded bogus error messages into Win 3.1 to con you into switching from DR-DOS to MS-DOS. You think MS doesn't take advantage of the proprietary nature of their product to insert secret code that benefits only MS and partners, at the expense of the general public? What more proof do you need?
Some people will believe anything that a corporation's press flack tells them. Geez.
We know ethernet has nothing to do with tracking ID (although it can be used for it - at least one system I've seen does this!)
The legislation would make Ethernet cards with hardcoded IDs illegal!!! They are supposed to be hard coded - software coding is to allow cheating like having multiple cards creating a virtual card.
Might this be a little overboard? I think they should require a company statement that the SN will NEVER be sent without the customer's permission. This is suffient for me (and something Intel has not promissed.)
In related things, anyone think about this senario: A nasty company produces a program that encorporates Intel's unlock-the-serial-number code, at which point the program begins checking serial numbers across the internet and uses these for tracking purposes. I can see MS doing this. Be scared.
The root of this stupidity is the media. Yesterday,
I heard a report on CNN about the PIII, it said
"The new Intel PIII chip has a serial number that
it sends across the internet."
I bet if the mass media actually KNEW what it was
talking about, stupid people in government office
wouldn't try to pass laws such as this one.
I suppose this means that they'll be getting rid of *all* of their mainframes, since they *all* have serial numbers, and have had forever?
mark, who, among many other things, used to
ask for the number to give a key for
the software....
No, the bill's not perfect, but it can, and probably will, be improved. I like the idea of anonymous hardware. I'd prefer that my hardware did not have machine-readable id numbers. Are folks here actually advocating the use of machine-readable id numbers???
** Why have we accepted this? I'd guess because for the most part hostids and MAC addresses predate the Web and the the explosion of consumer PC use. hostids and MAC's don't generally bother corporate types who like control and move slowly, etc. This sort of id info is inappropriate for single end-user computers. If the Arizona bill not only stops the P3 big brother fiasco but leads other hardware vendors to produce more anonymous hardware, I say that's great.
It's not that Ethernet cards and mainframes and SGI machines already have serial numbers in them. The point is the fact that soon an overwhelming majority of home PCs will have the ID number. How many of these novice or part-time users will even know about the serial number, much less understand the ramifications?
If most of the naive users don't know or care about being tracked, it will be almost impossible for those who do understand to keep anonymous. You will have to enable the serial number simply to run software, shop on the 'net, or maybe even check email. I don't know about you, but rebooting for every other task to enable and disable this number seems like a serious pain.
Look at the Social Security Number. There are lots of places that ask you for it. In a lot of cases, you are not required to give it, but the provider of the service is also not required to provide you service (e.g. a credit card). So, even though there are ways to keep the number from being broadcast, it may severely limit your ability to *do* anything (computer-wise).
This bill is probably nothing more than a message to Intel. The law would never survive a challenge in the courts and everybody knows it--they also know that lobbying against passage would be expensive, that the cost in terms of PR would be big, and that in the unlikely event that it became law, it would cost a lot of money to challenge it in the courts.
My problem with this whole mess is: I haven't been able to find any details on the actual implementation. Would the actual ID be traded, or would it be used to generate a signature? Trading a trusted, indelible ID would only create a huge security hole. Once a cracker has your chip ID, he can spoof your identity and there's nothing you can do about it--you're screwed. A signature can be revoked, but not an ID. Am I wrong?
slashdot broke my sig
- A.P.
--
"One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promotional Ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
- A.P.
--
"One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promotional Ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
Damn! I'd have thought _some_ slashdotters would clue to this! Nobody really _cares_ what Joe Schmoe does on the net. The issue here is:
-chip can send out a serial number asserting 'I am a PIII chip!'
...and of course this leads by the expenditures of payola-type money to...
-web sites begin REQUIRING, not suggesting, not demanding but REQUIRING Intel. Not just Intel, none of those damned Celerons- PIIIs!
I am sorry but THAT is what this is about- and I see no reason to humor it. Look, if even 25% of web sites were using such an arrangement, the _first_ thing that would come to people's minds would be Intel monopolising, trying to kill off AMD not to mention Motorola and anybody else by pure market manipulation tactics. Why, why is it that when it actually starts _happening_, people flip out, totally miss the real message and start thinking Intel cares about their visiting www.pam-anderson-in-spandex.com??
