Can "trusted Computing" be trusted?

Discussion in 'Security Software' started by Imhotep, May 1, 2005.

  1. Imhotep

    Imhotep Guest

    Imhotep, May 1, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. Imhotep

    Galen Guest

    In Imhotep <> had this to say:

    My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:
    Can anything promoted for the sake of capitalism be trusted to consider the
    "rights" of the end-users above their desire to create revenue for their
    shareholders? Quite an interesting read but I'm still not quite ready to get
    out my tinfoil hat. (I figure the hat can hold out for a few more years yet
    though don't think for a minute I'm not constantly stocked up with an
    abundant supply of tinfoil. <g>) We, the computer users most often known for
    speaking our minds, are generally able to squawk loud and clear concerning
    in-depth invasions of privacy and the trend of the industry, as of late, has
    been to give this ranting some merit or so I'm hoping from my observations.


    "My mind rebels at stagnation. Give me problems, give me work, give me
    the most abstruse cryptogram or the most intricate analysis, and I am
    in my own proper atmosphere. I can dispense then with artificial
    stimulants. But I abhor the dull routine of existence. I crave for
    mental exaltation." -- Sherlock Holmes
    Galen, May 2, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. Imhotep

    Imhotep Guest

    It has "big business scam" written all over it. I wonder how many suckers
    are going to buy into it?
    Imhotep, May 2, 2005
  4. Imhotep

    Robert Moir Guest

    A scam eh? Oh if its one of those you want, why not look at when the
    definition of a platform for OEM versions of windows got redefined from "the
    computer" to a specific motherboard. Thats a real world actual problem going
    on today.

    TCPA might have a lot of applications. Some of them might be useful to
    normal users like us. Some of them will be more interesting to people like
    the the music and movie industries, but thats the way the world works - 'the
    rich get richer' and all that.

    I don't think its a "scam", I think its an economic weapon. Like all
    weapons, the evil isn't in the object but the finger on the trigger.

    Do I worry about my govt. using TCPA to properly classify and restrict its
    own documents? No! It is a generally accepted notion in our society that
    govt's need secrets to function, even if only on a temporary basis to
    control(rather than inhibit) the release of information.

    Do I worry about TCPA being used to make phishing type scams more difficult?
    No. Isn't that a good thing?

    Do I worry about my rights being taken away via TCPA (lets pick something
    'trivial' such as the ability to record MP3s of music I already own, for my
    own use)? Yes of course I do. But the problem is the people who want to take
    my rights away and who are already doing that, and who will find another way
    to do it if TCPA were strangled somehow. Guns don't kill people, people do.

    Robert Moir, May 2, 2005
  5. Imhotep

    Imhotep Guest

    Exactly. And I do not trust who the finger belongs to...nor should you.
    The question is not about needing secrets. It is about the lengths Corporate
    America will go to...this is question. And I am sorry but, this "solution"
    goes too far.
    Read the link are not getting the point.
    Please read.

    Imhotep, May 3, 2005
  6. Imhotep

    andy smart Guest

    I'm pretty much with Rob on this one - sure trustworthy computing will
    restrict my freedoms to do certain things, but it will also restrict the
    freedom of criminals to do certain things. It might make it hard for me
    to turn my own CDs into MP3 tracks for my own use, but if I were a
    musician I'd far rather that it were harder for criminals to steal my
    work rather than pay me for it (and yes it relatively hits composers as
    much as it hits record companies, just the amounts are different). I
    read Richard Stallman's article with interest, but Stallman has a very
    extreme vision of free information, and with respect to Stallman it's
    more a vision than a practicality.

    As Rob Moir says, governments need to have secrets - those of us in the
    UK lived with terrorism from 1969 to recently from Irish terrorist
    groups and the only way to deal with this is to keep secrets and by
    means of covert operations. In the Stallman view the right of people to
    free information outweighs the need of governements to conduct covert
    operations; as somebody from a country where we had terrorism (like
    bombs in crowded shopping centres) I know that we need that.

