http://www.againsttcpa.com/

Anyone else worried?

Matt

On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 21:15:20 -0300, Matt Bostock <matt@mattbostock.com>
wrote:

No, I won't enter the game. Stay away and no one will bother you
Use FreeBSD or Linux

--

Admin.
Want to buy me a book? http://tinyurl.com/78xzb

Matt Bostock" <matt@mattbostock.com> wrote
I always want more than one source of information on something like this,
especially with Internet sources. The more I read on this issue, the more I
get confused.

If you read the Trusted Computing Groups Home they make it sound like the
answer to all computing problems:

" The Trusted Computing Group, or TCG, develops and promotes open
specifications."

Gee, me too.

"Computing industry vendors use these specifications in products that
protect and strengthen the computing platform against software-based attacks
.."

Sounds good.

According to WhatIs, " The trusted PC is an industry ideal of a PC with
built-in security mechanisms that place minimal reliance on the user or
administrator to keep a PC and its peripheral devices secure..... Once
effective mechanisms are built into the actual computer hardware, security
will not be as dependent upon the vigilance of individual administrators as
it has been in the past. If the trusted PC works the way it should, an
inexperienced or lackadaisical administrator won't be able to unwittingly
compromise system or network security through inefficient policies. "

Ok, I guess, but I still want to be able to opt out and take care of myself,
thank you. However, given how viruses, etc. spread, there are many, many
users who would be much better off with this system. I can understand how
any network administrator might want this system, given the cost and labor
involved in keeping a large network secure. I repeat, however, I want to be
able to opt out and be responsible for myself. I realize that this may mean
I won't be able to visit certain web sites, participate in many
transactions, or use A LOT of software. However, I want that to be my
choice.

According to WhatIs, the goal of the TCPA is "To develop a specification,
based on the collaboration of PC industry platform, operating system,
application, and technology vendors, that delivers a set of hardware and
operating system security capabilities that customers can use to enhance the
trust and security in their computing environments."

ok, I guess.

"Systems and applications based on Trusted Computing Group specifications
can:
"... Enhance network security
"Protect online commerce transactions
"Help protect against viruses, worms and other malicious attacks..."

Who can complain about that?

Wikipedia says that the specifications will be based on the principals of
"Authentification, Authorization and Accounting"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted...tform_Alliance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AAA_protocol

Hmm, that sounds a little more ominous, but still not terrible.

Certainly what I read indicates that a lot of this has to do with copyright
protection and digital rights management for software and content. That's a
subject that I have very mixed feelings about. As an artist, I support
strong copyright laws but business's record on this issue has been anything
but exemplary, preventing backups of DVD's and CD's, making CD's unplayable
on computers, attacking the "little guy" while ignoring larger
organizations, etc.

I've read a lot more and can provide more links and opinions, some quite
frightening.

To answer your question, "Anyone else worried?" I'd say no, not worried
because I realize some form of protected computing is likely to arise. Am I
interested in the standards developed? You bet. Would I like some input on
what those standards will be? You bet. Do I want the ability to opt out of
the system understanding the limitations that will place on me? You bet. Do
I think the marketplace will determine what ultimately happens? You bet.
Unfortunately that may mean that this may become a reality because I think
many people will back this, especially those with little or no knowledge
about running and maintaining a computer. Right now the negative side of
computing is frightening the undereducated computer user away from many of
the good things that this technology offers. Spyware, viruses, spam, etc.
are driving many users away. Those users will want a system such as this.



--
Fred Doyle



"Matt Bostock" <matt@mattbostock.com> wrote in message
news:sQMRe.8392$t4.631@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...

"Matt Bostock" <matt@mattbostock.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:sQMRe.8392$t4.631@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...

Yes!

http://tinyurl.com/95nj2


cheers
--
Davide

"Davide Montellanico" <latinsoul@my-deja.com> wrote

I had read this before. Much of it seems as biased and misleading as the
TCG's propaganda. Help me. In your own words, what are you worried about?

--
Fred Doyle

Fred Doyle wrote:

I'm with you Fred.

There was a thread about this a while back, and I couldn't get any (what
I consider to be) proper answers out of the anti-TC people so I just
left it.

As an aside, I think there is a lot of scare-mongering, and people
kicking up a fuss about what they imagine will happen, rather than what
is actually going on, and ignoring the benefits the system might have
for creatives (it seems like a dream platform for micropayments for
content).

--

Davémon
http://www.nightsoil.co.uk

Fred Doyle wrote:
Trusted Computing is all about allowing the Trusted Computing Group to
trust that your computing will obey their licenses.

In the current state of computing they don't know and can't control what
you or your computer is doing, and thus don't trust either.

TC allows them to trust your computer by having it report what it is
doing and placing restrictions on what it can do. However, they still
don't trust you, so you're taken out of the loop. Now /you/ cannot trust
your computer, since you don't know and can't control what it has been
instructed to do.

Further don't even get me started with the cartel they're trying to
create. My dictionary gives a fitting definition:
--
Ben M.

"Davémon" <nospam@nowhere.no> wrote

I guess I don't kow where I stand on this. I can't seem to find much
unemotional or unbiased information about it. The Trusted Computing Groups
web pages certainly gave me that Big Brother feel, but I also understand how
certain segments of the market might be demanding this. Right now, the
biggest problems with growth in the adpotion of technology is fears of
spyware, viruses, spam; fears of an inability to maintain a system.