Sheesh. I almost want Arizona to _pass_ this one simply because in their stupidity they are addressing the real threat of this scenario that NOBODY else seems to be cluing into. Just why do you think Windows PCs are so frickin' popular, because people chose them on the merits? No, it's because people had stuff they wanted to do that was _barred_ to anything other than a Windows PC. Now Intel is trying to set up an authentication racket. Whether or not the thing's active by default is moot- if you want to surf X or download from Y you _will_ turn it on (or throw out your celeron, go buy a real PIII and _then_ turn it on)
The motive for Intel in this should be _damn_ obvious.
Intel PCs running Windows are typically single use machines so CPU ID maps to a user. Sun workstations are frequently multi-user and users frequently use more than one machine so mapping the CPU or hostid to a user would be silly.
If a law is directed at a particular entity, then isn't that law a bill of attainder (hence, illegal)? If so, I can see Intel suing the State of Arizona for punitive and compensatory damages...could be really bad for some over zealous legislators. A broad law, written against chips with the features Intel's has would be OK (as long as the feature isn't patented) because the state could argue that it was looking out for the privacy of its citizens, while a law written specifically against the P III would be legislative suicide.
/dev/brain /dev/brain: No such file or directory
# find
find: cannot open
What is your Slash Rating?
What, they've never had SGI, Sun or DEC equipment in AZ before? Hmmm. They all had IDs in hardware/firmware.
The chip doesnt send anything out on the internet on its own.. no one is going to be able to track you for having a serial number on your chip... the only way to get at it is if a program running on your system gets it and sends it out... if big brother already has daemons running in the background on your computer then its too late anyway and a CPUID wont make a difference... also many devices have unique serial numbers such as hard disks. it is really useless to track a person or as identification because the plaintext is always availible to any program... software programs must do something with it and sofware isnt any less hackable because it calls this cpuserial opcode... its just a PR stunt by intel gone bad... they knew that it was useless for encryption and ID (its hard not to if you know anything about encryption) and that the functionality was already there... they just wanted to sell a few more chips.. (e-commerce is a buzzword) ha.. somebody got very fired over this. ah well... lates
http://notanumber.net/
Just wish this was a state with a little bit
more weight in terms of computer consumer buying
power (like CA, TX, any New England state, etc...)
Although I truely doubt that Intel will just ignore AZ's ban, and sell to the other 49 states
unabaited.
At least I'm glad to see both people at the national and state levels standing up for
personal privacy and the net.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
Can you buy Ethernet cards in Arizona?
--
W.A.S.T.E.
W.A.S.T.E.
. . . "Far too often a state will bend over
backwards to please corporations". . .
Try - bend over forwards.
Actually, AZ just hit up Motorola for a huge bill to clean up toxic waste.
I think the semiconductor industry isn't feeling too welcome in that state any longer.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
"Believe me, when Intel figures out that the reason their latest and greatest isn't
selling is because consumers don't like this 'feature' they'll take it out"
No, millions of uninformed consumers will continue to buy their inferior chips, just as they have in the past, and when enough do, requirement of the PSN will become a standard, and those who do not advertise their PSN will be "shut out" of vital internet services like ecommerce, etc.
The genie is out, and intel is only making the bullets. The firing squad is the online business community, and the sheep just keep on marching to their slaughter, and taking us all along for the ride.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
There's little Intel can do to guarantee that BIOS companies and OS companies (Microsoft) will treat the CPU ID as "sensitive" data only to be given with the user's permission.
Think about it though, guys. The only way details like this can be sent over the web is if an applet requests your permission to retrieve it. It's the same thing with software serial numbers (like the Microsoft web registration stuff). The only way it can be sent without your permission is if the software is re-written specifically to do so. I can't imagine Microsoft doing that. In addition, re-enabling it (and requesting a reboot, deceptively so that you won't know it's re-enabled) is, again, a deception that must be deliberately written into the software. Have you any idea as to the PR nightmare that would cause once it's discovered (and it will be discovered very fast, especially in light of all the press this has gotten)? If you're worried, write them a letter and tell them your concerns. This isn't Intel's problem.
Are there panels of technical advisors that clue lawmakers in on things before the lawmakers blindly make decisions like this on little, typically inaccurate, information?
It seems to me that we shouldn't HAVE to bombard our legislature with corrections or educational letters in order for them to know the "real" story. If the sole source of information these people have is the mass media, we are in some serious trouble.
