It's too damn bad she didn't confide in the TPM control panel that's MIA from ALL of the Intel Macs blessed so far. I guess that remote ownership is OK for Mac people seeing as most of them don't properly understand computers anyway. By dumbing down America (and elsewhere) they further entrench their 'superiority' all the while selling remotely owned machines. It makes me laugh how complacent people have become with DRM. Defective by Design INCLUDES Treacherous Computing too.
Are you new?
Napster (and others) opened the field for digital music.
What annoyed the labels (read RIAA) was that they hadn't thought of it first, and WORSE weren't profiting by it!
It's truly not difficult to see the collusion and corruption at the heart of this scandal. To draw parallels: Jack Valenti said that VCRs would be the end of movies. Well, that's partially true if you consider the mainstream HWood crap they're shovelling, but it still hasn't stopped great film from being created. In fact EXPOSURE has gone a long way to increasing the size and scope of the industry. Creativity was actually increased through VCR tech.
Intellectual Property would be acceptable if even one of the industry heads demonstrated they had intellect, and weren't just money grubbing pirates themselves. I remember quite well the 'Jolly Roger' flying high in the Macintosh Dev Group...
Clear fanboy rhetoric.
What you fail to recognize is that the DRM prevents your use of the music in different contexts. When you 'purchase' music from iTMS you either use it in iTunes or on your iPod, or you break DMCA by circumventing the DRM and use it elsewhere.
Music labels have been ripping off artists and punters alike since the invention of recording music. Ask some of the bands from the 50s how little they received for their hard work. Profiteering has long been the bane of the industry... only studios profit with DRM, artists seldom see the benefits.
Ironically, with digital production methods, and sampling, the cost of putting together a solid offering has gone down considerably, without (of course) the appropriate price adjustment for each album or song.
I'm for one glad we live in an analog universe. No matter how hard they try, it's still an analog world, and they can't plug the analog hole with any number of bits. Those who know how will be able to record music in this way for their 'personal scrap book of rememberances'. The futile efforts of all manner of coders and moguls alike will never undo our right to our own thoughts and rememberances. Isn't it about time we were entitling ourselves to the 'Intelligence Augmentors' that Doug Engelbart (via V.Bush) envisioned, and (even better) using them to be our place for our digital scrapbooks?
I trust it when it ADHERES to the specification.
There are clear privacy implications with respect to the chip WITHOUT needing to be tied to software that is currently installed. It's hardly 'moronic' to discuss the implications of a cryptographic device installed in a computer that implements through it's very design a transitive trust model. I don't give a tinker's damn if there isn't even ONE line of code installed that implies an inappropriate use of TPM. The fact remains that it ships ENABLED, and therefore is REMOTELY OWNED. For the previous detractor, read the spec, get a clue, understand transitive trust.
I trust TPM when I can turn it on and off, at my discretion. Where I CAN SEE the trusts that are set up, and can ENSURE that the trusts match the security context of the machine in situ. Apple has NOT provided the requisite Control Panel necessary for the safe operation of this device for consumer (i.e. private) use.
Clearly, if you're a security researcher, you'll understand the clear and present danger of shipping a TPM remotely owned. If not, you'll need to maybe check your facts and take your fanboy blinders off.
Has Apple REALLY given us more reason to trust them? What was once an OSS project is becoming increasingly Closed Source. When Apple first came out with their new Intel iMac it took a couple of weeks for them to release the GPL code, and thanks to conversations with Stallman et al this was quickly remedied. I still believe that you'll find some of the BSD license softs aren't available for your review of the sources either... If there's nothing to hide, where's the source?
The message is buy a macintosh...
The only TPM equipped machine that is shipping with the TPM ENABLED by default, completely contrary to the specification. For those of you that can read a chip spec please feel free to go to TCG and read up on the chip and what it does. Enlightenment is a fine thing. One of the most interesting things to note is that in all specs the DEFAULT setting recommended is disabled. By shipping the TPM enabled, it implies remote ownership. This means, although you have a macintosh in your possession, you don't actually 'own' it, Apple does. But we all trust Apple with all of our data, don't we?
Interesting that there's a 'perfect storm' with a media confluence supporting the uptake of Apple equipment, yet the equipment is not HIPAA nor PIPEDA compliant, in that there has been a complete lack of disclosure of the presence of the chip. Check their system specs to find out.
