Re: Can "trusted Computing" be trusted?



andy smart
07-09-2005, 11:51 PM
Imhotep wrote:
> andy smart wrote:
>
>
>>Imhotep wrote:
>>
>>
>>>...and even better idea. Why do you not do some research and find out who
>>>"them" and "they" are for yourself...instead of trying to make this out
>>>into a OS thing. How lame.
>>>
>>>-Im
>>
>>I'm not turning this into an OS thing at all - all operating systems are
>>insecure and flawed as is all hardware and all door locks.
>
>
> I believe the purpose of this post is that "trusted computing" goes too far
> in how it implements "security". After reading about it, it appears that
> this is being "sold" as improved security when in fact it is nothing more
> than a way for companies to impose the millennium act. Just the fact that
> their is a hidden agenda should make you worry. Anytime in life when their
> are hidden agendas distater follows. You should read up on it more. I can
> see from your comments you have not.
>
>
>>I don't need to know who 'them and they' are, because I don't believe in
>>'them and they' - I know that various companies are developing what they
>>term trusted computing and are pushing for it because it's their
>>product. What I don't believe in are these mythical 'them and they' who
>>are supposedly out to take away our freedoms at ever turn by exerting
>>some strange power over the rest of the world. I just don't believe that
>>this is anything new - global captialism has always attempted to find
>>new ways to sell it's produce and the trusted computing initiative is
>>only a new way to do this; who knows it might just have more benefits
>>than losses in the end and people will prefer the reduction in what they
>>can do to gain some increase in security. I don't like being filmed
>>everwhere by CCTV cameras, but unless we can have lots more police I
>>prefer that to street crime.
>
>
> Why don't you do yourself, and me, a favor. Read about it first before
> posting...at least we can have an intelligent conversation.
>
> Try starting here:
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html
>

Actually I DO read your suggested articles, with interest. The issue is
that I don't agree with them. Richard Stallman is a genuine visionary
with a radical view of the world and the rights of the individual. I
just dont agree with his viewpoint. That's not un-intelligent, I just
disagree.

>
>
>>Interestingly enough the original Imhotep was involved in the support
>>system for one of the most represive regimes in world history :-)
>
>
> What regime is not? and what the hell does that have to do with "trusted
> computing"? First try getting up to date with the "technology" of "Trusted
> Computing" then we can talk about who Imhotep was and is contributions to
> Egypt...
>
> -Im

Never said he didn't contribute to Egypt, he did, loads. Just wondered
why a keen civil libitarian like yourself didn't pick somebody more
interested in the freedoms of the individual like Paine

Imhotep
07-09-2005, 11:51 PM
andy smart wrote:

> Imhotep wrote:
>> andy smart wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Imhotep wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>...and even better idea. Why do you not do some research and find out
>>>>who "them" and "they" are for yourself...instead of trying to make this
>>>>out into a OS thing. How lame.
>>>>
>>>>-Im
>>>
>>>I'm not turning this into an OS thing at all - all operating systems are
>>>insecure and flawed as is all hardware and all door locks.
>>
>>
>> I believe the purpose of this post is that "trusted computing" goes too
>> far in how it implements "security". After reading about it, it appears
>> that this is being "sold" as improved security when in fact it is nothing
>> more than a way for companies to impose the millennium act. Just the fact
>> that their is a hidden agenda should make you worry. Anytime in life when
>> their are hidden agendas distater follows. You should read up on it more.
>> I can see from your comments you have not.
>>
>>
>>>I don't need to know who 'them and they' are, because I don't believe in
>>>'them and they' - I know that various companies are developing what they
>>>term trusted computing and are pushing for it because it's their
>>>product. What I don't believe in are these mythical 'them and they' who
>>>are supposedly out to take away our freedoms at ever turn by exerting
>>>some strange power over the rest of the world. I just don't believe that
>>>this is anything new - global captialism has always attempted to find
>>>new ways to sell it's produce and the trusted computing initiative is
>>>only a new way to do this; who knows it might just have more benefits
>>>than losses in the end and people will prefer the reduction in what they
>>>can do to gain some increase in security. I don't like being filmed
>>>everwhere by CCTV cameras, but unless we can have lots more police I
>>>prefer that to street crime.
>>
>>
>> Why don't you do yourself, and me, a favor. Read about it first before
>> posting...at least we can have an intelligent conversation.
>>
>> Try starting here:
>> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html
>>
>
> Actually I DO read your suggested articles, with interest. The issue is
> that I don't agree with them. Richard Stallman is a genuine visionary
> with a radical view of the world and the rights of the individual. I
> just dont agree with his viewpoint. That's not un-intelligent, I just
> disagree.