And what about CNN? How in the world can they get off by broadcasting misleading information like this? Don't THEY have some sort of technical staff reviewing these stories before they're released? I think it's time we have a few respectable news organizations step up and admit that most of the rest of the mass media is exaggarating the problem.
Well, how is a CPU going to transmit its ID across the Internet? It is not the CPU we should be worried about here, it is the software. Maybe software that transmits the CPU ID across the Internet without the user's knowledge should be banned. But, really what is the big deal? How will you specifically be identified by your CPU ID? Is Intel going to register all purchasers of their CPUs and make that database available to companies? I highly doubt it. I'm sure there are any number of things on your computer that could be "broadcast across the Internet" that people would complain about. What about a list of what software is installed on your system, oh, wait, that's been done already...
And then you got a bunch of people who don't know a bit of what's inside the computer, let alone use it adequately, and the salespeople who plug the computers into their arses and don't know any better. The kind of people who form the bread and butter of Internet e-commerce because they are more eager to click on a link without knowing what it is for. Kinda like the average AOL customer.
These people would buy said chip if it's offered in an actractive way, unless they're told what's wrong with it. So, we can't just stand still and wait til the market settles, we must go and spread the word.
In Soviet Russia, Jesus asks: "What Would You Do?"
Good point, though I'd think with all the butt-kissing the legislature does to attract big business here, they'd remember not to annoy the big businesses once they are here.
I remember when Intel moved in to New Mexico (I was there at the time), and I've since heard about the tailspin Albuquerque went into when they scaled back (or was it pulled out) of there. Not pretty.
But then, Intel isn't a sports franchise.
Legislators looove sports franchises...
Patrick Connors
I laugh, sadly.
I live in Arizona; used to work for the state private industry pays much better) and I can tell you that the legislature here is the absolute stupidest elected body I have ever had the misfortune to deal with in my life.
Unfortunately, their advisors are no better.
Years of futilely voting for the best person for the job has made me cynical, except in one key issue: I can usually predict the losers in elections.
In reply to one comment, yes, the state government uses Sun servers. I personally know of at least five. This guy hasn't got a clue.
Sigh.
Patrick Connors
So? The next time you reboot, it reports back. What's the problem?
-- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"'
This law would also outlaw network cards - which have unique MAC addresses hardcoded, SCSI Disks - which have a serial number, and many modern modems - which also include serial numbers. If Ethernet cards didn't come pre-programed from the factory with a unique number, maintaining uniqueness on a large LAN would be a major hassle. (worse than the current situation with IP's, since bootp and dhcp won't work for this sort of thing.) Software serial numbers on SCSI drives and Modems help ensure that the correct version of firmware upgrades are installed.
This law is even lamer than Intel's suggestion that an easily tampered with serial number could help secure e-commerce. If it becomes official, folks in Arizona would have to manually set MAC addresses on all their new network cards, as well as risk installing unmatched firmware upgrades on their new SCSI drives and Modems.
Sun Sparc Stations have an EPROM on the mother board with its hostid on it. Would this law ban Sparcs?
Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not after you!
It's on a PROM in the front panel
or in the backplane, depending on the model.
it never ceases to amaze me how idiotic my state legislature is. i think i'll contact Steve May (the guy who is going to introduce this bill) and inform him that his bill will force the state government to remove all its Ethernet cards. sheesh!
contact Steve May: email | 602-542-5408
-rbw
Tell me what I don't see here. The slashdot community is in general having hissy fits over the idea of people being able to track everything you ever do on your computer by the identification number you'd get in a Pentium III. And the slashdot community is in general tired of American governments doing stupid things.
So when a state government stands up for internet privacy rights even though there are two HUGE Intel facilities in Arizona, including at least one design center and a fab, what do you do? You complain! I don't get it.
We all know that the news.com story was badly worded and that news.com is not meant as a site for people that now the difference between the serial number etched on chip, a serial number in eprom, or Intel's indentification serial number scheme. Just for once, can we be happy? Just once?
Andrew Gardner
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside a dog, its too dark to read.
Now, I understand that the government should be involved in as few things as possible, but a libertarian understanding of this situation is inadequate to fully describe it. If this technology can be used to bring about an age in which there is virtually no privacy in internet transactions, then government intervention is necessary if you believe in the ideal of internet privacy. As far as the free market determining these things, that relies upon fundamental assumptions that are lacking in this case.