    If we are not to live in a society with no laws and rights, then we have
    to accept that our rights must be limited.
    andy smart, May 3, 2005
  7. Imhotep

    Robert Moir Guest

    Yep, I thought thats what I said, pretty much.
    Sorry, I understand the point, I just don't see it. And I find Mr Stallman's
    writing to be somewhat tedious, sorry.
    Robert Moir, May 3, 2005
  8. Imhotep

    Imhotep Guest

    Well, I agree with Stallman. I bought my computers and only I should have
    control over what is installed and what is not. We all get angry when
    spyware, really meant as a marketing "tool", gets installed on your
    systems. However, now when can at least remove it. With the new systems
    coming YOU won't be able it. If some company decides that you should have
    the piece of software running (along with their legitimate software) they
    can and will install it. You can do a damn thing. This reeks of disaster
    and frustration for users.

    Secondly, this is being done for no other reason than big business greed.
    Big business wants to protect their interests nothing else. If you do not
    see this than you are naive.
    You totally missed what stallman and I are saying. I too worked for the
    government (US). Believe me I understand the need for secrets. It is not
    about the need for secrets. There is one. It is about control. Big business
    sees piracy as a big problem for them. Piracy should be handled by laws not
    by turning PCs into terminals...Whatever happen to innocent until proven
    No we do not. Who do you think really benefits from this really? Are you
    that naive? This is just the muscle for the Millennium Act. Nothing more.

    I just read this. Please take a peak. The Music industry is trying to
    "leverage" this professor at Carnegie Mellon University to include "anti
    piracy" lectures in the classroom. His reply was sent to the newspaper and
    a link to it is below...

    Imhotep, May 5, 2005
  9. Imhotep

    andy smart Guest

    No, I'm not being naive I think. I just accept that EVERYBODY has rights
    and that includes the music industry's right to prevent copying and the
    software industry's right to prevent piracy. The reason there are
    businesses is to make a profit - the reason you can buy food from the
    store is because farmers/growers/supermarkets etc want to make money.
    Personally I like software released under the GPL - but that is the
    choice of the software author. If you don't wish to buy a system with
    trusted computing built in, then don't; that's your choice.
    andy smart, May 5, 2005
  10. Imhotep

    Imhotep Guest

    Sure. The statement I have been making is the balancing of rights. The
    question I have been asking is the questioning of the real motives behind
    "Trusted Computing"...if you look deep enough you will see that this is
    just about protecting Big Businesses interests at the cost of people's
    rights. There must be a better way...
    This has nothing to do with GPL/GNU...This is in fact about how companies,
    when protecting their profits, can reduce people's rights. Even to the
    point of remote controlling your PC. In fact "Trusted Computing" is not
    about you "trusting" your PC it is about corporate America "Trusting" you
    on your PC...
    It will not be my choice or yours. They are working on a bill that will make
    it impossible of a "NON Trusted PC" to be allowed on to the Internet. Now,
    do you see how naive you are being?

    You can not increase someone rights at the cost of another...especially when
    it is fueled by greed and corruption.

    Imhotep, May 6, 2005
  11. Imhotep

    andy smart Guest

    And how, exactly, would this work; given the level of distributed
    computing out there? In order to prevent a 'non-trusted pc' from being
    connected to the Internet every ISP everywhere in the world would have
    to sign up - the rest of the Internet cannot know anything about the
    machine being connected so the only point of limitation would be the ISP
    connection where the link is direct point to point and continuous.