He hits upon several keys points.. This "trusted Security" has a hidden
agenda. It also server to stop reverse engineering and as such competition.
We have entered the age where litigation is limiting innovation. This is
very dangerous. The dark ages limited science and as such we lost hundreds
of years of science. It is excusable do to the fact cultures were more or
less naive in their beliefs. However, we now have greedy corporations and
greedy lawyers that are trying to do the same thing. What is our excuse
now?

Science, and the innovation that comes from science, should always be
respected and not prostituted.

Don't like Stallman do a google query:
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html
http://www.eff.org/Infrastructure/trusted_computing/20031001_tc.php

...and plenty more...

>>>Interestingly enough the original Imhotep was involved in the support
>>>system for one of the most represive regimes in world history :-)
>>
>>
>> What regime is not? and what the hell does that have to do with "trusted
>> computing"? First try getting up to date with the "technology" of
>> "Trusted Computing" then we can talk about who Imhotep was and is
>> contributions to Egypt...
>>
>> -Im
>
> Never said he didn't contribute to Egypt, he did, loads. Just wondered
> why a keen civil libitarian like yourself didn't pick somebody more
> interested in the freedoms of the individual like Paine

Imhotep is not only a name, and an ancient Egyptian, but also translates
into "One who comes in peace"...

-Im

andy smart
07-09-2005, 11:51 PM
>
> He hits upon several keys points.. This "trusted Security" has a hidden
> agenda. It also server to stop reverse engineering and as such competition.
> We have entered the age where litigation is limiting innovation. This is
> very dangerous. The dark ages limited science and as such we lost hundreds
> of years of science.

The dark ages did not limit science - what happens is that the social
structures which supported some of the technology of the classical
period do not exist any longer (for example the giant grain mills of the
Roman world only work because there is a large slave population to grow
the grain which made it economically viable. The state of science and
technology in late antiquity which is appropriate to that society is
very advanced. Mettalurgy is a technology which develops to a very high
degree, for example in pattern-welded sword manufacture; and northern
european shipbuilding I would argue is superiour to that of the
classical world. Transimittion of theoretical science appears to be
reduced as very few people can read, or have time to read; again a
social effect of the reduction in both population and slave ownership.

There is no attempt to limit scientific knowlege in late antiquity (you
know of course that 'dark ages' implies lack of written sources than
social situations), mearly that the technology which is no longer
required is neither used nor developed.

Imhotep
07-09-2005, 11:51 PM
andy smart wrote:

>
>>
>> He hits upon several keys points.. This "trusted Security" has a hidden
>> agenda. It also server to stop reverse engineering and as such
>> competition. We have entered the age where litigation is limiting
>> innovation. This is very dangerous. The dark ages limited science and as
>> such we lost hundreds of years of science.
>
> The dark ages did not limit science - what happens is that the social
> structures which supported some of the technology of the classical
> period do not exist any longer (for example the giant grain mills of the
> Roman world only work because there is a large slave population to grow
> the grain which made it economically viable. The state of science and
> technology in late antiquity which is appropriate to that society is
> very advanced. Mettalurgy is a technology which develops to a very high
> degree, for example in pattern-welded sword manufacture; and northern
> european shipbuilding I would argue is superiour to that of the
> classical world. Transimittion of theoretical science appears to be
> reduced as very few people can read, or have time to read; again a
> social effect of the reduction in both population and slave ownership.
>
> There is no attempt to limit scientific knowlege in late antiquity (you
> know of course that 'dark ages' implies lack of written sources than
> social situations), mearly that the technology which is no longer
> required is neither used nor developed.

We are getting off topic but, what-the-hell...

hummmm...What about Pope Gregory the "Great"? What about the acceptance, or
lack thereof, of philosophy? I am not saying that there were not some
technological advancements during this period. There were. However, they
were only allowed if the technology benefited someone of power (monarchies
religion, etc).