Isn't it more interesting to note that Microsoft is unable for the first time in more than a decade to release an OS?
Transitive trust for everyone!
Nearly all children nowadays were horrible. What was worst of all was that by means of such organizations as the Spies they were systematically turned into ungovernable little savages, and yet, this produced in them no tendency whatever to rebel against the discipline of the Party. On the contrary, they adored the Party and everything connected with it. The songs, the processions, the banners, the hiking, the drilling with dummy rifles, the yelling of slogans, the worship of Big Brother, it was all a sort of glorious game to them. All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, against foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals. It was almost normal for people over thirty to be frightened of their own children. And with good reason, for hardly a week passed in which The Times did not carry a paragraph describing how some eavesdropping little sneakchild hero was the phrase generally used, had overheard some compromising remark and denounced its parents to the Thought Police.
Clearly this is a step down the double plus ungood path.
modded to hell despite the DX9 reference. PS... I can't help good karma, but at least I'm no anonymous coward. PPS... I'm taking the TPM case to the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, soon to be outted... thanks to cippic.ca
In order to lead, a man must be willing to go forward alone.
and the opportunity to dual boot XP(lode) on all new Mactel offerings, all of which are sporting DX9 capable cards... trust me, I'm running XP(lode) ONLY on my TPM enabled iMac Intel Core Duo because Apple didn't bother to include the TPM driver for XP(lode) and it's therefore disabled...
To perform this, Google will need to step into hardware territory, much more than their search appliance. This seems outside of their current mission. I say this because GoogleOS would need to be hosted on a thin client that boots to their OS via a network partner. For my mind this seems a long way off for Google, who instead would rather offset the potential liabilities created by this situation to other actors. I had a discussion with my Comp Sci mentors about 3 years ago about the office suite being the next innovation area, that doesn't make me Nostradamus, just a guy who pays attention. Google's development of an Office Suite that rivals MS is surprisingly for business and not consumers, and you can expect that Google will stick to an appliance methodology. Consider the costs that businesses currently face for large deployments of M$ Office, couple that with the already outrageous per seat license gouging that M$ uses to connect to their 'servers' on TOP of the already steep prices for an OS that I've been calling XP(lode) for a couple of years now. No wonder firms are laying people off by the 1000s, they actually can't afford the software that they feel they need to keep those workers productive. The Office space is a logical progression for Google in their quest to index the world's data, as the Office suite is where all of the data is made. Want my prediction? (probably not, but here goes...) Googleberry. Not Appleberry as some people are predicting.
The never ending stream of useless litigation is continuing to prove just how broken your patent system is. The current state of affairs will hamper innovation and creativity, if it's not already doing so. Patents are an illegitimate form of ownership as ideas are not really ownable, and generally based on integration of prior artwork concepts. What confuses me is that as education and literacy increase we continue to allow the state of affairs to go unchecked. Patents are bunk and hats of to/. for continuing to out the debacle.
Amnesty International has reported recently that Box Store Giant WalMart, in an effort to feed our unquenchable consumerism with continued low prices is paying it's Chinese workers HALF of the legal minimum wage in China. What's worse is the legal minimum is still considered a HUNGER wage (meaning you still go hungry even though you work full time)
I'm pleased to see that some effort is being made to punish companies that choose to do business with despotic governments, it's the only power consumers actually have. While the west continues to purchase cheap goods made by slaves in a despotic regime, the despots won't see anything wrong with their continued subjugation of people and denial of human rights as guaranteed by the UN. Continuing to purchase ANYTHING from these companies is a tacit approval of their policies.
I say HEAR HEAR NUJ! Now is the time for all good people to come to the aid of the party and stop purchasing goods from countries where the most basic of human rights are ignored. If we want to end global poverty, I'd suggest it's a damn sight better to empower the people in their own countries to pay for their own infrastructure by ensuring that companies that operate in those geographies pay a fair and reasonable wage. The continual cycle of funnelling aid which reaches only the priveliged few is not working. We have years and years of evidence to support the fact that it's not working to end the conditions in those countries.
