Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Software Your Rights Online Hardware

Bob Barr Weighs In On Trusted Computing Group 200

Posted by timothy from the surprise dept.
bearwayne writes "Former representative Bob Barr (R-GA), a conservative and non-technophile, who has now has teamed up with the ACLU to fight growth of the Federal government's infringements on Civil Liberties ala the Patriot Act, weighs in on the Trusted Computing Group/Alliance in this article at Creative Loafing. Among other things, he expresses concerns about censorship, loss of control over one's PC, and other corporate/government abuses."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Bob Barr Weighs In On Trusted Computing Group More

Bob Barr Weighs In On Trusted Computing Group

Comments Filter:

  • vigilantes (Score:3, Interesting)

    by potpie ( 706881 ) on Saturday September 20, 2003 @02:43PM (#7012866) Journal
    If government-sanctioned vigilantism ever comes about by way of corporations being allowed to mess with others' computers or in any other form, I swear I will move to Switzerland.
    • I bet you won't, I hear Switzerland has the most stringent Immigration laws, so it's a pain in the ass to move there. Sucks, neh?

      • Re:vigilantes (Score:1, Offtopic)

        by Malcontent ( 40834 )
        Other then a few improvished countries most countries have strict immigration laws. Besides which Americans are not well liked just about anywhere now. I would not be surprised to see other countries putting in legislation specifically to hinder migration from the US.

        I keep hearing that there is an exodus of highly educated and relatively well off people out of the US. Does anybody have any stats on this? It could be the beginning of a "brain drain" on the US.
    • "government-sanctioned vigilantism"

      is an oxymoron.

  • Conservative? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Thinkit3 ( 671998 ) *
    Hmm so geeks are supposed to automatically distrust anything conservative? Most of us are libertarian, but often the conservatives have libertarian ideas. Both liberals and conservatives are groupthinkers unlike us intelligent libertarians, but there's no reason to prefer one to the other.
    • Hmm so geeks are supposed to automatically distrust anything conservative?

      Conservative is doubleplus good. :\

    • Re:Conservative? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      *snort*

      Libertarian groupthink exists, and is no different than liberal and conservative groupthink.

      Wherever you have groups, you have groupthink, regardless of how many people bother to 'think on their own' in any given group.

    • Re:Conservative? (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The patriot act is something the ultra left wingers and ultra right wingers actually agree on.

    • Libertarianism = nearsighted selfishness. (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Go ahead, try to deny it. You can't.

      I have never, ever met a libertarian who was at all interested in the welfare and happiness of anyone but himself. That's really what the whole philosophy boils down to - abandonment of the greater good.

      • Re:Libertarianism = nearsighted selfishness. (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Libertarians aren't selfish. They believe 'the greater good' will come from a society of free individuals making voluntary decisions over the tyranny of the majority and a coercive government.
      • Promoting the welfare of oneself does not necessarily lead to the "abandonment of the greater good" or a decline in the lifestyles of others. On the contrary, greedy bastards brought us the steam engine, light bulb, computer, and pretty much every other invention known to mankind. Capitalism, and "selfishness" has brought about a greater quality of life for everyone. If Socialism/Communism/etc. were really better why do countries with free markets tend to invent more things? (case and point the Soviet Un

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
          Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • Libertarians are all about private everything. Unfortunately, that results in environmental destruction, as everyone buys up all the land and does something different with their chunk. Vast, unspoiled areas of wilderness (such as are found in Scandinavia, Canada, Alaska, parts of South America, parts of Africa, Australia, etc.) are the only way to guarantee ecological integrity.

          Of course, lots of libertarians would say, "But what good does that do us?", because they are entirely focused on themselves and t
    • Most of us are libertarian, but often the conservatives have libertarian ideas.

      You have it backwards. Libertarians have conservative ideas. Conservatives were here first.

      Liberals want 'personal' freedom. Conservatives want financial freedom. Libertarians have coopted ideas from both camps.

      LK
      • Actually, the current libertarian movement borrows heavily from 19th century classical liberalism. The current liberals (in the United States) have become socialist, while the conservatives are, as always, authoritarian. It's the nature of conservatism. If libertarians seem conservative, it's soley because the liberals abandoned the middle.

    • Re:Conservative? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by CaptBubba ( 696284 )
      "Hmm so geeks are supposed to automatically distrust anything conservative?"