Much of the same techniques are still in existence today. You just need to
look closely, you will see them.

Getting back to the topic, Big American Business are getting way out of
line. We as voters need to start demanding more from our politician's.
Maybe more political parties are the answer? Maybe reform. I have never
liked the existence of "lobbyists". This clearly should be illegal.

Have you done more research on "trusted computing"?

-IM

andy smart
07-09-2005, 11:51 PM
Imhotep wrote:
> andy smart wrote:
>
>
>>>He hits upon several keys points.. This "trusted Security" has a hidden
>>>agenda. It also server to stop reverse engineering and as such
>>>competition. We have entered the age where litigation is limiting
>>>innovation. This is very dangerous. The dark ages limited science and as
>>>such we lost hundreds of years of science.
>>
>>The dark ages did not limit science - what happens is that the social
>>structures which supported some of the technology of the classical
>>period do not exist any longer (for example the giant grain mills of the
>>Roman world only work because there is a large slave population to grow
>>the grain which made it economically viable. The state of science and
>>technology in late antiquity which is appropriate to that society is
>>very advanced. Mettalurgy is a technology which develops to a very high
>>degree, for example in pattern-welded sword manufacture; and northern
>>european shipbuilding I would argue is superiour to that of the
>>classical world. Transimittion of theoretical science appears to be
>>reduced as very few people can read, or have time to read; again a
>>social effect of the reduction in both population and slave ownership.
>>
>>There is no attempt to limit scientific knowlege in late antiquity (you
>>know of course that 'dark ages' implies lack of written sources than
>>social situations), mearly that the technology which is no longer
>>required is neither used nor developed.
>
>
> We are getting off topic but, what-the-hell...
>
> hummmm...What about Pope Gregory the "Great"? What about the acceptance, or
> lack thereof, of philosophy? I am not saying that there were not some
> technological advancements during this period. There were. However, they
> were only allowed if the technology benefited someone of power (monarchies
> religion, etc).
>

Whoa! Since when did Philosophy and science mean the same thing? One of
the big issues for the study of science and technology in the classical
world is that there are writers like Pliny and Aristotle who carried
great weight but who were totally theoretical. In fact the only work by
people who might actually do the job which are widely known today is
Vitruvius. The ancient and late antique worlds are full of people doing
science and technology, but who leave no written records for us to
access. I'd agree with your idea of there being a link to benefitting
someone in power (after all many of the skilled workers are slaves) but
I think it has less to do with 'allowed' in the philosophical sense than
it has to do with 'allowed' in the time and money sense; you either hire
or buy a skilled engineer you are damn well going to get your money's
worth out of them rather than let 'em work on blue skies projects!


> Much of the same techniques are still in existence today. You just need to
> look closely, you will see them.

Actually, for once, I agree with you on some level. Whereas there is now
a choice of operating system which is created by amateurs (in the sense
of working in their spare time and not for an employer) in Linux the
same is not true of hardware: and never will be. The resources needed
both in terms of raw materials, cheap labour, and money needed to
produce computer hardware will always preclude it being produced by
anybody other than either a corporation or government: and whatever the
engineers or designers might want they will have to produce what the
corporation or government wants!

>
> Getting back to the topic, Big American Business are getting way out of
> line. We as voters need to start demanding more from our politician's.
> Maybe more political parties are the answer? Maybe reform. I have never
> liked the existence of "lobbyists". This clearly should be illegal.
>

Ah, now there's the big issue. I have no control over American big
business whatsoever; I don't vote in the US and I don't shop in the US.
In the EU the link between capital and government is less tight than in
the US, as we have a government which is now transnational and covers
interests from the Baltic to the Mediterranean. A lot of the European
governments are very keen on open source software, both from the
economic point of view but also as the EU is now able to form a power
block less dependent on American power. We also have a lot of human
rights legislation on our statute books which the US does not have and
which might make some of the worst fears of trusted computing illegal.
We also have access to our own source of cheap labour, so maybe you'll
be able to buy European mainboards without trusted computing some day!

