Trusted Computing Threatens Freedom over your Computer!

Forums: Computers
Email this Topic • Print this Page

I just read that several major computer manufacturers (Dell, HP, etc.)
recently began selling computers with so called "trusted computing"
modules. This is a very important technology, and it is VITAL that
every computer user understand it, because it will fundamentally change
the way you use your computer. Trusted computing modules are a bit of
hardware that act like a lock for your whole computer. They get to
decide which programs get run, and which don't. This lets computer
manufacturers make new features like email that can't be forwarded, or
music that can only be played on one machine. They can put an end to
viruses and spam. They way they do this, however, is VERY SCARY.

Trusted computing is not about you (the user) being able to trust your
computer. Trusted computing is about computer manufacturers being able
to trust you. This is because the computer manufacturers do not give
you the key to the trusted computing module when you buy your computer.
They keep it, and use it to decide whether or not you may run any
particular piece of software. Trusted computing means that they decide
whether or not you get to access your pictures 10 years from now, or
whether you need to pay them to do it. Trusted computing is about
whether or not you may access a web site or not without their
permission. Trusted computing is about ending the free exchange of
information that the internet has created and replacing it with a small
group of companies that get to decide what you see and hear.
Television, movies, news, music, emails, and IM can all be censored
effectively using trusted computing. They say they won't, of course,
but can you trust them to keep their word?

Trusted computing is here and now. However, before they can lock us
out, they need to gather a critical mass of trusted computers such that
users have a choice of using trusted computing, or not communicating at
all. The next computer you buy, ask if it has a trusted computing
module. If it does, ask if they will give you the key to it. If they
say no, then you know that they want to keep control of your
information and communication. Don't buy, and tell them why. Without
a critical mass of trusted computing modules online, they are
powerless. Tell them you'd rather deal with spam than have a computer
that doesn't trust you. And tell your friends about trusted computing.

The above is my understanding of trusted computing, but you should
decide for yourself. I encourage you to visit the following links, and
learn about trusted computing yourself. These links were among the top
10 results in a google search for "trusted computing", and I would
encourage you to conduct your own research as well.

http://www.newsforge.com/business/02/10/21/1449250.shtml?tid=19
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html
https://www.trustedcomputinggroup.org/home
http://www.eff.org/Infrastructure/trusted_computing/20031001_tc.php

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 823 • Replies: 12

No top replies

Your "understanding of trusted computers" is weak at best.

0 Replies

I will ask, if I remember. I keep computers like cars, though. If it still works, I keep it. When you say HP, though, that's pretty much saying Compaq.

0 Replies

Fill us in fishin'. I'm interested.

0 Replies

wanna know more - please

0 Replies

roger wrote:

Fill us in fishin'. I'm interested.

"Trusted Computers" have been around for years. It came from an old DoD "Orange Book" design criteria.

The concept is fairly simple - find a way to allow two computers to communicate with each other. The difference between a "trusted" system and any other is that the system force the users to actually validate that they say who they are with an extremely high level of certianty.

A2K itself is a low-level trusted system. To be able to post here you have to lo in with your username and password. If you don't the server refuses to accept posts from your PC. No one running A2K really cares exactly who you are. A2K only cares that you've agreed to abide by the term sof the Use Agreement . As long as the user does that there isn't much need for a more in-depth validation of who the user is.

Most people would be a little hesitant to accept only that for their Bank accounts and businesses where there are millions of $$ floating around certianly aren't willing to allow their data to be passed around to just anyone. The more you want to protect what you have the more involved the validation process becomes.

But that hardly brings on a crisis that will end the Internet as we know it. A Web site operator can refuse your connection right now without any validation process at all. There is nothing that prevents them from doing so other than the expectations of the public. Those same expectations will keep them from requiring that you use any intrusive trusted system to access their public sites.

The biggest concerns by Internet users in general, while couched in other terms, is that they might have to work a little harder if they want to steal copies of software applications, movies and/or music.