This is the shining light of democracy that all the people of earth are expecting to come from the US and elsewhere, instead they find themselves working thanklessly for little or no pay in conditions that would curdle your stomach, all so that the fat westerners can have their cake and eat it too.
As consumers it is our responsibility to inform ourselves, and just say NO.
Your reply indicates fully that you fail to understand the implications of Transitive Trusts, TPM or their inherent properties as specified. Please refer to http://download.microsoft.com/download/5/D/6/5D6EA F2B-7DDF-476B-93DC-7CF0072878E6/TPM.doc for information on how TPM can be used to remotely administer machines via policies and other controls. Your privacy as a consumer could very well be at risk...
An important aspect of TPM administration is to enable the enterprise to opt-in to TPM technology in large deployments, yet give administrators the tools to control the exposure of personally identifying information (PII) with high granularity. Microsoft is providing a mechanism within Group Policy for administrators to curtail the use of TPM commands that might reveal privacy-related data about a user or workstation.
Quote derived from the above linked document. Paranoia aside, I believe the documentation alone gives cause for concern. Given that there is a capability provided via TPM for remote administration via Transitive Trust mechanism, you'll no doubt agree that the implications quoted above are worthy of concern. I understand that this is a bit O/T with respect to Certs it does fall in line with Apple's current trust mechanisms in place in OSX. Thank-you in advance for RTFM before future maligning commentary.
What I'm suggesting is that the TPM implementation is completely undocumented, undisclosed, and that given the TPM specifications, inherently implies the transitive trusts I suggest. Furthermore, consistent calls for documentation have gone ignored, given the privacy implications admitted by the TCG (Trusted Computing Group) in their specifications for TPM you'll admit that this is wholly dissatisfactory. Ask nectar@apple.com (one of Apple's security programmers) why the documentation that was requested in February has still not hit the Apple site? Do a search on Apple.com in the product specifications and see whether or not I am correct in my assessment that although TPMs are being installed in each machine, they are not mentioned in system specifications, nor are the end user controls that the TCG calls for in place in OSX. In light of recent corporate affairs (i.e. AT&T/NSA) is it so far fetched to conceive that the TPM implementation could be further entrenchment of the same concepts? Please do yourself a favor and follow up on my claims. I understand that the import is frightening, but blinders and blanket 'this is a lot of FUD' statements do nothing to protect us either. I'm not trying to bash Apple here, in fact, I was one of the people harkening a turn from Microsoft to Apple in light of XP(lode)'s constant security and programmatic issues. I'm on the front lines every day, helping consumers and businesses alike keep their data secure and private. It's my JOB to research these issues. So far, requests for clarification from UNIVERSITY researchers (who have strict privacy guidelines with respect to their research) have gone unanswered. Play the devil's advocate with yourself and follow up... and remember not to shoot the messenger.
This is even more interesting in light of the undocumented TPM implementation currently being rushed out to all new Mac customers. In light of the functionality of TPM you must recognize that the Transitive Trusts it sets up implies that your shiny new Intel iMac, Macbook (Pro), and mini core solo trusts these domains listed in your keychain more than you might think. Microsoft intends to use WMI to remotely manage machines with TPMs for enterprise use, how far would other domains that are trusted go to administer your data? Don't believe me? Compare and contrast Disk Utility on an older Apple Macintosh product (i.e. PPC) v. a new Intel Mac, you'll find one is 'ownership enabled' and the other is not. Exactly who 'owns' your harddrive in a TPM Mac? Why all the domains trusted by you (via keychain) AND what's better, given Transitive Trust, it ALSO includes ANYONE that those domains trust as well, and so on, and so on, and so on...
oops... now they see exactly how behind this idea we TRULY are!
wtg MIT, Negroponte et al!!!
thanks for hope for humanity!
enable the people to help themselves!!
Negroponte for president!
One of the things that I found frustrating was that the University I attended had a preferred IDE for Java, which frankly is a bit shortsighted. Given that each individual has a unique learning style, it must be stressed that different programming methodologies espoused through IDEs appeal to individuals differently. I agree with you in that there should no longer be such a disconnect between the hardware and the programmer, and learning to use the basics is an important proving ground for any programmer worth their salt. I found it frustrating that I would need to submit a project file created in the IDE preferred by instructors (which wasn't free, nor open source) when programming in java is available in many different IDEs and flexibility and actually functioning code should have been more the focus (i.e. the write once run anywhere thing.) Students typically don't have the dollars needed to purchase the latest and greatest commercial IDEs and I hope that you're not intending to foist such a product on already strapped students.