> Have you done more research on "trusted computing"?
>
You mean, do I agree with you yet, no :-)

> -IM

Imhotep
07-09-2005, 11:51 PM
andy smart wrote:

> Imhotep wrote:
>> andy smart wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>He hits upon several keys points.. This "trusted Security" has a hidden
>>>>agenda. It also server to stop reverse engineering and as such
>>>>competition. We have entered the age where litigation is limiting
>>>>innovation. This is very dangerous. The dark ages limited science and as
>>>>such we lost hundreds of years of science.
>>>
>>>The dark ages did not limit science - what happens is that the social
>>>structures which supported some of the technology of the classical
>>>period do not exist any longer (for example the giant grain mills of the
>>>Roman world only work because there is a large slave population to grow
>>>the grain which made it economically viable. The state of science and
>>>technology in late antiquity which is appropriate to that society is
>>>very advanced. Mettalurgy is a technology which develops to a very high
>>>degree, for example in pattern-welded sword manufacture; and northern
>>>european shipbuilding I would argue is superiour to that of the
>>>classical world. Transimittion of theoretical science appears to be
>>>reduced as very few people can read, or have time to read; again a
>>>social effect of the reduction in both population and slave ownership.
>>>
>>>There is no attempt to limit scientific knowlege in late antiquity (you
>>>know of course that 'dark ages' implies lack of written sources than
>>>social situations), mearly that the technology which is no longer
>>>required is neither used nor developed.
>>
>>
>> We are getting off topic but, what-the-hell...
>>
>> hummmm...What about Pope Gregory the "Great"? What about the acceptance,
>> or lack thereof, of philosophy? I am not saying that there were not some
>> technological advancements during this period. There were. However, they
>> were only allowed if the technology benefited someone of power
>> (monarchies religion, etc).
>>
>
> Whoa! Since when did Philosophy and science mean the same thing? One of
> the big issues for the study of science and technology in the classical
> world is that there are writers like Pliny and Aristotle who carried
> great weight but who were totally theoretical. In fact the only work by
> people who might actually do the job which are widely known today is
> Vitruvius. The ancient and late antique worlds are full of people doing
> science and technology, but who leave no written records for us to
> access. I'd agree with your idea of there being a link to benefitting
> someone in power (after all many of the skilled workers are slaves) but
> I think it has less to do with 'allowed' in the philosophical sense than
> it has to do with 'allowed' in the time and money sense; you either hire
> or buy a skilled engineer you are damn well going to get your money's
> worth out of them rather than let 'em work on blue skies projects!

Philosophy is the mother of all science. Think about it. What is philosophy?
At it's most atomic level it is a quest for knowledge. It is questioning
one's environment. To philosophize is to question, is it not? What is
science really? To question? To theorize?

Before there was even mathematics, there was philosophy. As man looked
around and starting asking questions about his environment, philosophizing,
modern science was born.

To deny philosophy's role in modern science is to deny the matriarch of
science.

>> Much of the same techniques are still in existence today. You just need
>> to look closely, you will see them.
>
> Actually, for once, I agree with you on some level. Whereas there is now
> a choice of operating system which is created by amateurs (in the sense
> of working in their spare time and not for an employer) in Linux the
> same is not true of hardware: and never will be. The resources needed
> both in terms of raw materials, cheap labour, and money needed to
> produce computer hardware will always preclude it being produced by
> anybody other than either a corporation or government:

Agreed. There is just too much resources needed.

> and whatever the
> engineers or designers might want they will have to produce what the
> corporation or government wants!

Not true. For corporations to sell their product they really need the
customers to buy it! Without customers, you do not have a company.

>>
>> Getting back to the topic, Big American Business are getting way out of
>> line. We as voters need to start demanding more from our politician's.
>> Maybe more political parties are the answer? Maybe reform. I have never
>> liked the existence of "lobbyists". This clearly should be illegal.
>>
>
> Ah, now there's the big issue.

This is the "REAL" issue as American Corporations are out of control.

> I have no control over American big
> business whatsoever; I don't vote in the US and I don't shop in the US.
> In the EU the link between capital and government is less tight than in
> the US, as we have a government which is now transnational and covers
> interests from the Baltic to the Mediterranean. A lot of the European
> governments are very keen on open source software, both from the
> economic point of view but also as the EU is now able to form a power
> block less dependent on American power.

Good. I have thought for some time that, this is how it will be played out.
I am a big advocate of open source. I am posting this news post on FreeBSD
with KDE. It is good that the EU sees this as a treat. It is. American
Businesses are trying to dictate to the World. This I am clearly against
(and yes, I am an American).