We assume the public must be well informed enough to make intelligent decisions, but the general public doesn't know anything about encryption, serial numbers in IP packets, or anything else. The general public uses AOL and Microsoft products. Web servers run NT and IIS. People are obviously uninformed.
The free market functions only when the vast majority of people are operating under the same set of assumptions, under the same of information that is closely correlated to the truth. That isn't happening.
If we nerds (the only people with the information to make decisions like these) are to abdicate our role as leaders in favor of a libertarian, free market system full of people who don't have the fundamental understanding of these situations, we are guarenteed that whoever has the most money to market their ideas will win, regardless of cost, technical merit, or any other consideration.
Andrew Gardner
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside a dog, its too dark to read.
There are a lot of tech firms around here. This guy is out of line. There's no way this will pass. I just wish that lawmakers like him would get clued before jumping in front of the microphone. Here's a link to his page if you'd like to (politely) let him know that this is a bad idea: http://www.azleg.state.az.us/members/ smay.htm Please don't flame, just inform.
Well, people have already mentioned ethernet addresses.
What about iButtons? My dad has a weather station based on Dallas Semiconductor's iButton/1wire technology, and he's quite impressed with its usability and nifty factor. What makes it so cool is that these little disposable gate-activated switches each have a unique 64-bit serial number.
What about - get this - automobiles? I mean, they have registration numbers on all the parts, including the onboard computer...
There's just whole bunches of stuff with serial numbers. I have no problem with serial numbers in my chips, even in the CPU; it takes software to broadcast/care about the serial number, and so I just won't run software that violates my privacy by doing that. I mean, plenty of other programs do that without serial numbers in the CPUs; I've seen SNES emulators which use lots of system characteristics to determine a serial number (which, of course, breaks it when you upgrade your memory or CPU or whatever). Motherboards have serial numbers as well, but people don't complain about that.
---
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
Quine "quine?
Guess this means that anyone (in Arizona) with an SGI will have to get rid of it. I wonder if it applies to network cards? Ofcourse we call that number a MAC or hardware address, not a serial number. So I guess it's alright.
Something tells me this legislation isen't going to happen.
Even though I'm not in favor of PIII serial numbers, I think this bill is pretty stupid. For anyone who doesn't believe that other computers have serial numbers, compile this program on an SGI or a Sun (probably works on others, but I didn't test it)...
#include
#include
int main(int argc, char* argv[]) {
char buf[512];
sysinfo(SI_HW_SERIAL,buf,511);
printf("serial number: \"%s\"\n",buf);
}
Hey, guess we need to ban most workstations too now, since someone could incorporate this code into a web browser!
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --H.L. Mencken
I just love how these yahoos jump on a technological bandwagon based on some unknown or undefined fear and try to make a law about it as soon as possible. How many times has our Congress done this?? I bet you 99% of the dolts in the state govt. of AZ have no clue about this topic other than what they've read in the papers. Yet, once the privacy alarms were sounded, they hopped on their white horses.
The point has been made already that Ethernet cards and several other types of chips already have IDs. I can see it now, the reaction from the stupid state govt: "What? Really? ummmmm.....Oh." (walks away scratching head) Let's find something a LITTLE more important to work on.....
I've often been able to disable it just by installing it or trying to use it, and it often disables itself.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
If I lived in Arizona I'd appreciate the concern for my privacy but wouldn't much care for the state interfering in my choice of processors.
'Course this whole serial number thing could be just to make it easier to recall them for FPU problems.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Try running 'hostid' on a Sun system. Each machine has a unique host ID number associated with it. I'm not sure if this is tied to the CPU(s). Its probably tied to some auxiliary chip on the motherboard. Nevertheless, they do have this. I'd love to see the State of Arizona get by without Sun servers. This would definitely affect ISPs such as @Home who use Suns, as well as the major universities in AZ (UofA, ASU, NAU, etc.) and who knows how many government agencies and smaller ISPs.
On the other hand, you have to see this proposed law for what it is. It appears to me that it is designed to *PROTECT* the consumer.
-chris
cjs@imall.com
I got to agree. This bill was still born before the ink was dry and the people the wrote it know it was. It could be AZ's congress', or whatever, way of saying "that our people don't want this in our state and if you try it we're going to ban it."