Thirteen years ago (or thereabouts) the US Government (NSA, FBI, NIST, etc.) were involved with Mycotronix and AT&T in the development and deployment of a cryptographic device (aka clipper chip) and were poised to unveil it as a standard for domestic and exportable strong crypto. This was met with no small amount of resistance due to the key escrow mechanism proposed. Likened to 'Now you must leave a key to your front door at the local police station' it was a stillbirth.
Fast forward, ALL major vendors are now shipping a device called TPM on their motherboards. This device has been created to create and store digital signatures, and establish a chain of transitive trust for the hardware it's installed in. This transitive trust chain can be used to provide trusted access to all devices under this chain. The HDD of said machines could be said to be within the realm of this trust. This is your data folks.
The new Apple Boot Camp and included Mac Drivers do NOT include the requisite TPM control drivers found with all other TPM shipping equipment that runs Windows. Furthermore, this device has NOT as yet been identified by Apple in their system specifications, nor has it been documented properly for their Mac OSX offering.
Apple has potentially opened Pandora's box by aiding Windows loading on their machines, in that there ARE TPM drivers available... and one of them just might work!
Many have argued that Apple has the right to DRM their OS, and provide a cryptographically secure method of doing so. I would agree, their software is indeed their property, and they should have the commercial benefit of that work. I would disagree with the extent to which they have gone to protect this software, including leaving a very contentious device undisclosed and undocumented.
I am writing this post on my iMac Intel Core Duo, happily running Windows (for once) in an unTPM'd way... (The device is not installed in Windows) In light of the recent illegal wiretaps by the NSA, I'm thinking I'd like to keep my data to myself thanks, and not provide them with the transitive trusts that they need to see into my house.
Surely someone else must see this situation needs clarification.
FUD to usher in the new world order of TPM (equally subvertible) dongles are dongles are dongles. Next thing we know it will be illegal to own an older computer or to put it on the internet.
Slashdot Mirror
It's too damn bad she didn't confide in the TPM control panel that's MIA from ALL of the Intel Macs blessed so far. I guess that remote ownership is OK for Mac people seeing as most of them don't properly understand computers anyway. By dumbing down America (and elsewhere) they further entrench their 'superiority' all the while selling remotely owned machines. It makes me laugh how complacent people have become with DRM. Defective by Design INCLUDES Treacherous Computing too.
Are you new?
Napster (and others) opened the field for digital music.
What annoyed the labels (read RIAA) was that they hadn't thought of it first, and WORSE weren't profiting by it!
It's truly not difficult to see the collusion and corruption at the heart of this scandal. To draw parallels: Jack Valenti said that VCRs would be the end of movies. Well, that's partially true if you consider the mainstream HWood crap they're shovelling, but it still hasn't stopped great film from being created. In fact EXPOSURE has gone a long way to increasing the size and scope of the industry. Creativity was actually increased through VCR tech.
Intellectual Property would be acceptable if even one of the industry heads demonstrated they had intellect, and weren't just money grubbing pirates themselves. I remember quite well the 'Jolly Roger' flying high in the Macintosh Dev Group...
Clear fanboy rhetoric.
What you fail to recognize is that the DRM prevents your use of the music in different contexts. When you 'purchase' music from iTMS you either use it in iTunes or on your iPod, or you break DMCA by circumventing the DRM and use it elsewhere.
Music labels have been ripping off artists and punters alike since the invention of recording music. Ask some of the bands from the 50s how little they received for their hard work. Profiteering has long been the bane of the industry... only studios profit with DRM, artists seldom see the benefits.
Ironically, with digital production methods, and sampling, the cost of putting together a solid offering has gone down considerably, without (of course) the appropriate price adjustment for each album or song.
I'm for one glad we live in an analog universe. No matter how hard they try, it's still an analog world, and they can't plug the analog hole with any number of bits. Those who know how will be able to record music in this way for their 'personal scrap book of rememberances'. The futile efforts of all manner of coders and moguls alike will never undo our right to our own thoughts and rememberances. Isn't it about time we were entitling ourselves to the 'Intelligence Augmentors' that Doug Engelbart (via V.Bush) envisioned, and (even better) using them to be our place for our digital scrapbooks?