> We also have a lot of human
> rights legislation on our statute books which the US does not have and
> which might make some of the worst fears of trusted computing illegal.

Excellent! It seems we are behind you in that regard. The US political
system is ripe with corruption. No longer do you have politicans that serve
their citizens but rather politicians serving big business concerns. I do
have confidence that this will change as a lot of people are starting to
demand changes. Most people in the US are still quite ignorant of this...

> We also have access to our own source of cheap labour, so maybe you'll
> be able to buy European mainboards without trusted computing some day!

No doubt I will. I will *NEVER* go with "trusted computing". *NEVER*.

>> Have you done more research on "trusted computing"?
>>
> You mean, do I agree with you yet, no :-)

So, you think "Trusted Computing" is a good idea? You think it is also good
to have a "Patriot Act" in EU also?

-Im

>> -IM

andy smart
07-09-2005, 11:51 PM
Imhotep wrote:
> andy smart wrote:
>
>
>>Imhotep wrote:
>>
>>>andy smart wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>He hits upon several keys points.. This "trusted Security" has a hidden
>>>>>agenda. It also server to stop reverse engineering and as such
>>>>>competition. We have entered the age where litigation is limiting
>>>>>innovation. This is very dangerous. The dark ages limited science and as
>>>>>such we lost hundreds of years of science.
>>>>
>>>>The dark ages did not limit science - what happens is that the social
>>>>structures which supported some of the technology of the classical
>>>>period do not exist any longer (for example the giant grain mills of the
>>>>Roman world only work because there is a large slave population to grow
>>>>the grain which made it economically viable. The state of science and
>>>>technology in late antiquity which is appropriate to that society is
>>>>very advanced. Mettalurgy is a technology which develops to a very high
>>>>degree, for example in pattern-welded sword manufacture; and northern
>>>>european shipbuilding I would argue is superiour to that of the
>>>>classical world. Transimittion of theoretical science appears to be
>>>>reduced as very few people can read, or have time to read; again a
>>>>social effect of the reduction in both population and slave ownership.
>>>>
>>>>There is no attempt to limit scientific knowlege in late antiquity (you
>>>>know of course that 'dark ages' implies lack of written sources than
>>>>social situations), mearly that the technology which is no longer
>>>>required is neither used nor developed.
>>>
>>>
>>>We are getting off topic but, what-the-hell...
>>>
>>>hummmm...What about Pope Gregory the "Great"? What about the acceptance,
>>>or lack thereof, of philosophy? I am not saying that there were not some
>>>technological advancements during this period. There were. However, they
>>>were only allowed if the technology benefited someone of power
>>>(monarchies religion, etc).
>>>
>>
>>Whoa! Since when did Philosophy and science mean the same thing? One of
>>the big issues for the study of science and technology in the classical
>>world is that there are writers like Pliny and Aristotle who carried
>>great weight but who were totally theoretical. In fact the only work by
>>people who might actually do the job which are widely known today is
>>Vitruvius. The ancient and late antique worlds are full of people doing
>>science and technology, but who leave no written records for us to
>>access. I'd agree with your idea of there being a link to benefitting
>>someone in power (after all many of the skilled workers are slaves) but
>>I think it has less to do with 'allowed' in the philosophical sense than
>>it has to do with 'allowed' in the time and money sense; you either hire
>>or buy a skilled engineer you are damn well going to get your money's
>>worth out of them rather than let 'em work on blue skies projects!
>
>
> Philosophy is the mother of all science. Think about it. What is philosophy?
> At it's most atomic level it is a quest for knowledge. It is questioning
> one's environment. To philosophize is to question, is it not? What is
> science really? To question? To theorize?
>
> Before there was even mathematics, there was philosophy. As man looked
> around and starting asking questions about his environment, philosophizing,
> modern science was born.
>
> To deny philosophy's role in modern science is to deny the matriarch of
> science.
>
>
>>>Much of the same techniques are still in existence today. You just need
>>>to look closely, you will see them.
>>
>>Actually, for once, I agree with you on some level. Whereas there is now
>>a choice of operating system which is created by amateurs (in the sense
>>of working in their spare time and not for an employer) in Linux the
>>same is not true of hardware: and never will be. The resources needed
>>both in terms of raw materials, cheap labour, and money needed to
>>produce computer hardware will always preclude it being produced by
>>anybody other than either a corporation or government:
>
>
> Agreed. There is just too much resources needed.
>
>
>>and whatever the
>>engineers or designers might want they will have to produce what the
>>corporation or government wants!
>
>
> Not true. For corporations to sell their product they really need the
> customers to buy it! Without customers, you do not have a company.
>
>
>>>Getting back to the topic, Big American Business are getting way out of
>>>line. We as voters need to start demanding more from our politician's.
>>>Maybe more political parties are the answer? Maybe reform. I have never
>>>liked the existence of "lobbyists". This clearly should be illegal.
>>>
>>
>>Ah, now there's the big issue.
>
>
> This is the "REAL" issue as American Corporations are out of control.
>
>
>>I have no control over American big
>>business whatsoever; I don't vote in the US and I don't shop in the US.
>>In the EU the link between capital and government is less tight than in
>>the US, as we have a government which is now transnational and covers
>>interests from the Baltic to the Mediterranean. A lot of the European
>>governments are very keen on open source software, both from the
>>economic point of view but also as the EU is now able to form a power
>>block less dependent on American power.
>
>
> Good. I have thought for some time that, this is how it will be played out.
> I am a big advocate of open source. I am posting this news post on FreeBSD
> with KDE. It is good that the EU sees this as a treat. It is. American
> Businesses are trying to dictate to the World. This I am clearly against
> (and yes, I am an American).
>
>
>>We also have a lot of human
>>rights legislation on our statute books which the US does not have and
>>which might make some of the worst fears of trusted computing illegal.
>
>
> Excellent! It seems we are behind you in that regard. The US political
> system is ripe with corruption. No longer do you have politicans that serve
> their citizens but rather politicians serving big business concerns. I do
> have confidence that this will change as a lot of people are starting to
> demand changes. Most people in the US are still quite ignorant of this...
>
>