I think there is a lot of fear on both sides of this issue, which is never a
good thing. There is fear of viruses, fear of spyware, fear of spam, fear of
intellectual property theft, fear of Big Brother, fear of license and
payment models that gouge and limit usefulness and invade rights and
privacy. There seems to be a lot of contradictory implications. I can
envision payment models based on this that hurt artists as much as help
artists. I can see a payment model where every sale of an illustrator's work
required a payment to Adobe for the use of their intellectual property in
making that image. But you are right. that is really wild speculation, not
what is happening now. You are also right, it could enable a payment model
where someone like me, who generates a lot of photos, some of which I know
from my log files are being served to other web pages, blogs and disucussion
groups, gets small incremental compensation for that use.

So far, I just want to know what is going on, how I'm most likely to have
some input, what the real issues are. I have some faith in the marketplace,
despite Ben's point about tis involving a cartel which limits the influence
of the open marketplace. As you say, I want to know if there are potential
benefits to me, as well as the ways it might limit me, invade my privacy, or
cost me money.

--
Fred Doyle



"Davémon" <nospam@nowhere.no> wrote in message
news:cd1e9$431c35ed$504427df$32066@datanet.co.uk.. .

"Ben Measures" <saint_abroadremove@removehotmail.com> wrote

Hmm. Okay. If that means that it will ensure that I have a valid copy of
their software, I guess I understand that motivation. I think a lot of new
models for protecting software are about to arise. How they do that, and
what else they do with that knowledge, is the issue.

Yeah, I get that, and they are probably going to take more control of how I
acccess their software and content. That's a reality, a given, I think. And
to some extent I think that is their right. It is the hardware, hardwired,
non-user controlled approach that you object to. But will there be other
non-TCG hardware still available? I suspect, yes. In fact, I suspect it may
CREATE a very viable and active market for that hardware, and may have
consequesnces some of the players don't anticipate. The question then would
be, how will opting for that hardware limit me?

If it reports that I have a valid copy of MS Word on my machine when I
create a document, should that be objectionable. If it charges me a small
amount every time I create an MS Word document, rather than a large up
front fee, is that objectionable? I can understand where a large enterprise
might want that payment model, rather than worring about upgrading everyone.
If you had an option of using either model of being charged for software,
and could turn off Trusted Computing, would that be objectionable?

OK, I get that, but is that really what is happening? Is that the only
possible outcome of this endeavor or is it still possible that the outcome
may include an opt out provision, through the purchase of non-TC hardware,
through opting for other software models, maybe even other OS models? How
can you, me, etc. influence the outcome, besides posting in a newsgroup?

Yes, this is the most troubling aspect of this . This takes the free market
out of the equation. I have to say that cartels are more difficult to create
and hold together now as any cartel must cut across a lot of individual
judicial and economic systems in a global economy, but it is certainly not
impossible. MS has the worst history in this area, but some of the other
players in this group have also shown that inclination.

Thanks for the input.

--
Fred Doyle

Fred Doyle wrote:
Indeed. I personally have no problems with the sending of data about
what media I'm viewing in order for the relevant finantial transactions
to take place.

It's the storing of that data that I have a problem with. Until the law
makes those storing the data more accountable for its security and
distribution I don't trust corporations with my personal information in
the slightest. Their current track record proves far too precarious.

Automation is fine. However, TC isn't simply automation - it's allowing
your computer to discreetly accept instructions from a 3rd party without
your knowledge or consent for each operation.

When you buy into TC you basically have to blanket agree to let them do
whatever they want with your computer. Again, the current track record
of certain corporations doesn't allow me to trust that they'll be
working in my best interests.

Interoperability. Content created on a TC platform can typically only be
read on a TC platform. If 90% of the businesses you interact with are on
the TC platform, you'd have to be TC too - it's an "offer" you can't
refuse. In this way you're frankly coerced into giving up control of
your computers because of a tightening monopoly.

Not at all. However, when it identifies, reports and stores everything
you view or edit, objection can be justified. Boil it down, and that's
exactly what TC does - it identifies and reports every piece of content
you interact with.

Once TC is established, it isn't an easy thing to refuse. Further, TC
can "expire" hardware and software to force upgrades on /their/
financial schedules. With TC it's not your choice anymore.


It's all about trust. TC allows the TCG to trust your computing will
serve and protect their best interests. In exchange, you are required to
trust the TCG will serve and protect your best interests. Given the
current track record of certain corporations this isn't something I can
do right now.

Well if I can get everyone I know to refuse TC, I might just escape TC
being forced on me.

--
Ben M.

It seems that Linux or FreeBSD won't be able to run on 'trusted'
hardware without a proprietary license.

Matt

Admin wrote:

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 18:50:38 -0300, Matt Bostock <matt@mattbostock.com>
wrote:

Then it seems that it'll be a great opportunity to break free, and go and
live in the Himalaya, Northern India
No more computing, no more stress, live in harmony with the nature

--

Admin.
Want to buy me a book? http://tinyurl.com/78xzb

Davide Montellanico wrote:
I'm not. While it'll effect SOME hardware and software, there will be a
LOT of people who wont like it. Which means there will be a sizeable
market of people who do not support the technology, which means for
someone somewhere there is a market to build hardware and software
for... As someone suggested, Linux would be a good bet, and there are
other chip manufacturers too.

SpaceGirl wrote:
When it's strongest supporters include AMD, Intel, IBM, HP, and
Microsoft you can bet it'll affect MOST hardware and software.
Thankfully, public outcry can be a powerful force (remember the unique
ID Intel once tried to put in their processors?).

--
Ben M.