But more likly it's just a way to grab some press coverage and make a few brownie points with the privacy groups. Is it election time in AZ?
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
You are missing 3 important facts here:
1. Not every computer has an Ethernet card but every computer needs a CPU.
2. The MAC adress can be changed easily with most Ethernet cards
3. It is trivial to build software to run only on a CPU with a certain ID, which would force customers to turn this feature on. Using MAC adresses for the same purpose wouldn't be very useful since not every computer has one and it it is next to impossible to read the MAC adress without relying on third party hardware drivers.
This is easy to overcome: Silently change the BIOS setting and wait for the next reboot. After all, who checks his BIOS settings on every startup?
This reminds me of the time that some state legislature tried to set the official value of Pi to 3 at the insistence of some bible-banger.
But it's possible to override the ethernet ID on an ethernet card (and fairly easy, too), and it's also possible to do it on the PIII. What they want to restrict is non-overridable numbers... but not even then. There are products from security companys (smart cards, smart rings, etc) with cryptographic identifiers in them that people really do buy because they are a pain to forge.
All of a sudden it's impossible to use key-card doorlocks based on this technology! Big Brother wants you to have less security in your home and business! Someone should point this out to the legislature.
I can't vouch for HP, Sun, etc., but I know that this would specifically exclude MIPS chips, as they all have serials in the CPU or CPU module. Really annoying when a chip blows and you have to not only wait for the new cpu but then also wait for new licenses for all of your nodelocked software...
Kriston J. Rehberg
http://kriston.net/
Kriston
actually, a corporation does count as an entity in and of itself. unlike a partnership, which is disolved legally when a partner dies, a corporation is assumed to have "a life of its own" so to speak, and so continues on. this is also the same reason we have limited liability with corporations -- the corporation, as an individual, may take loans, etc. and he/she/it is the party responsible.
there are some places where the punishments and rights are not the same (send Microsoft to the electric chair?), but this is the model that America, at least, has chosen to work with.
These are the same lawmakers protecting us and the rest of the world from an arms race in weapons of mass destruction like CRYPTO.
This is political opportunism by politicians who have made no attempt to understand the issue whatsoever. Unga, chip have number, some no like number, me no like number, people like me.
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
....didn't these legislators hear that Intel plans to drop the PID "feature" from their Pentium III design?
Finding God in a Dog
My suggestion would be to make the use of
UltraSPARC chips and Solaris 7 mandatory and to
ban all other chips and operating systems. Welcome
to the brave new world!
>The only way it can be sent without our
>permission is if the software is re-written
>specifically to do so. I can't imagine Microsoft
>doing that.
Nothing has stopped them from silently over-writting things and requesting a reboot before. Bah. Having an ID on a cpu is just a bad idea.
This sig is false.
I am amazed that a lot of you are actually supporting this. If the SN's bother you, you have several choices: buy a PII, buy a clone, buy a Mac, boycott, etc. All Arizona is doing is taking away from users and manufacturers the right to choose what products they are goiing to buy and sell. It is a horrendous violation of Intel's right to make any damn chip it wants.
I am amazed that a lot of you are actually supporting this. :)
Funny, most of the posts I see are opposed to it, although not for the reason you're saying. It is true though, Intel should be allowed to make any chip they want to - they could make a chip that costs $2Million and makes a "Ping" noise if they wanted to, and nobody should be force them not to. Of course, that dosen't mean anyone else has to buy it, and we all have the right to tell them it's a dumb idea.
The other problem with that law is (as previously mentioned) the sheer number of other systems that it would ban, which are already in use. Big Corp's like Chrysler tend to have a lot of SGI boxes around the place, and they'd have to replace all of them with dumbed-down weak boxes that wouldn't do the job right. Sorry, but there is no PC on the planet that can match a loaded down Challenge-XL, even with an equal ammount of cash dumped into it, and as far as I know, the equivalent Sun and HP servers have on-chip ID's as well. Hopefully someone who's around there will think to point this out to the lawmakers in question, I'm sure they wouldn't want to be responsible for a massive chunk of industry up and leaving their state.
They're targeting the wrong problem anyways, since chip-IDs are pretty much old news anyhow, and can be usefull in identifying stolen equipment. (Kinda like the serial number on a bicycle, but even harder to get rid of.) What they should be doing is banning the use of chip-IDs as a form of verification for supposedly secure commerce - they're too easy to fake, and would lead the unknowing masses into a false sense of safety, while they all get ripped off.