I trust it when it ADHERES to the specification.
There are clear privacy implications with respect to the chip WITHOUT needing to be tied to software that is currently installed. It's hardly 'moronic' to discuss the implications of a cryptographic device installed in a computer that implements through it's very design a transitive trust model. I don't give a tinker's damn if there isn't even ONE line of code installed that implies an inappropriate use of TPM. The fact remains that it ships ENABLED, and therefore is REMOTELY OWNED. For the previous detractor, read the spec, get a clue, understand transitive trust.
I trust TPM when I can turn it on and off, at my discretion. Where I CAN SEE the trusts that are set up, and can ENSURE that the trusts match the security context of the machine in situ. Apple has NOT provided the requisite Control Panel necessary for the safe operation of this device for consumer (i.e. private) use.
Clearly, if you're a security researcher, you'll understand the clear and present danger of shipping a TPM remotely owned. If not, you'll need to maybe check your facts and take your fanboy blinders off.
Has Apple REALLY given us more reason to trust them? What was once an OSS project is becoming increasingly Closed Source. When Apple first came out with their new Intel iMac it took a couple of weeks for them to release the GPL code, and thanks to conversations with Stallman et al this was quickly remedied. I still believe that you'll find some of the BSD license softs aren't available for your review of the sources either... If there's nothing to hide, where's the source?
Moronic indeed...
The medium IS the message...
The message is buy a macintosh...
The only TPM equipped machine that is shipping with the TPM ENABLED by default, completely contrary to the specification. For those of you that can read a chip spec please feel free to go to TCG and read up on the chip and what it does. Enlightenment is a fine thing. One of the most interesting things to note is that in all specs the DEFAULT setting recommended is disabled. By shipping the TPM enabled, it implies remote ownership. This means, although you have a macintosh in your possession, you don't actually 'own' it, Apple does. But we all trust Apple with all of our data, don't we?
Interesting that there's a 'perfect storm' with a media confluence supporting the uptake of Apple equipment, yet the equipment is not HIPAA nor PIPEDA compliant, in that there has been a complete lack of disclosure of the presence of the chip. Check their system specs to find out.
Isn't it more interesting to note that Microsoft is unable for the first time in more than a decade to release an OS?
Transitive trust for everyone!
Clearly this is a step down the double plus ungood path.
Wouldn't that be:
proc DetectPoison(NeuralActivity)
{
if(NeuralActivity==0) return true;
return false;
}
I suppose that NeuralActivity would preexist in the softs?
modded to hell despite the DX9 reference. PS... I can't help good karma, but at least I'm no anonymous coward. PPS... I'm taking the TPM case to the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, soon to be outted... thanks to cippic.ca
In order to lead, a man must be willing to go forward alone.
Actually I was referring to 1984, but I was assuming literacy, my bad.
and the opportunity to dual boot XP(lode) on all new Mactel offerings, all of which are sporting DX9 capable cards... trust me, I'm running XP(lode) ONLY on my TPM enabled iMac Intel Core Duo because Apple didn't bother to include the TPM driver for XP(lode) and it's therefore disabled...
RIM and Google stocks soar! NSA lackeys drool, George Orwell Party rejoices!
30 Second Hate.
This November, stop the George Orwell Party before it's too late!
To perform this, Google will need to step into hardware territory, much more than their search appliance. This seems outside of their current mission. I say this because GoogleOS would need to be hosted on a thin client that boots to their OS via a network partner. For my mind this seems a long way off for Google, who instead would rather offset the potential liabilities created by this situation to other actors. I had a discussion with my Comp Sci mentors about 3 years ago about the office suite being the next innovation area, that doesn't make me Nostradamus, just a guy who pays attention. Google's development of an Office Suite that rivals MS is surprisingly for business and not consumers, and you can expect that Google will stick to an appliance methodology. Consider the costs that businesses currently face for large deployments of M$ Office, couple that with the already outrageous per seat license gouging that M$ uses to connect to their 'servers' on TOP of the already steep prices for an OS that I've been calling XP(lode) for a couple of years now. No wonder firms are laying people off by the 1000s, they actually can't afford the software that they feel they need to keep those workers productive. The Office space is a logical progression for Google in their quest to index the world's data, as the Office suite is where all of the data is made. Want my prediction? (probably not, but here goes...) Googleberry. Not Appleberry as some people are predicting.
