"James A. Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote : > -- >On 13 Aug 2002 at 0:05, AARG! Anonymous wrote: >> The point is that while this is a form of signed code, it's not >> something which gives the TPM control over what OS can boot. >> Instead, the VCs are used to report to third party challengers >> (on remote systems) what the system configuration of this system >> is "supposed" to be, along with what it actually is. > >It does however, enable the state to control what OS one can boot >if one wishes to access the internet. > >It does not seem to me that the TPM is likely to give hollywood >what it wants, unless it is backed by such state enforcement. > >Furthermore, since the TPM gets first whack at boot up, a simple >code download to the TPM could change the meaning of the >signature, so that the machine will not boot unless running a >state authorized operating system. > >It could well happen that TPM machines become required to go on >the internet, and then later only certain operating systems are >permitted on the internet, and then later the required operating >system upgrades the TPM software so that only authorized operating >systems boot at all. > > --digsig > James A. Donald > Golly gee, I wonder why there was a floater out there about the administration wanting to update the protocols we all use?
If you can imagine a repressive technological approach to privacy and communication then you can bet your ass that it has already been thought of and is on someone's wishlist in DC. It seems a moot point to even debate whether or not this is the ultimate intent of the current crop of crap. Fucking duh! Mike