Ummm don't these people realize that it is exteremlly common in larger servers systems to embed a serial number in the chip? The general effect of this would be to ban mid-range and larger systems. As well as ethernet cards, hardware incryption cards, and a whole host of other hardware.
Dumb, dumber and legislators.
This bill from Arizona also would possibly also make many recent Texas Instruments graphing calculators with Flash ROMs illegal. Somewhere in my TI-89 there is a serial number embedded in it. I'm not exactly sure how it is implemented though. Granted these calculators aren't exactly common, yet.
Impersonating Tycho from Penny Arcade since before there was a PA.
...they'll want to vote in Daylight Savings Time. No more reason to want to live here. I'm movin.
MG
That's crazy. I've lived here almost my whole life and didn't know that. I think I can use that to my advantage. I'm gonna turn in my ex-girlfriend. While we were going out that bitch must have racked up a life sentence with all the blow jobs she gave...and that doesn't even count the ones she gave me :)
M
MG
How different is this from the DOJ Microsoft case? I know. It's not similar at all on the surface, but the underlying theme is one of government attempting to protect users from oppressive corporations.
It is a PR ploy on behalf of the politicians. It does make a statement, but only one about how far governments will go to interfere with the privacy and private lives of individuals.
Every time you cheer for another blow to big bad Bill (Gates, that is, not the other blow to the other Bill) remember that it won't be the last time a government agency sticks their fingers into the technology pie.
If this doesn't sound bad to you, just think that Al Gore is the government's Alpha Geek.
This is what happens when we relinquish our responsibilities to the government.
The correct way to deal with the PIII serial number issue is simply not to buy a CPU that you feel comprimises your privacy. Believe me, when Intel figures out that the reason their latest and greatest isn't selling is because consumers don't like this 'feature' they'll take it out. I don't care what other motives Intel has for having it in there, they are still driven by the bottom line.
When we allow the government to 'protect' us like this we are surrendering a little more of what freedom we do have left. Enough is enough.
I hate when this happens... Why does this form
always react to , just because I want to
finish the Subject line?
Anyway: Every ethernet card has a kind of serial number in it. This could also be used to track users - and it's used for copy protection already. Will Arizona ban all ethernet cards as well?
Anyway: Every ethernet card has a kind of serial number in it. This could also be used to track users - and it's used for copy protection already. Will Arizona ban all ethernet cards as well?
Is the public relations disaster Intel created by claiming this feature was for securing e-comerence.
The ID scheme is clearly for software copy protection support and really has nothing to do with privacy or security, but they could not possibly convince consumers that this was a desirable feature so they invented this ploy and it backfired terribly.
--
Howard Roark, Architect
Howard Roark, Architect
I believe in a Man's right to exist for his own sake.
This is all perfect. :) I love this state!
Sure, SOME people might see a contradiction here,
between Intel plants and banning the PIII.
But it's just another perfectly normal day in Arizona.
I really think the bill was meant as a way of creating a large scene rather than anything else. It's very likely that the law will be overthrown by the state supreme court, and failing that the US supreme court. Also, I don't think a MAC address necisarally would be a serial number. I'm thinking it would be more of an "identification number." I doubt my logic would hold up in court, but you never know...
-matt
I think everyone is missing the point. Serialized CPUs do nothing for internet commerce. Software will be what transmits the ID and therefor the ID can be easily spoofed. Even if your software doesn't allow you to spoof the ID you could put your computer behind a linux box and with some hacking make the linux box rewrite the ID when it's transmitted.
I also don't see how they can be used to invade privacy. See above reasons about rewriting ID. Also, I strongly doubt any web site would require a serialized CPU. It would be dumb to limit your customers to only a select group, while your competetors will sell to anyone.
Now for security they could do a little bit. If your computer is stolen it would allow a positive ID to be made on that cpu, but since the ID can allegedly be "permanetly" disabled, it's not even good for that.
The only practical use I can see for a serialized cpu is for locking software to a specific computer. This would be especially usefull for Microsoft when they ship an OS with a new computer. The license says that that you can only use that copy of windows with the computer that it was purchased on. Now microsoft could modify the cd-key code in such a way that one cd-key could work with one and only one cpu. That way you couldn't take that copy of windows that you got with your notebook and install it on your desktop.
