Dell to Add Security Chip to PCs

[Marcel Popescu]

> From: owner-cypherpunks at Algebra.COM [mailto:owner-cypherpunks at Algebra.COM]
> On Behalf Of Anonymous

> The only people endangered by this capability are those who want to be
> able to lie.  They want to agree to contracts and user agreements that,
> for example, require them to observe DRM restrictions and copyright
> laws, but then they want the power to go back on their word, to dishonor
> their commitment, and to lie about their promises.

This assumes an US world, which is - to say the least - a little unreal. In
my country, contracts are void unless signed in the official language. That
means that, even if I want to agree to the license, I can't legally do so -
because it's in English. Which means that I can click on "I agree" WITHOUT
legally agreeing to anything - and everybody knows that.

> An honest man is
> not affected by Trusted Computing; it would not change his behavior in
> any way, because he would be as bound by his word as by the TC software
> restrictions.

Only in the US and related countries :) We are not bound, legally or even
morally, by a contract in a foreign language - there are people who bought
Windows or some other software even though they don't speak an iota of
English. (Furthermore, I wrote a little application which can change the
caption of a button - so I can change it to "I do not agree" (or the
equivalent in my language) before installing whatever I'm installing. Do you
think that's good enough? <g>)

> And yet Cypherpunks are now arch
> collectivists, fighting the right of private individuals and companies
> to make their own choices about what technologies to use.  How the worm
> has turned.

BS, of course. As has already been explained here, we are paranoids - we try
to defend against the worst that could happen, not against the best. 

> A sad illustration of the paranoia and blinkered groupthink so prevalant
> on this mailing list today.

Today? You're new here, right? Paranoia is the motto of the cypherpunks :)

> Imagine, Dell is providing this chip as part
> of a vast conspiracy to restrict the user's rights to his own files.

It's not THAT vast. The mere idea that it is NOT a conspiracy, OTOH, is
plainly ridiculous. They've been at it for several years, and everyone here
should know that.

> The truth is, frankly, that Dell is providing this chip on their laptops
> simply because laptop owners like the idea of having a security chip,

No really? Name five of these laptop owners. (No, that was rethorical. Your
phrase was information-free.)

> most other laptop companies offer them, and the TCG is the main player
> in this space.

Name other five (out of the "most") laptop companies offering this chip in
their laptops. (This is NOT rethorical, I'm really curious.)

> Dell is neither seeking to advance my liberatarian goals
> nor promoting the conspiracy-theorist vision of taking away people's
> control over their computers.  The truth is far more mundane.

Profit is a very good tool, for both good and evil. In this case, they see
profit in doing something that can ultimately be used against consumers. We
comment on that, nothing more. Then again, if the consumers catch on the
trick, profit will dictate that they remove it. <g>

Marcel


-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.5 - Release Date: 2/3/2005