"Tim Thornton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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.
But you just said no one is taking advantage of it (you only know one person who is using it - I don't know any). So how long will it be before they stop doing this? I would suggest they won't stop doing it because, in the end, they want to make it pervasive and a requirement. >> 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? He's talking about what will happen. I believe he's right. If you make TPM use pervasive, as the industry clearly wants to do, then operating systems like Windows will lock in usage of it. Tis as plain as the summer sun, as the Archbishop of Canterbury might say if this were a Shakespeare play. TPM allows the things that Stallman is talking about to happen. If we resist TPM then we can be pretty sure that the music we buy is not going to suddenly stop working because they've decided we can only own it for a year or something. The whole reason for TPM is DRM. But the reason for DRM is that the established content industries don't trust consumers with new business models. If holywood and nashville weren't bleating Intel and Microsoft wouldn't have spent all this money would they? So - no thanks. >> > }:p >> >> Have you got funny hair or something? > > No, I had my hands to my head and was waving my fingers. :) Nya. I've never seen that before. It's brilliant. -- Nic Ferrier http://www.tapsellferrier.co.uk for all your tapsell ferrier needs - 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/[email protected]/