But then again if you can disable the ID that wouldn't seem to be a practical idea, unless of cource you are microsoft and you can do things that aren't practical because you huge. If the serialized cpu is only required on the initial install then if windows is factory installed it doesn't matter.
Maybe I'm missing something, but the only people I see benifating from a serialized cpu are possibly the software companies.
-matt
Hrm...and I thought PA was behind the times for LEGALIZING sodomy (which includes oral sex) in 1980. Go figure.
-matt
Its a shame that our system of government thinks it is their
responsibility to make laws concerning things they know
very little, if anything, about. As long as they get enough
press I suppose it does not matter if they are right or wrong.
Maybe if some of their constituents took the time to write
about how ludicrous some of their ideas are this would
happen less and less.
Arizona State Legislature
10: PRINT "Everything old is new again."
20: GOTO 10
>I may be incorrect, but I believe that you had to
> actually reboot your machine to unlock the
> serial id, which precludes companies
> doing this.
You mean you'd notice if a windows program said
"Installation complete. You will have to restart your computer before you can use it. Reboot now?"
>The processor ID's are unnecessary. The MAC
>addresses are needed
Umm.. why?
Yes, I know the protocol. But then, IP addresses need to be unique, and the solution is dynamic ip addresses (as used in PPP).
Pick a random number, check if it's being used, and hey presto.
If you dont like US laws, dont move to NZ. The NZ
govt. caves in to the least bit of preassure from the US. As may be shown by the Wassenaar agreement.
Republicans: so concerned about your privacy, unless you are:
1. female, pregnant, and don't want kids
2. homosexual
3. heterosexual with a healthy imagination
4. HIV-positive
5. Bill Clinton.
And don't get me started on the f***ing Democrats.
When it comes to politicians, my favorite quote is
from the movie "Manhunter", when Hannibal "The
Cannibal" Lector replies to the message from his
admirer. (Look it up if you're interested, I don't
need some nutcase cybercop thinking I'm totally
serious.)
Even if it does not pass I think it sends a clear message about people wanting privacy.
As to the above ethernet card issues, How many people on the net are connected by modem and how many by ethernet? For most internet users ethernet id tracking is not an issue
Doug Bryant
Dude (Dudette?)...
The possiblity of being identified by a serial # over the net has been a possiblity for _years_.
Checkout this site if you have a network card and know its hardware (MAC) address. Should be something like 02:06:82:45:34.
Stupid people trying to kill something they don't understand....
Here is a copy of an e-mail I just sent to this representative:
Hello Mr. May.
Although I am no longer a constituent in Arizona, I did grow up and go to college there. I worked for Intel as a circuit design engineer from 1994 through last year, and I must tell you that your proposed bill to ban serialized integrated circuits is, at best, and uninformed attempt to ban a technology you do not even understand.
Intel's press release that it's serialized Pentium III's was little more than a marketing ploy, albeit a poorly orchestrated one. I will not argue that Intel's suggested use of serialization on it's chips leave many questions regarding privacy unanswered but consider the following:
1. It is quite likely that Intel has been selling (and manufacturing in Arizona) IC's that have been serialized for years.
2. Other manufacturers also have motivation serialize their chips. Motorola is an example.
3. Many other components on a PC, such as motherboard BIOS's, Ethernet network cards, and thousands, possibly millions of components already in use contain serialization.
4. Most (if not all) software on the market includes a unique serial ID that is easily readable through software and can be used to 'track' users. Windows 98 automatic software update feature is a good example of a technology that already makes good use of this type of technology.
The bill you propose could have the following consequences if, by some odd twist of fate, it were to pass:
1. It would cripple the computing infrastructure of most companies, since the local area network (ethernet) cards would become illegal.
2. The ban on manufacture of serialized chips would likely shut down operations of large portions of two of the biggest employers in Arizona, namely, Intel and Motorola, even if the aforementioned network card issue was given reprieve. Let's not forget ST Microelectronics, Honeywell/Bull, Burr Brown and Microchip.
3. The ensuing economic disruption would surely cost the Arizona legislature millions (if not billions) in litigation defending cases brought by these companies, not to mention the economic havoc that would be associated with turning tens of thousands of Arizonan's away from their jobs.
4. It would demonstrate that Arizona's state legislature is as uninformed and non-sensical as is sometimes joked about by it constituents.
