On 10/02/07, Nic James Ferrier wrote: > 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?
Of course it's cheaper not to install a TPM, but it's chicken and egg - to take advantage of its facilities, an enterprise needs a large proportion of its PCs to be enabled. > > 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. No, I'm really not being disingenuous. We both agree the feature is under your control. If you don't want to use it, you don't have to. Your PC is wholly yours. > > 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. How is this, "people are stupid"? What I said was that some people are not informed. (Hey, we're back on topic - Educating, Informing & Entertaining, all in one thread!) Look at Vijay's assertion regarding his encrypted partition, and how that obviated the need for a trusted element - when the protection of encrypted partitions is one of the primary use cases for TPMs. I've just reread one of RMS' musings on treacherous computing, and some of what he describes is terrible. But that's not what is on offer! >From RMS at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html: "In the past, these were isolated incidents. "Trusted computing" would make it pervasive. "Treacherous computing" is a more appropriate name, because the plan is designed to make sure your computer will systematically disobey you. In fact, it is designed to stop your computer from functioning as a general-purpose computer. Every operation may require explicit permission." Which is absolute balderdash. If it was designed to "stop your computer from functioning as a general-purpose computer" why can I turn it off? > > }:p > > Have you got funny hair or something? No, I had my hands to my head and was waving my fingers. :) Nya. -- IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you. - 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/