    Now why would the world's ISPs do that whatever US law might say?
    andy smart, May 6, 2005
  12. Imhotep

    Robert Moir Guest

    Every corporation does stuff to further "big business" - in particular its
    own. Corporations are psychotic in that regard. You can't blame a dog for
    urinating on lamposts, its just a dog after all!
    Who is "they" and whatever part of the world "they" are in, why would the
    rest of the world mind?
    Robert Moir, May 6, 2005
  13. Imhotep

    Imhotep Guest

    Yes, corporations should "do stuff" to further itself. This is not the
    point. The point being made is that this measure goes way too far. It has
    measures to limit competition unfairly. This goes against Anti Trust laws,
    which is illegal...
    First the "they" are the music and movie industry mostly. Also Microsoft.
    Let's look at this a little there are so many angles to choose from but,
    let's choose this one. Under the "Trusted Computer" paradigm, companies
    have the power to install applications and monitor your system. They also
    have the power to prevent you from doing anything about it. If you were a
    foreign government would you want foreign companies to do this? Forget
    foreign companies. Maybe I work for a competitor of one of the companies
    that has this power to install and monitor my system. Do you really think
    that, with all the temptation, no one would abuse it? Come on, how many
    companies have been busted for highly illegal acts in the last two years?
    Enron, Adelphia, etc. Do you think that with this temptation they would not
    go from breaking exchange security laws to "peeping" on competitors PCs? It
    is not such a big step...

    Although "Trusted computing" does bring some good ideas (hardware
    encryption) it "leaves the backdoor" open for some really bad ideas powered
    by corporate greed that reek with potential corruption.

    Software piracy must and should be regulated by laws not companies. It
    certainly should not be controlled by companies controlling your PC.

    Imhotep, May 6, 2005
  14. Imhotep

    Imhotep Guest

    How would it "work" technically? That is hard to find out but, I would guess
    like this. First, companies like Microsoft have perfected the "carrot and
    the stick" philosophy. They would do something like this. Music, DVDs and
    new software will start coming out that *ONLY* works on the new systems.
    They will sell it by saying "...we believe it will enhance the user
    experience." All-of-a-sudden you will find that the newest latest software,
    etc is only available on these systems. They will prod you into using it.
    As it becomes more and more successful (hopefully that will never happen)
    ISPs will start selling "Trusted Networking". This will be Internet Access
    for "Trusted Computers" only.

    In short it is a two pronged meathod. Start developing software, etc that is
    restricted to the platform that they use. While this is going on, start
    restricting access to the Internet. It works over time. I am sure they are
    looking at a 3 or 4 year process.
    They should not. However, remember that these companies have a lot of money
    that translates to power. They will try "leverage" techniques with foreign

    Read up on it whenever you have time. At least be informed about the scam.

    Imhotep, May 6, 2005
  15. Imhotep

    Robert Moir Guest

    Well I think that telling people they cannot investigate/produce/sell a
    technology because it could possibly be misused is going a little too far.
    You have to take some risks. And I'd rather that potentially dangerous
    technology was developed in the open where we stood some kind of chance of
    knowing about it and dealing with it.
    Keep in mind that Apple, for example, are already doing at least as much
    with current DRM as Microsoft are. This is an industry-wide thing where the
    customers for computer media players are not us end users but the music

    And as far too many people have found to their cost, people are already
    installing apps on their computer without their permission. I'm already
    refusing to buy certain music CDs that I know have protection methods I
    disagree with.
    Of course there is temptation to abuse anything. That goes without saying.
    Thats why we have various security methods already in place. Thats why we
    have choice.
    You can say that about anything. To go back to my analogy about "guns don't
    kill people, people kill people", gunpowder was developed for entertainment
    purposes originally, I think. There is potential in just about any modern
    invention for great good or great harm and avoiding everything that might
    potentially cause great harm means that
    a) progress is going to *really* slow down.
    b) without testing our ethics, how can we refine and improve them.
    c) I think the technology would be developed either way, it might as well be
    developed in the open rather than us not knowing anything about it.
    No arguement there. Stepping away from the trusted computing thing for a
    moment, I'd love to see the current situations with EULAs actually tested
    properly in court, as it happens, because I disagree with quite a bit of it
    and I'd love to see it thrown out.
    Robert Moir, May 7, 2005
  16. Imhotep