      Hollings is a Democrat (who fortunatly is not running for reelection). I think the point is we should be distrustful of people who make rules without a proper understanding of their effects.
    • "most of us are libertarian"

      how the heack do you know that? i really want to know. i, for one, am not a libertarian. i *am* just not that selfish.

      ou seem to suffer the "elitist" syndrome. you definitely seem to think the rest of the work is dumb and only you and a select few are the ones that should control the world. wake up brother, your line of thought is entirely idiotic.

      groupthink does exists among libertarians. otherwise, they won't be a group. and no, you are not that intelligent, elite, or insigh

    • Stolen idea (Score:1, Offtopic)

      by crap_on_you ( 708493 )
      Both liberals and conservatives are groupthinkers unlike us intelligent libertarians

      To think, along with a group, that groupthink is unintelligent is still groupthink, I think.

      Crap_On_You

  • "Trusted" computing (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Todd Knarr ( 15451 ) on Saturday September 20, 2003 @02:50PM (#7012895) Homepage

    The problem with most "trusted computing" proposals so far is that "trusted" is an accurate description of them. It's just an imcomplete description. They aren't about insuring that you, the owner of the computer, can trust the computer or the software on it. They're about insuring that third parties can trust your computer to do what they tell it to do. The proponents omit that part because they know all too well that if they did say all of what they meant that Joe Sixpack would scream bloody murder and refuse to have anything to do with it.

    Just to make a point, imagine a virus that couldn't be removed from a computer. Under the "trusted computing" proposals someone could do exactly that by tagging the virus as "user does not have permission to delete" and the computer itself would prevent the AV software from removing the virus.

    • Hey, the good thing is that if Trusted Computing comes to fruition, and this kind of virus propagates, we will see the swift end of said Trusted Computing, as millions of people will have essentially useless computers.
    • They aren't about insuring that you, the owner of the computer, can trust the computer or the software on it. They're about insuring that third parties can trust your computer to do what they tell it to do.

      That's not quite right, and the distinction is important.

      It's not that third parties can trust your computer to do what they say; it's that third parties can trust YOU when you promise that your computer will behave in a certain way.

      You can promise that your computer will encrypt the movie or song you

      • Problem is, I don't usually promise such things. When I buy something, I promise to obey the restrictions of copyright law. When I go to use my copy, then, I find out I have to agree after the fact to additional conditions not part of the contract of sale. TCPA insures that my computer will enforce those terms whether or not I've agreed to them. I'd be less inclined against TCPA-type things if they worked the other way as well, enforcing the rights of the computer owner as well as the software owner.

    • The problem with most "trusted computing" proposals so far is that "trusted" is an accurate description of them.

      So are the proposals of con-men trusted.

      We're already seeing the initial effects of "trusted computing".
      imagine a virus that couldn't be removed from a computer
      Piddle. Try to remove wscript.exe from current Microsoft Windows so the worms don't run. You can delete it, but it keeps coming back! Trusted computing means that the worms and virus can safely assume that the computer will do their bi
  • A law like this would only transform this republic into a dictatorship run by the wealthiest people (oligarchy). Why should we trust these huge corporations with our rights? Do we really need to be ruled or "trusted" by companies that wantonly violate anti-trust laws?

    • Re:oligarchy (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Where have you been living? Corporate Political Free speech is THE AMERICAN OLIGARCHY. Don't go looking through history for a description of what we have here in America. It's new and it's never been seen before.

      The key is to a have a baseline fall-back story that you can pump into the population (a Mantra). Today's theme is FREEDOM. Everything is cloaked in freedom. "Those aren't bars on the jail cell, their FREEDOM POLES."

      Then you quietly proceed along a very different path. Because our country has mist

  • Good to see some conservatives waking up (Score:5, Interesting)

    by sjgman9 ( 456705 ) on Saturday September 20, 2003 @02:52PM (#7012905)
    Even though Barr is out of Congress, he's still an influential Republican who can spread word to those still in power. He's more of a libertarian, but unless the specifications and implmentations of the Trusted Computing stuff comes to light, we should all cast a weary eye on it. A lack of vigilance in this day and age should not be an excuse for complaining about lost rights. We can fight this battle now before the TCPA is shoved down our throats, and more importantly, we can fight with our wallets. Why should we buy computers that we cannot control? As a computer programmer, the TCPA scares me.

    • Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Saturday September 20, 2003 @03:04PM (#7012964)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • Barr was considered a weirdo becuase he actually believed in things, and wasn't the type to sign on to something just because HP, Sony, Microsoft, Intel and Nokia were willing to pony up. I'm sure he handled some pork and favors over the years, but he's known best for his strong opinions.

        It's refreshing to read this, especially in CL. His position on this truly is the the same as conservative and libertarian thinkers, if not Republican policticians. Left and right can agree on a lot of things if you era
      • Barr was/is considered a weirdo to most of the Republican party. He isn't part of the ruling wing. His help is about equivalent to getting McCain's help - not much.

        Hold up...he is NOT considered a weirdo to CONSERVATIVES. He is taken considerably more serious than McCain (McCain/Feingold election reform laws fixed that). McCain is NOT a conservative. While not all Republicans are conservative (and not all conservatives are Republican) the majority are, and he his view is still considered.

        The simple fa

    • Re:Good to see some conservatives waking up (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      "Good to see some conservatives waking up"

      The Patriot Act passed the Senate 99-1. Looks like the "conservatives" barely got it through. Way to be a tool.
    • I already dislike dealing with the level of control granted to IT departments by Microsoft Domains. For example, my company sent me out of the country (I live in the US) a few weeks ago fix a data acquisition system we had supplied to a major foreign corporation. I was stymied on several occasions by the IT people: they at one point turned off my admin privileges on our own equipment! Unfortunately for them, I was in the process of restarting a Windows 2000 server that just happened to supply mission-cri

  • Well, I guess that's good, but... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ragingmime ( 636249 ) <<moc.oohay> <ta> <emimgnigar>> on Saturday September 20, 2003 @03:00PM (#7012941) Homepage
    Well, it's good to see that someone who's kinda involved in government is going against the idea of making the Hollings Bill law, but I don't really see what the big deal about this article is otherwise. Barr is no longer in the House of Representatives, so he probably has little ability to directly do anything to stop the bill. The article - although an easy read for non-technophiles, which is good - really doesn't say anything we don't already know, and Bob Barr doesn't sound like he has much political clout.

    I don't mean to rag on the editors or the person who submitted it, but I don't see how this is news. It would be nice if this article (or something similar) was published in a widely-read newspaper, but I think we've heard this story a few times before.

    By the way, even if whatever law Hollings wants passed doesn't make it, what's to stop the TCPA's system from becoming a de facto standard? If most of the computers and content out there use it, you're stuck either keeping your old computer and hoarding old CD's and DVD's, or breaking down and using computers and content that are "protected" by the TCPA's technologies.
    • The creative choice. Because this stuff only works for the corporate oligarchy, you, as a creative person, reject it and distribute your content WITHOUT using it. Instead of being a slave to american corporations your creation now has a worldwide audience.

      Something like we (still don't) have now, only more.

      The cool new movies [themoviebox.net] do not just come from Hollywood. Nor even from Sony.

    • If most of the computers and content out there use it, you're stuck either keeping your old computer and hoarding old CD's and DVD's, or breaking down and using computers and content that are "protected" by the TCPA's technologies

      What you say is absolutely true, but I'm not willing to eliminate market and voter forces. The public is already unhappy with precursor technologies such as copy-protected CDs, and the RIAA's stance against P2P file-sharing. And these are simply entertainment issues: if and wh
    • Creative Loafing is a mag circulated in the greater Atlanta/Athens, Georgia area. Bob Barr easily won elections in his conservatively mapped district until the Democrats in the Georgia legislature mapped his district so he had little chance of winning. For this reason, it makes the article applicable to residents of the Atlanta area. Also, Barr does carry significant weight among conservative individuals, and his position on this issue could be quite influental.

  • I have not!!! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Beebos ( 564067 ) on Saturday September 20, 2003 @03:00PM (#7012944)
    Sharing a name with a dufus ex-congressman is a pain in the ass, but I have to give him credit for fighting the Neo-McCarthyism.

    Bob Barr

  • Yes, at last! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jaylen ( 59655 ) on Saturday September 20, 2003 @03:05PM (#7012972)
    This is what is needed, an article in a paper like Creative Loafing. For those who do not know, Creative Loafing is a *free* newspaper which can be picked up just about in any shop in the Atlanta area, and having lived in Atlanta for about a year, let me tell you, almost everyone who buys a paper picks up the free 'Loaf' at the same time.

    The good thing about Creative Loafing is that a *huge* amount of people read it, and even better, these are the 'non geek' mainstream people who would *never* visit wired.com, or any other IT based news source.