I thought of the examples I should have included yesterday!
The first is that we have a thing called The Data Protection Act which
requires that anybody who holds information about anybody must both make
that information available to the person (for example you are legally
entitled to a complete copy of your medical records) and that they must
take all reasonable precautions to ensure that nobody who does not have
a right to that information can access it. Now any piece of hardware
which has an 'open' back door which can be accessed remotely without the
user's (ie the data holder)knowlege would contravene the data protection
act. This means that health authorities/universities/schools/on-line
retailers/etc would have to think very carefully before using it.
The other is our new coporate goverence legistation which makes it
compusory for all companies and I think a lot of other organizations, to
archive all business related email and to make it available to
authorised persons; for example my wife's organisation has decided to
implement this by saying that any emails not in the designated
'personal' email box for private emails will automatically be archived
onto their searchable documents system. So features to 'destroy' emails
after a certain time or which render them unusable would be in
contravention of that.

>>We also have access to our own source of cheap labour, so maybe you'll
>>be able to buy European mainboards without trusted computing some day!
>
>
> No doubt I will. I will *NEVER* go with "trusted computing". *NEVER*.
>
>
>>>Have you done more research on "trusted computing"?
>>>
>>
>>You mean, do I agree with you yet, no :-)
>
>
> So, you think "Trusted Computing" is a good idea? You think it is also good
> to have a "Patriot Act" in EU also?

I didn't say that, I just am not convinced it's going to be the big
issue that many believe it will. I'm acutally quite keen on some of the
ideas about protection of intellectual property which it might offer as
I've said.

We'd never have a patriot act - it would not be legal in the EU I
suspect. Also we've had real terrorism for years here and have never
felt the need to go over the top. The most draconian law we have is the
Prevention of terrorism act which gives the police an extra few days to
hold somebody without charging them.