    Imhotep Guest

    When you know that the "technology" *WILL* be used to stop reverse
    engineering and hence competition that my friend is going too far...
    "Trusted Computing" is a dangerous technology. Already parts of it are being
    hidden or talked about very ambiguously...where there is smoke...
    Please do not insult me by implying that this is some sort of OS argument. I
    could careless *WHO* the companies are or even if it were open source. I am
    against the technology no matter who is behind it. I am also about talking
    as to *WHY* they really are trying to push it. Again, my anger at this is
    independent of any one OS or application.
    Sure but the ultimate power is the end users. We spend the money that they
    need. We elect the congressmen/congress women. Never forget that. Too often
    people sigh and say "oh well what can you do". You can do a lot.
    Well, at least you have that choice now. You won;t if this goes through. I
    am from Boston originally. As such I go to I noticed
    recently, that you can read 4 article before you are prompted with a
    message "You must register to view addition data". This is nothing more
    than a way for to sell my info and increase my spam. Now, I can
    easily bypass this but, the point is companies have started seeing that
    selling your data is profitable. Now, with "Trusted Computing" I will not
    have a choice. Things like spyware *WILL* be installed and their is nothing
    I can do about it, or you. Does this sound like it is a technological
    advancement or a sneaky business move to yet again, try people as a revenue
    stream. Companies have begun to get in the mindset of not caring about
    their customers if they can make a buck. This only works if customers do
    not have a choice. But then again, that is what "Trusted Computing" is all
    about. Killing competition.
    Now, we are back to the point. "Trusted Computing" *REMOVES* *YOUR*
    *ABILITY* *TO* *CHOSE!* Not only that but it also removes your ability to
    detect. How are you going to detect if you have spyware if you can not
    control your system. How are you going to detect if their is something
    questionable going on? Do you see my point now?
    Then ask yourself this. With this technology why are they making it so you
    can not chose? Anytime a technology is invented as such to protect business
    and prevent reverse engineering and competition you should really question
    the motives.

    "Trusted Computing" needs to be stopped dead in it's tracks. Companies need
    to get back to the basics: 1) R&D new products 2) Sell it for the the best
    price 3) Who ever does it the best wins. But this is not what you are
    seeing. What we are seeing is innovation begin killed by litigation...
    I think that is the course it will take (not just with EULAs but all the BS
    in computing now a days. I just read a document where the FCC was trying to
    enforce the "broadcast flag". It was struck down in the court because they
    do not have the power to enforce it. Ask yourself something. Why is the FCC
    so interested in anti piracy on consumer products?

    Here is the link:

    Some others:

    Anti Trusted Computing sites:

    We live in age of innovation by litigation and it is a damn shame...

    Imhotep, May 7, 2005
  17. Imhotep

    andy smart Guest

    Then why do your posts name Microsoft as one of the strange 'they' or
    'them' which you insist are responsible for all of this?
    andy smart, May 8, 2005
  18. Imhotep

    Imhotep Guest

    Microsoft is one of the founders. They are also one of the companies pushing
    this the most...

    Imhotep, May 9, 2005
  19. Imhotep

    Imhotep Guest

    ....and even better idea. Why do you not do some research and find out who
    "them" and "they" are for yourself...instead of trying to make this out
    into a OS thing. How lame.

    Imhotep, May 9, 2005
  20. Imhotep

    andy smart Guest

    I'm not turning this into an OS thing at all - all operating systems are
    insecure and flawed as is all hardware and all door locks.

    I don't need to know who 'them and they' are, because I don't believe in
    'them and they' - I know that various companies are developing what they
    term trusted computing and are pushing for it because it's their
    product. What I don't believe in are these mythical 'them and they' who
    are supposedly out to take away our freedoms at ever turn by exerting
    some strange power over the rest of the world. I just don't believe that
    this is anything new - global captialism has always attempted to find
    new ways to sell it's produce and the trusted computing initiative is
    only a new way to do this; who knows it might just have more benefits
    than losses in the end and people will prefer the reduction in what they
    can do to gain some increase in security. I don't like being filmed
    everwhere by CCTV cameras, but unless we can have lots more police I
    prefer that to street crime.

    Interestingly enough the original Imhotep was involved in the support
    system for one of the most represive regimes in world history :)
    andy smart, May 9, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.