    99% of articles I've seen on the internet and in paper form are articles that are already 'preaching to the converted' - people who already know of the dangers of 'Trusted Computing'. This article in Creative Loafing will hit a huge mom and pop crowd, and hopefully the word will begin to spread about how evil DRM et all can be - and then hopefully, when Trusted Computing arrives (and it *will* arrive) these people will hopefully know better than to buy such crippled, enslaved hardware.

    ______
    Jaylen

    • Bob Barr is also known as a conservative. mom and Dad brainwashed-by-the-washington-media will give a lot more creedence to a known conservative than if it were Hilary railing against this (although I seriously doubt we would see Hilary railing against this, you get the point).
    • And if nothing else the RIAA (well, the entertainment industry as a whole) is raising public awareness of the dangers of turning any significant degree of enforcement power over to the private sector. Hopefully this lesson will be remembered when the first "Trusted" computers hit the market.

  • Bob Barr was against Medical Marijana in DC (Score:4, Interesting)

    by red elk ( 597133 ) on Saturday September 20, 2003 @03:18PM (#7013028)
    I have a hard time believing Bob Barr is for civil liberties and people deciding their own laws- The people of Washington DC voted to use medical marijuana with a YES Vote and it was immediately blocked by Barr [mpp.org].

    So, he is for civil liberties and freedom ONLY if you agree if its 'morally' acceptable. Does it really matter that it was Marijana? Regardless of Washington DC being a federal district, The whole point is the people have voted and decided on an issue and it was completely overruled by the Federal Government. The hypocrisy is amazing! How can you be worried about censorship, Patriot Act, and government abuses when you were the very person who prevented the people from governing themselves?

    We need to wake up and see the whole story.
    • Though I disagree with Mr. Barr on this point, he is being consistant in his views.

      How can you be worried about censorship, Patriot Act, and government abuses when you were the very person who prevented the people from governing themselves?

      Oh stop it! There is a world of difference between thinking that 'medical marijuana' is not legally acceptable and thinking that it is ok for the feds to execute search warrantless searches and to convene secret grand juries without ever telling you what evidence wa
      • I just can't understand how you can seperate one from the other. Barr's record on being backward in Washington is very consistant. I picked Mary Jane as a great example, but there are plenty of others...

        There are clearly two different definitions of freedom here. Why would you want someone fighting on your side with his record? How could he honestly think with clarity on these issues when he imposed his will on the vote in Washington DC? What is the difference between that and "feds to execute search warr
    • Bob Barr is a total cock.

      My primary recollection of him is the gigantic hissyfit he made over how the DC Metro hadn't changed all its signs for "Washington National Airport" to "Ronald Reagan National Airport" or whatever after Congress renamed it after our glorious drooling ex-leader. Metro said it would cost thousands of dollars, as they'd have to reletter the name on all their signs, reprint all their schedules, etc. Barr went apeshit and used his position on some committee to hold up a spending bill fo

    • Re:Bob Barr was against Medical Marijana in DC (Score:5, Interesting)

      by craw ( 6958 ) on Saturday September 20, 2003 @04:32PM (#7013347) Homepage
      Bob Barr, the author of the Defense of Marriage Act has been married three times and has been in court for failing to pay child support.

      Bob Barr kept campaigning for public office despite the request of his second wife that he stop because she was recupperating from beast cancer. He lost, soon after dumped her and immediately moved in with another women (his third wife).

      Bob Barr, leading the crusade against the adulterous Bill Clinton. Bob Barr, one of the Congressman "outed" out by Larry Flint, as having committed adultery (see above).

      Bob Barr, photographed licking whipped cream off the breast of a stripper at a fund-raising event.

      Bob Barr, pro-life advocate drove his second wife to and from the clinic where she had an abortion.

      The list goes on and on.

      Wonder why he is such a privacy advocate?
    • The relationship of Congress to the District of Columbia is structural before being personal. Anything of consequence in the District is subject to the approval of congress. There is little to no real local control as in the end, Congress directly controls the district budget.

      Since the federal government has determined that Californians can't smoke their weed, how is it any surprise whatsoever that they would object to it in the District on precisely the same grounds?