>
> -Im
>
>
>>>-IM
>
>

Imhotep
07-09-2005, 11:51 PM
andy smart wrote:

> Imhotep wrote:
>> andy smart wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Imhotep wrote:
>>>
>>>>andy smart wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>He hits upon several keys points.. This "trusted Security" has a
>>>>>>hidden agenda. It also server to stop reverse engineering and as such
>>>>>>competition. We have entered the age where litigation is limiting
>>>>>>innovation. This is very dangerous. The dark ages limited science and
>>>>>>as such we lost hundreds of years of science.
>>>>>
>>>>>The dark ages did not limit science - what happens is that the social
>>>>>structures which supported some of the technology of the classical
>>>>>period do not exist any longer (for example the giant grain mills of
>>>>>the Roman world only work because there is a large slave population to
>>>>>grow the grain which made it economically viable. The state of science
>>>>>and technology in late antiquity which is appropriate to that society
>>>>>is very advanced. Mettalurgy is a technology which develops to a very
>>>>>high degree, for example in pattern-welded sword manufacture; and
>>>>>northern european shipbuilding I would argue is superiour to that of
>>>>>the classical world. Transimittion of theoretical science appears to be
>>>>>reduced as very few people can read, or have time to read; again a
>>>>>social effect of the reduction in both population and slave ownership.
>>>>>
>>>>>There is no attempt to limit scientific knowlege in late antiquity (you
>>>>>know of course that 'dark ages' implies lack of written sources than
>>>>>social situations), mearly that the technology which is no longer
>>>>>required is neither used nor developed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>We are getting off topic but, what-the-hell...
>>>>
>>>>hummmm...What about Pope Gregory the "Great"? What about the acceptance,
>>>>or lack thereof, of philosophy? I am not saying that there were not some
>>>>technological advancements during this period. There were. However, they
>>>>were only allowed if the technology benefited someone of power
>>>>(monarchies religion, etc).
>>>>
>>>
>>>Whoa! Since when did Philosophy and science mean the same thing? One of
>>>the big issues for the study of science and technology in the classical
>>>world is that there are writers like Pliny and Aristotle who carried
>>>great weight but who were totally theoretical. In fact the only work by
>>>people who might actually do the job which are widely known today is
>>>Vitruvius. The ancient and late antique worlds are full of people doing
>>>science and technology, but who leave no written records for us to
>>>access. I'd agree with your idea of there being a link to benefitting
>>>someone in power (after all many of the skilled workers are slaves) but
>>>I think it has less to do with 'allowed' in the philosophical sense than
>>>it has to do with 'allowed' in the time and money sense; you either hire
>>>or buy a skilled engineer you are damn well going to get your money's
>>>worth out of them rather than let 'em work on blue skies projects!
>>
>>
>> Philosophy is the mother of all science. Think about it. What is
>> philosophy? At it's most atomic level it is a quest for knowledge. It is
>> questioning one's environment. To philosophize is to question, is it not?
>> What is science really? To question? To theorize?
>>
>> Before there was even mathematics, there was philosophy. As man looked
>> around and starting asking questions about his environment,
>> philosophizing, modern science was born.
>>
>> To deny philosophy's role in modern science is to deny the matriarch of
>> science.
>>
>>
>>>>Much of the same techniques are still in existence today. You just need
>>>>to look closely, you will see them.
>>>
>>>Actually, for once, I agree with you on some level. Whereas there is now
>>>a choice of operating system which is created by amateurs (in the sense
>>>of working in their spare time and not for an employer) in Linux the
>>>same is not true of hardware: and never will be. The resources needed
>>>both in terms of raw materials, cheap labour, and money needed to
>>>produce computer hardware will always preclude it being produced by
>>>anybody other than either a corporation or government:
>>
>>
>> Agreed. There is just too much resources needed.
>>
>>
>>>and whatever the
>>>engineers or designers might want they will have to produce what the
>>>corporation or government wants!
>>
>>
>> Not true. For corporations to sell their product they really need the
>> customers to buy it! Without customers, you do not have a company.
>>
>>
>>>>Getting back to the topic, Big American Business are getting way out of
>>>>line. We as voters need to start demanding more from our politician's.
>>>>Maybe more political parties are the answer? Maybe reform. I have never
>>>>liked the existence of "lobbyists". This clearly should be illegal.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Ah, now there's the big issue.
>>
>>
>> This is the "REAL" issue as American Corporations are out of control.
>>
>>
>>>I have no control over American big
>>>business whatsoever; I don't vote in the US and I don't shop in the US.
>>>In the EU the link between capital and government is less tight than in
>>>the US, as we have a government which is now transnational and covers
>>>interests from the Baltic to the Mediterranean. A lot of the European
>>>governments are very keen on open source software, both from the
>>>economic point of view but also as the EU is now able to form a power
>>>block less dependent on American power.
>>
>>
>> Good. I have thought for some time that, this is how it will be played
>> out. I am a big advocate of open source. I am posting this news post on
>> FreeBSD with KDE. It is good that the EU sees this as a treat. It is.
>> American Businesses are trying to dictate to the World. This I am clearly
>> against (and yes, I am an American).
>>
>>
>>>We also have a lot of human
>>>rights legislation on our statute books which the US does not have and
>>>which might make some of the worst fears of trusted computing illegal.
>>
>>
>> Excellent! It seems we are behind you in that regard. The US political
>> system is ripe with corruption. No longer do you have politicans that
>> serve their citizens but rather politicians serving big business
>> concerns. I do have confidence that this will change as a lot of people
>> are starting to demand changes. Most people in the US are still quite
>> ignorant of this...
>>
>>
>
> I thought of the examples I should have included yesterday!
> The first is that we have a thing called The Data Protection Act which
> requires that anybody who holds information about anybody must both make
> that information available to the person (for example you are legally
> entitled to a complete copy of your medical records) and that they must
> take all reasonable precautions to ensure that nobody who does not have
> a right to that information can access it.