The never ending stream of useless litigation is continuing to prove just how broken your patent system is. The current state of affairs will hamper innovation and creativity, if it's not already doing so. Patents are an illegitimate form of ownership as ideas are not really ownable, and generally based on integration of prior artwork concepts. What confuses me is that as education and literacy increase we continue to allow the state of affairs to go unchecked. Patents are bunk and hats of to /. for continuing to out the debacle.
Amnesty International has reported recently that Box Store Giant WalMart, in an effort to feed our unquenchable consumerism with continued low prices is paying it's Chinese workers HALF of the legal minimum wage in China. What's worse is the legal minimum is still considered a HUNGER wage (meaning you still go hungry even though you work full time)
I'm pleased to see that some effort is being made to punish companies that choose to do business with despotic governments, it's the only power consumers actually have. While the west continues to purchase cheap goods made by slaves in a despotic regime, the despots won't see anything wrong with their continued subjugation of people and denial of human rights as guaranteed by the UN. Continuing to purchase ANYTHING from these companies is a tacit approval of their policies.
I say HEAR HEAR NUJ! Now is the time for all good people to come to the aid of the party and stop purchasing goods from countries where the most basic of human rights are ignored. If we want to end global poverty, I'd suggest it's a damn sight better to empower the people in their own countries to pay for their own infrastructure by ensuring that companies that operate in those geographies pay a fair and reasonable wage. The continual cycle of funnelling aid which reaches only the priveliged few is not working. We have years and years of evidence to support the fact that it's not working to end the conditions in those countries.
This is the shining light of democracy that all the people of earth are expecting to come from the US and elsewhere, instead they find themselves working thanklessly for little or no pay in conditions that would curdle your stomach, all so that the fat westerners can have their cake and eat it too.
As consumers it is our responsibility to inform ourselves, and just say NO.
and other failed NRA taglines
Your reply indicates fully that you fail to understand the implications of Transitive Trusts, TPM or their inherent properties as specified. Please refer to http://download.microsoft.com/download/5/D/6/5D6EA F2B-7DDF-476B-93DC-7CF0072878E6/TPM.doc for information on how TPM can be used to remotely administer machines via policies and other controls. Your privacy as a consumer could very well be at risk...
Quote derived from the above linked document. Paranoia aside, I believe the documentation alone gives cause for concern. Given that there is a capability provided via TPM for remote administration via Transitive Trust mechanism, you'll no doubt agree that the implications quoted above are worthy of concern. I understand that this is a bit O/T with respect to Certs it does fall in line with Apple's current trust mechanisms in place in OSX. Thank-you in advance for RTFM before future maligning commentary.
What I'm suggesting is that the TPM implementation is completely undocumented, undisclosed, and that given the TPM specifications, inherently implies the transitive trusts I suggest. Furthermore, consistent calls for documentation have gone ignored, given the privacy implications admitted by the TCG (Trusted Computing Group) in their specifications for TPM you'll admit that this is wholly dissatisfactory. Ask nectar@apple.com (one of Apple's security programmers) why the documentation that was requested in February has still not hit the Apple site? Do a search on Apple.com in the product specifications and see whether or not I am correct in my assessment that although TPMs are being installed in each machine, they are not mentioned in system specifications, nor are the end user controls that the TCG calls for in place in OSX. In light of recent corporate affairs (i.e. AT&T/NSA) is it so far fetched to conceive that the TPM implementation could be further entrenchment of the same concepts? Please do yourself a favor and follow up on my claims. I understand that the import is frightening, but blinders and blanket 'this is a lot of FUD' statements do nothing to protect us either. I'm not trying to bash Apple here, in fact, I was one of the people harkening a turn from Microsoft to Apple in light of XP(lode)'s constant security and programmatic issues. I'm on the front lines every day, helping consumers and businesses alike keep their data secure and private. It's my JOB to research these issues. So far, requests for clarification from UNIVERSITY researchers (who have strict privacy guidelines with respect to their research) have gone unanswered. Play the devil's advocate with yourself and follow up... and remember not to shoot the messenger.