      Personally, I'd be much happier if

  • Barr got medicated when he left office (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kaltkalt ( 620110 ) on Saturday September 20, 2003 @03:19PM (#7013032)
    Bob Barr, when in office, was one of those insane neocons ranting about gays and hell all the time. But since he left office, it's clear that he's been treated by a good psychiatrist, and when he opens his mouth these days, good things tend to come out. He was on Bill Maher's show on HBO a few weeks ago and made a really good impression. Very anti-Ashcroft/Orwell. Good for him, and good for modern medicine.
    • No, this shows corruption via campaign contributions.

      The religous right and the pro-life America were one of his biggest campaign contributors. Add in usuall corporate interests and you have a corrupt politician.

    • Barr was always good on privacy issues. He was one of the leading critics of Echelon and I belive he supported lifting crypto restrictions. Although he still supports the War on Drugs, which hopefully at some point he'll realize is incompatible with privacy.
    • Can we not make Orwell a synonym of Ashcroft please. Orwell was a great socialist and campaigner aginst the sorts of regimes that John Ashcroft seems to advocate.
    • When the TIPS program was being discussed he had this to say about it and what Bush was doing:
      "smacks of the very type of fascist or Communist government we fought so hard to eradicate in other countries in decades past."

      Barr was frequently openly critical of federal abuses of power. He was one of the few in Congress, especially on the Right, who came out strongly against Ashcroft.

    • Bob Barr, when in office, was one of those insane neocons ranting about gays and hell all the time.

      You seem to have the meaning of "neocon" backwards. "Neocons" are almost always social libertarians; the only ranting you see neocons do about gays and hell is that politicians should stop butting in people's private lives re. gays and hell. For example, a well known "neocon" writer/blogger is Andrew Sullivan, who is homosexual himself.

      Having grown up in Georgia, I can tell you that I know Bob Barr, and
      • Neoconservatives are the people like Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, etc. who believe in a global pax americana... that america must dominate and control the world. And, in the process, christianize everyone.

        It's far from a libertarian.
        • Actually, the neoconservatives aren't conservatives at all. They are former fringe kooks, much like the Nancy Pelosi/Barney Frank/Ted Kennedy variety of democrat.
        • Neoconservatives are the people like Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, etc. who believe in a global pax americana... that america must dominate and control the world. And, in the process, christianize everyone.

          Wow, ok, I have been trolled. Hats off to you, kaltkalt, you reeled me in.
          (for those saps who mederated him insightful instead of troll, here's the proof: both Bill Kristol and Paul Wolfowitz are Jewish. I'm sure they aren't looking to christianize anyone...)
          • The jewish neocons support the overall movement because one goal is to protect israel. The christian neocons believe israel should be for the jews, as the bible says, because when jesus comes back (from the dead), all the jews are supposed to be there to either convert or die and go to hell (there are no jews in heaven according to the neocon evangelical christians). Now, as a jew, one should be pragmatic... support these guys who want to use the greatest military power in history to protect Israel... but

  • Refresh my memory (Score:4, Funny)

    by Kohath ( 38547 ) on Saturday September 20, 2003 @03:24PM (#7013057)
    Are we supposed to like Bob Barr or hate him? I can't remember, and my group-think-ophone is out of service.

    I need to know before I read the article so I can dismiss everything he says as biased or accept it all as enlightened.

  • Social conservatives make shitty libertarians (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 20, 2003 @03:36PM (#7013096)
    So choosy with their freedoms

    Can carry guns
    Can't smoke dope, gamble, lap dance, be gay

    State right's good when pro gun anti-abortion
    State's rights bad medical marijuana gay rights, and physician assisted suicide

  • When to use a Trust (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    When do you put money in a Trust?
    When you don't trust your kids to use it properly.
  • How many of you that don't want computer hardware legislated to include TCPA were all for the govt. regulating Microsoft? Give the govt. that type of power to restrict freedom and don't be surprised when they use it in ways you don't like.
    • Nobody wanted to regulate Microsoft any more than any other corporation. We just wanted to break them up, is all. And your comparison of an illegal monopoly possessing more resources than most world governments with individual freedom and privacy is ludicrous at best.
  • Stallman has spoken out about how TCPA is bad because DRM limits your computer. However, doesn't the GPL do the same thing? A BSD style license give the freedom to do anything you want with the code under license. However, under GPL, you cannot distribute binaries of a program without source if you used GPLed code. Therefore, GPL doesn't promote freedom of speech, but forced speech, which is not free, i.e. you don't have the freedom to keep your mouth shut about the code modifications. Thus, the GPL is an a
    • I don't believe RMS is a hypocrite, he is merely using a different standard by which to evaluate his decisions. Your example uses the standard of "freedom" or "liberty" or in a practical manner, "flexibility". I believe Stallman talks about freedom quite a bit, but his ideals are clearly rooted in a form of "greatest good" philosophy. The GPL limits freedom, but in RMS's (and many other's) eyes it compromoses absolute freedom for the greatest good of society.