We also have this it is called H.I.P.A.A....

> Now any piece of hardware
> which has an 'open' back door which can be accessed remotely without the
> user's (ie the data holder)knowlege would contravene the data protection
> act. This means that health authorities/universities/schools/on-line
> retailers/etc would have to think very carefully before using it.
> The other is our new coporate goverence legistation which makes it
> compusory for all companies and I think a lot of other organizations, to
> archive all business related email and to make it available to
> authorised persons; for example my wife's organisation has decided to
> implement this by saying that any emails not in the designated
> 'personal' email box for private emails will automatically be archived
> onto their searchable documents system. So features to 'destroy' emails
> after a certain time or which render them unusable would be in
> contravention of that.
>
>>>We also have access to our own source of cheap labour, so maybe you'll
>>>be able to buy European mainboards without trusted computing some day!
>>
>>
>> No doubt I will. I will *NEVER* go with "trusted computing". *NEVER*.
>>
>>
>>>>Have you done more research on "trusted computing"?
>>>>
>>>
>>>You mean, do I agree with you yet, no :-)
>>
>>
>> So, you think "Trusted Computing" is a good idea? You think it is also
>> good to have a "Patriot Act" in EU also?
>
> I didn't say that, I just am not convinced it's going to be the big
> issue that many believe it will. I'm acutally quite keen on some of the
> ideas about protection of intellectual property which it might offer as
> I've said.

I am not. So called IP does not take into account the endless numbers of
people that worked in science and have contributed over the thousands of
years. For example, let's say I discover some new mathematical calculation.
My calculation uses calculus. What about the many people of the years that
contributed to Calculus? What about the many people that contributed to pre
Calculus? Don't they, or their descendants deserve a cut? After all, I
could not have found my new calculation without them...

IP is crap. It says I own something that is clearly built on top of
thousands of other people's work. But we are in the age of litigation
dictating innovation...

We must be careful going forward. We are getting away from the real things
that got us here.

Imagine this. You "own" some kind of "IP" about computers. I come up with a
new theory that drastically increase something but is based on "your IP".
What is the next step? We get some lawyers to negotiate the percentages?
What if you ask for too much? Will I sit on my new invention of decades?
What if it is not an invention about computers but a cure for cancer?

Innovation must never be tied down or constrained because it is bettering
the human race...

IP is an invention of lawyers and big business. Do you really trust lawyers
and big business? Personally, I will put my trust in pure unadulterated
science, thank you.

> We'd never have a patriot act - it would not be legal in the EU I
> suspect. Also we've had real terrorism for years here and have never
> felt the need to go over the top. The most draconian law we have is the
> Prevention of terrorism act which gives the police an extra few days to
> hold somebody without charging them.

I am glad the EU has not gone that way. It is a shame we have. There are
some serious problems with the US that if not corrected will lead to
disastrous consequences. I guess only time will tell.

-Im

>>
>> -Im
>>
>>
>>>>-IM
>>
>>


Re: Can "trusted Computing" be trusted?