"Tim Thornton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > No, in the PC space it's only constrained if you want it to be. Most PCs > sold today have a TPM, which is rarely used (I've only met one person so > far who uses their TPM, and I work in the industry). You need to enable > it. You can use it to constrain your PC if you want (eg by enforcing a > secure boot process), but it is only the basis of trust on your > platform. If you don't want other people to use it, you don't need to > let them.
Ok. So let's get rid of it entirely then. You work in the industry and you've only met one person who uses it. So why are firms still putting it in their products? Surely a motherboard would be cheaper without it? > No - your PC /is/ wholly yours. There's a feature that allows you to > invite me to put stuff on I can't tamper with. But I can't randomly take > control of your computer. I never said you could. But you are being disenguous. There is a feature that allows me to let you put stuff on my computer that I can't tamper with, let alone you. > A whole bunch of people don't like this because RMS and Ross Anderson > told them it was bad, but have no understanding of what the technology > actually is. I'm sure you do understand it, but let's have the debate so > that those who only hear the hype can make an informed decision. This seems to be the "people are stupid" argument. I don't believe that. I understand this technology and I believe it threatens my freedom. I'm fairly sure that everyone I have heard describing their fears about such a module also understood it. > }:p Have you got funny hair or something? -- Nic Ferrier http://www.tapsellferrier.co.uk for all your tapsell ferrier needs - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