      This is much like John Locke contemplated the
    • There are a couple of important differences between the TCPA and the GPL.

      For the record, I hate the GPL, but I hate ignorance far more.
      1.) The GPL is designed to take away the minimum amount of freedom needed to give everyone down the line the same amount of "freedom" on down the line. If you obtain a program (with source) under the BSD license, and I obtain it from you, you may take away almost _all_ of the freedom I would have with it.

      2.) The _sole_ purpose of DRM is to take away rights. You alre
    • I will tell you why. The GPL is a license agreement, which lays out in advance what the producer's and user's rights are under it, and which presumes that users/consumers of GPL'ed products are honest and will abide by its terms. DRM presumes that you are a criminal, restricts what you can or cannot do according to abitrary standards created by some of the most dishonest, most unethical organizations in history of modern business, and which standards may change at any time according to a whim. No thank y

  • About Bob Barr (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Don't assume Bob Barr is wholy a man of principle with no ulterior political motives! Remember the impeachment of Clinton? He proudly stood there with his Republican colleagues on the House Judiciary Committee and engaged in one of the most partisan assaults on rationality and abuses of the constitutional processes in the history of the U.S. In fact, Barr tried numerous times to have Clinton impeached before Lewinsky's name was ever heard. I guarantee you that his motives were not solely because of the natu
  • ...like Barr is?

    Barr [tylwythteg.com] is/was part of the seriously wacko, seriously right-wing part of the Republican party that still feels George Bush is too moderate.

    If anything could get me rooting for John Ashcroft (a near-impossiblity) it would be attacks by Barr.

  • A question (Score:3, Insightful)

    by tftp ( 111690 ) on Saturday September 20, 2003 @07:29PM (#7014207) Homepage
    With all these TCPA laws flying around, what is the threshold when a board with chips becomes a computer?

    There are plenty of single-chip MCUs, from Atmel AVRs on 8-bit scale to ARM on 32-bit, and everything else as well. Some of those chips are plenty powerful; for example, Netwinder was based on StrongARM, and Intel now moved onto even better architecture. I have PC/104 card in front of me, it runs Linux on XScale CPU as I type this.

    So the question is, will it be mandated that every little chip must have this nefarious "secure core" or whatever they call it today?

    It is plain impossible, price-wise, to embed this technology into every CPU manufactured. Most of those CPUs cost about $10, and they are self-sufficient; only add power. Even worse, there are soft implementations of many popular CPUs, MIPS/ARM being the prime example. These can be embedded into any blank FPGA just by pasting the code... and the FPGA definitely won't have the security required for the TCPA.

    So where does it leave us? Will only PC platforms be affected by the law? Or maybe all Linksys routers (with Linux inside) will have to be reworked? And all Tivos? And all PDAs? This is getting ridiculous fast.

    I work with embedded systems most of the time, and I tell you, this law simply can't go anywhere. We are immersed into a sea of computers, most of which are faster and more powerful than your average desktop. There are DSPs that, despite being poor in some operations, will encode your DivX movie faster than the best Pentium. Your cell phone has a few CPUs in it, as well as your TV and your car. Where this law is going to stop?

    I also guess that if s/w vendors can raise the prices, they will. Cost of traditional s/w will shoot through the roof, now that you *must* pay for every copy. This will create a unique combination - a TCPA-free hardware and free software, and there will be a market hungry for both of the above simply because they can't afford to be robbed by ISVs, they just don't have the money. People who hold onto their olden Win95 boxes will have to either give up computing, or to switch to TCPA-free hardware and free software. The industry digs its own grave, as it seems.

  • This is the same man that when a member of the House tried to stop Wiccans from practicing their religion on military posts although the chaplains had no problem with it. Basically, if you were not in his list of acceptable religions, you shouldn't be allowed to practice, 1st Amendment be damned.

    Seems that being out of Congress has turned this guy 180.

Slashdot Top Deals

The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the `social sciences' is: some do, some don't. -- Ernest Rutherford

Close