I see that MSNBC has pulled the original article on Palladium:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/770551.asp
Anyway, I have just put up version 1.0 of the TCPA / Palladium FAQ
at the same URL:
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/rja14/tcpa-faq.html
Enjoy!
Ross
Yes, this is a debate I've had with the medical privacy7 guys, some of
whom like the idea of using Palladium to protect medical records.
This is a subject on which I've a lot of experience (see my web page),
and I don't think that Palladium will help. Privacy abuses almost always
involve abuse
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html
Ross
I don't believe that the choice is both privacy and TCPA, or neither.
Essentially all privacy violations are abuses of authorised access by
insiders. Your employer's medical insurance scheme insists on a
waiver allowing them access to your records, which they then use for
promotion decisions.
It's an interesting claim, but there is only one small problem.
Neither Ross Anderson nor Lucky Green offers any evidence that the TCPA
(http://www.trustedcomputing.org) is being designed for the support of
digital rights management (DRM) applications.
Microsoft admits it:
http