0 Replies

fishin, while that may be the origin of the word, it is clear that you are discussing something entirely different

Quote:

Proprietary
software means, fundamentally, that you don't control what it does; you can't study the source code, or change it. It's not surprising that clever businessmen find ways to use their control to put you at a disadvantage. Microsoft has done this several times: one version of Windows was designed to report to Microsoft all the software on your hard disk; a recent "security" upgrade in Windows Media Player required users to agree to new restrictions. But Microsoft is not alone: the KaZaa music-sharing software is designed so that KaZaa's business partner can rent out the use of your computer to their clients. These malicious features are often secret, but even once you know about them it is hard to remove them, since you don't have the source code.

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.

0 Replies

No, I'm not discussing anything different. The claims that trusted computing would make that sort of thing pervasive is complete nonesnse. The items mentioned can happen much more easily in an untrusted environment that then can with a trusted system and the program Dell, HP and others have been working on has zip to do with any of it.

0 Replies

the things you have mentioned are concerning one computer putting restrictions on outside computers accessing it, through software

in these articles of trusted computing, they are talking about hardware changes that limit the control of a user over their own computer

how do you see those topics as being related?

0 Replies

The 1st and 2nd articles you linked to are simply spouting from conspiracy theorists. The 3rd presents the "good" with none of the possible drawbacks. The 4th actually tries to be objective and then falls into the conspoiracy trap but even then they are smart enough to lace their concerns with words like "may" or "might". Unlike your first to sites, the EFF doesn't make claims that the worst possible scenario WILL happen and they explain that there are real problems that trusted systems do address.

How much control do you have over your computer right now? Can you prevent Windows from checking it's serial number every time you start it up? Can you prevent your Video card from detecting what IRQ it's been assigned?

The fact is that you have very little control over your PC as it sits right now. Yeah, you can change settings (if you know where to look!) but that's about it. Your video card is still going to check to see what IRQ it's been assigned when you turn your PC on. Changing the settings may just force it to find a different IRQ. For all practical purposes you have little, if any, control over your PC as it is right now and you have all of the drawbacks of not having a trusted system. You have little control and little security.

Your first link provides the typical fodder against doing anything:

"Of course, Hollywood and the record companies plan to use treacherous computing for "DRM" (Digital Restrictions Management), so that downloaded videos and music can be played only on one specified computer. Sharing will be entirely impossible, at least using the authorized files that you would get from those companies. You, the public, ought to have both the freedom and the ability to share these things. "

Ah! So that is is the concern. You won't be able to share music and vidoes when they think your "ought to" be able to do - even though they know full well that doing so violates the law already. They forgot to mention that if the music industry can "trust" my systems then their DRM application would be able to detect that the 3 computers I own are all mine and that I'm not sharing with anyone else. That's something that can't be done now.

Why should honest people get upset because something is done that doesn't harm them or have any cost for them and actually provides them some benefits but at the same time it slows illegal activity????

0 Replies

Quote:

Why should honest people get upset because something is done that doesn't harm them or have any cost for them and actually provides them some benefits but at the same time it slows illegal activity????

Many people do not agree that all of the laws which currently exist are fair. Many honest people intentionally break certain laws.

Our private property should not be used as a tool to expose our private ways of life. For example, I don't want to see a crack down on illegal file sharing...you may disagree, but I think that it is very beneficial not only to individuals but to society.

0 Replies

stuh505 wrote:

Our private property should not be used as a tool to expose our private ways of life. For example, I don't want to see a crack down on illegal file sharing...you may disagree, but I think that it is very beneficial not only to individuals but to society.

I can understand that and I'll even tip my hat to you for stepping up to the plate and admitting it. If you feel the law is unjust then by all means, protest against it and do whatever is within your means to change the laws.

But don't expect others that don't agree with your view to sit back and let you pass off misleading info without question. Wink

0 Replies

Gotta say I'm pretty much with fishin' on this. Doesn't bother me a bit if life becomes more difficult for thieves, pirates, scammers, hackers, spammers, yuckware pushers, and the rest of the scum floatin' around the edges of the information pond.

0 Replies

Trusted Computing Threatens Freedom over your Computer!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know