Sincerely,
-name omitted for \. post-
Jeez. Looks like the Az. lawmakers didn't do much homework, considering they are backing themselves into a corner by limiting a number of needed devices (Ethernet) and computers. DUH.
Seems like a god idea gone awry. I agree that Intel's idea is totally kooky, but I am one to believe that the market should determine itself. Hey, I don't want a chip that goes on spouting off my information, so I won't buy one. What a crazy idea that is. And then, I can form a group of buyers, and say, "Hey, you are going to lose all these Millions of dollars" to "The Man". Looks like that worked better than any law ever will.
www.jackasscritics.com
Even if it's silly, isn't this still a good thing? It seems to me that the point is to send a message to corporations saying that this state respects and will try to defend its resident's privacy. Far too often a state will bend over backwards to please corporations (tax breaks, free loans, etc.) and ignore the damage it might be doing to the residents. Sure, the bill is chock full ignorance, but at least it's voicing an opinion. They might be dumb, but if you can influence your political representatives you can really get your message across.
>It is a horrendous violation of Intel's right
Please quote the bit in the constitution that covers Rights of Corporations.
I don't think there is one. Corporations don't have rights like you and I do. If they did they would have killed us all off long ago. Seems like far too many people think there is some sort of constitutional protection for corporations.
Intel cannot make any chip it wants to make. I'm sure the exploding chip or the heroin chip would be outlawed. Az CAN pass any bill it wants to, as long as it doesn't interfere with federal law.
Even if the bill passed, which it probably won't because of some federal commerce law somewhere, you'd still be able to buy a PIII. The bill doesn't outlaw the chip, it just says they can't be made or sold in the state (note: you can still buy them, just not in the state...internet is probably the best place to find 'em cheap anyway), and that the government will not be using them.
I don't really see how it hurts the individual. Maybe it hurts the people that want to physically drive to store to buy computer hardware...
Who's paranoid?
Um. I don't know about that....
Cars would probably never have been made safer if the government had not intervened.
The free market thing only works if there are viable alternatives to the product or policy. And I mean really viable, not just out there (case in point, Windows..most people hate it, but most people use it).
It seems to me there are far more cases of the government 'interfering' on behalf of the people than there are cases where a boycott was successful.
That's funny...I thought those first few amendments commonly referred to as the Bill of Rights did define some of my rights. Hmm...maybe I'm thinking of another country.
:)
IMHO the logic is faulty that says corporations have rights. I realize that it's pretty debatable, and it's one of the excuses that people use to justify corporations donating money to politicians (which I also think is bad), but right or wrong, I don't like it
I have met several politicians and candidates and they were ok folks. Be careful not to make harsh generalizations.
"I want peace on earth and good will toward men." "We're the U.S. government. We don't do that sort of thing!!"
No, this isnt a boycot of any kind. Do you really think Intel cares if 1 state out of this whole world, is going to effect them? HELL NO. All this does is make things harder on businesses, and computer repair shops, and sellers, such as myself, a technician. I frankly dont care about serial #'s on a processor. I really hope this stuff does NOT pass in Arizona.
Haven't Sparc chips had this for years ?
As I understand, AMD has no plans to include this "feature" on their chips. I think this is a horrible idea, part of being on the net is having somewhat anonymous useage. ID tagging chips would completely kill this. I do realize this does have it's upsides, but for every one there is a most likely a downside.
For example: Your isp could set it so you could always log in, because you are on the same machine.
Downside: Somebody, somewhere will figure out a way to fake the ID, either with hardware or software.
For example: You would never need a cookie sent to YOU again, the server would hold the info if you have been there or not.
Downside: Same as the isp deal.
It seems to me that the security risk is larger than the advantages. Plus, what if you ever sell your computer? You are going to have to notify ALOT of people that you aren't using the same computer any more. You would have to email somebody at the site about it in order to reinstate your account with them on your new computer.
So, I think it is a horrible idea, but besides, I'm never going to buy an intel chip again as long as AMD keeps going the way they are.
I suppose that because it is now technologically possible to set up cameras everywhere to do optical character recognition on license plates, allowing someone to track all the cars anywhere they go, therefore license plates should also be outlawed?
A clue to the AZ legislature: if you want to do something productive then regulate tracking software, not hardware. A chip simply cannot, in and of itself, send an ID anywhere!
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
I know MS isn't sending any information from my computer anywhere because I don't use any MS products :-)
That's one of great rhings of open source software!