__/ [B Gruff] on Wednesday 15 February 2006 11:47 \__
> On Wednesday 15 February 2006 11:38 Gordon wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 11:07:23 +0000, B Gruff wrote:
>>> On Wednesday 15 February 2006 10:45 Gordon wrote:
>>>> Quote "The system uses BitLocker Drive Encryption through a chip called
>>>> TPM (Trusted Platform Module) in the computer's motherboard.
I read the following back in May 2005:
"Microsoft and the entertainment industry's holy grail of controlling
copyright through the motherboard has moved a step closer with Intel Corp.
now embedding digital rights management within in its latest dual-core
processor Pentium D and accompanying 945 chipset."
Is it possibly relevant? Whether so or not, embrace AMD.
>>>> It is partly aimed at preventing people from downloading unlicensed
>>>> films or media.
Ah! So it's a good thing!! A blessing. Stop those thieves and crooks!! Go, go
Windows Vista. Microsoft are saving our world from pirates.
The FBI and CIA are also good at inflating and fabricating figures when a
hacker attacks. It gives them more freedom in terms of handling scapegoats.
>>>> "This means that by default your hard disk is encrypted by using a key
>>>> that you cannot physically get at..."
Only /you/? What about technologies? And who will be the masters with the
key? Big Brother, anyone?
>>>> Oh yes VERY nice. So I can't un-encrypt something on the HDD that I
>>> Not just that - the *UK* is talking to MS re. backdoors to the system!
In other words, if my hard-drive collapses, even Knoppix would not save the
day. Either an MVP (Microsoft Valued Professional) or Microsoft themselves
will decide on the rip-off fare (/a la/ OneCare) .
>>> In short, to ensure that *you* can't get at it, but *they* can!
>>> (We may presumably assume from this that it is possible to put back-doors
>>> into it, and that if it is possible and (say) the CIA wants it.......?)
>> And if there are backdoors in it, they'll be open to hackers, trojans and
>> worms, won't they? All in all, a VERY good reason for NOT getting
This is another lock-in. Literally.
> .... and all of which brings us back to that question of, "What's the use
> of having the code available if so few people want it, and if so many
> people never even look at it?".
> The point surely, is that *some* people do just that, and anybody *can*!
> For instance, I seem to remember an early Firefox having some "monitoring"
> code included (just in the German version?) to see how people were Googling
> or something.
> It was about a day before it was found, and a few days before it was
> removed IIRC!
> I'm even starting to wonder about (what I perceive as) the comparatively
> slow uptake of OSS in the UK. I had thought that perhaps it was because
> there was more vested interested in MS here than anywhere else outside the
> U.S. Now I'm beginning to form some conspiracy theories of my own!
There are hands shaking behind closed doors, but I would never use conspiracy
theories to support any of my arguments. It makes the wrong impression.
There is so much evidence of legal misuse out there, so you must not think
Roy S. Schestowitz | "Stand for nothing and you will fall for anything"
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
2:15pm up 29 days 9:16, 12 users, load average: 0.97, 0.74, 0.62
http://iuron.com - help build a non-profit search engine