This is even more interesting in light of the undocumented TPM implementation currently being rushed out to all new Mac customers. In light of the functionality of TPM you must recognize that the Transitive Trusts it sets up implies that your shiny new Intel iMac, Macbook (Pro), and mini core solo trusts these domains listed in your keychain more than you might think. Microsoft intends to use WMI to remotely manage machines with TPMs for enterprise use, how far would other domains that are trusted go to administer your data? Don't believe me? Compare and contrast Disk Utility on an older Apple Macintosh product (i.e. PPC) v. a new Intel Mac, you'll find one is 'ownership enabled' and the other is not. Exactly who 'owns' your harddrive in a TPM Mac? Why all the domains trusted by you (via keychain) AND what's better, given Transitive Trust, it ALSO includes ANYONE that those domains trust as well, and so on, and so on, and so on...
The ban includes the production of devices that can be used to circumvent IP protections...
I guess Lenovo is about to file the Chinese equivalent of Chapter 11.
Stupid Human Rights Tricks...
Prohibition has never been the answer, how many times do we need to learn this?
oops... now they see exactly how behind this idea we TRULY are! wtg MIT, Negroponte et al!!! thanks for hope for humanity! enable the people to help themselves!! Negroponte for president!
One of the things that I found frustrating was that the University I attended had a preferred IDE for Java, which frankly is a bit shortsighted. Given that each individual has a unique learning style, it must be stressed that different programming methodologies espoused through IDEs appeal to individuals differently. I agree with you in that there should no longer be such a disconnect between the hardware and the programmer, and learning to use the basics is an important proving ground for any programmer worth their salt. I found it frustrating that I would need to submit a project file created in the IDE preferred by instructors (which wasn't free, nor open source) when programming in java is available in many different IDEs and flexibility and actually functioning code should have been more the focus (i.e. the write once run anywhere thing.) Students typically don't have the dollars needed to purchase the latest and greatest commercial IDEs and I hope that you're not intending to foist such a product on already strapped students.
Thirteen years ago (or thereabouts) the US Government (NSA, FBI, NIST, etc.) were involved with Mycotronix and AT&T in the development and deployment of a cryptographic device (aka clipper chip) and were poised to unveil it as a standard for domestic and exportable strong crypto. This was met with no small amount of resistance due to the key escrow mechanism proposed. Likened to 'Now you must leave a key to your front door at the local police station' it was a stillbirth.
Fast forward, ALL major vendors are now shipping a device called TPM on their motherboards. This device has been created to create and store digital signatures, and establish a chain of transitive trust for the hardware it's installed in. This transitive trust chain can be used to provide trusted access to all devices under this chain. The HDD of said machines could be said to be within the realm of this trust. This is your data folks.
The new Apple Boot Camp and included Mac Drivers do NOT include the requisite TPM control drivers found with all other TPM shipping equipment that runs Windows. Furthermore, this device has NOT as yet been identified by Apple in their system specifications, nor has it been documented properly for their Mac OSX offering.
Apple has potentially opened Pandora's box by aiding Windows loading on their machines, in that there ARE TPM drivers available... and one of them just might work!
Many have argued that Apple has the right to DRM their OS, and provide a cryptographically secure method of doing so. I would agree, their software is indeed their property, and they should have the commercial benefit of that work. I would disagree with the extent to which they have gone to protect this software, including leaving a very contentious device undisclosed and undocumented.
I am writing this post on my iMac Intel Core Duo, happily running Windows (for once) in an unTPM'd way... (The device is not installed in Windows) In light of the recent illegal wiretaps by the NSA, I'm thinking I'd like to keep my data to myself thanks, and not provide them with the transitive trusts that they need to see into my house.
Surely someone else must see this situation needs clarification.
FUD to usher in the new world order of TPM (equally subvertible) dongles are dongles are dongles. Next thing we know it will be illegal to own an older computer or to put it on the internet.
"The best trick the devil ever pulled was making humanity believe he didn't exist."
- Kevin Spacey as Kaiser Sose in The Usual Suspects