End of Anonymity on The Internet - MSNBC

Discussion in 'privacy general' started by securityx, Dec 13, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. securityx

    securityx Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2005
    Posts:
    149
    "Although anonymity has been part of Internet culture since the first browser, it’s also a major obstacle to making the Web a safe place to conduct business: Internet fraud and identity theft cost consumers and merchants several billion dollars last year. And many of the other more troubling aspects of the Internet, from spam emails to sexual predators, also have their roots in the ease of masking one’s identity in the online world."

    "Change, however, is on the way. Already over 20 million PCs worldwide are equipped with a tiny security chip called the Trusted Platform Module, although it is as yet rarely activated. But once merchants and other online services begin to use it, the TPM will do something never before seen on the Internet: provide virtually fool-proof verification that you are who you say you are."

    "Some critics say that the chip will change the free-wheeling Web into a police state, while others argue that it’s needed to create a safe public space. But the train has already left the station..."

    "For now, TPM-equipped computers are primarily sold to big corporations for securing their networks, but starting next year TPMs will be installed in many consumer models as well."

    "With a TPM onboard, each time your computer starts, you prove your identity to the machine using something as simple as a PIN number or, preferably, a more secure system such as a fingerprint reader."
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10441443/
     
  2. snowie

    snowie Guest

    For many years "They" have tryed to implement this Chip garbage.....so this is far from being a new "EXPLOIT" to invade our online privacy......an thats really what this is all about....just another way of trying to control the internet and the people who use it.....it wont happen!
    any company foolish enough to install such chips and any consumer dumb enough to purchase their product.....deserve each other.
    Although the Open Source Community has greatly changed in recent months ........there are still many programmers loyal to pure Open Source an will provide the world with safe, spy free software........an there are also many people out there who have older copies of "clean" operating systems just ready to install and use...on older computers.
    Anonymity will never be prevented on the internet.........there are simply too many people who still cherish freedom........too many people who are not willing to lay down like floormats........too many people willing and able to break whatever spyware is thrown at them..............Anonymity will survive.........an thats a fact jack!
    so let them plant their chips......let them control the isp's.....let them monitor...harass...lie....hide....steal.....and whatever else the evil sob's can come up with...........an they will be defeated every time.....
     
  3. zman2012

    zman2012 Guest


    I truely hope your right Snowie. But somehow I feel the technology may get so good in the near future that it will no longer be possible to have our privacy while online. I really hope I'm wrong, I really do.
     
  4. Paranoid2000

    Paranoid2000 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2004
    Posts:
    2,839
    Location:
    North West, United Kingdom
    Score one for journalists who don't even use Google for basic research...

    TPM is not available in 20 million PCs, it requires hardware (e.g. Intel Board D865GRH, operating system support (Vista most likely) and new networking protocols (which are not currently in mainstream use). Its main purpose is to verify software before it is allowed to run.

    The main danger of TPM is that it could be used as a digital gatekeeper to prevent users from running certain programs or access digital media. It may provide a means of authentication online, but to stop online anonymity completely, it would have to be able to tag every network packet sent out which would require a change to existing network protocols. Those who are actively taking steps to anonymise themselves online (you are not anonymous normally), should not be affected as long as they can continue to run their anonymity software once (or rather, if) TPM is activated.

    For more authoritative details on TPM check out:

    Wikipedia: Trusted platform module
    Intel: Trusted Platform Module
    AMD: Secure Virtual Machine Architecture Reference Manual
     
  5. Mele20

    Mele20 Former Poster

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2002
    Posts:
    2,495
    Location:
    Hilo, Hawaii
    Well, I don't know if it is already on 20 million computers, but it is definitely on any computer whose owner was stupid enough to buy a Pentium D so they would get the mostly worthless dual core stuff. The first time you start a Pentium D computer (which is the slowest Intel chip and yet the uniformed buy it because they think it is the fastest chip) it phones home to Intel and you are owned from then on. Granted, Trusted Computing persay needs Vista but that is just a hop and skip away and XP Pro Service Pack 3 will probably include Trusted Computing also. I would be amazed if it did not.

    The only current defense to keeping your freedom and privacy is to say NO to a Pentium D, buy Pentium 4's (the 500 series if possible rather than the 600) and never upgrade to Vista. If you buy a 600 series chip get the 660 as that one gives you the ability to load XP 64 bit. Stay with XP or go to Linux. Even with these defenses, the future is very bleak. Eventually, you will come to a hard choice: no PC at all or be owned. So, get prepared. Do every thing you can to keep your really old computers that may have 98SE on them running fine and buy extra mobos NOW etc., for your current XP box so you won't be forced by hardware problems into "Trusted" computing. Read everything you can about Trusted Computing and DRM implementation on Vista. Put the Electronic Frontier Foundation on your most important bookmarks and support their efforts to keep the internet as it was originally envisoned and as we currently know it.

    http://www.digitmag.co.uk/news/index.cfm?NewsID=4915
    http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html
    http://www.eff.org/
     
  6. Snowie

    Snowie Guest

    Mele20 and Paranoid2000


    Very, very nice posts by you folks.........the public needs to read more of these kinds of informative postings.
    There is so much mis-leading info being posted these days that in many cases the public is convinced into following all the wrong information while the correct information goes ignorred.

    snowie
     
  7. Paranoid2000

    Paranoid2000 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2004
    Posts:
    2,839
    Location:
    North West, United Kingdom
    I'm sorry, but I don't see any mention of this and cannot see it as being plausible either. While Intel's AMT (Active Management Technology) include "IDE redirection" under network control (which is supposed to allow for OS-independent remote management of disks), all this indicates is an ability to communicate within a LAN, not send packets over the Internet itself.

    To send packets to Intel.com, this IDE redirector would need a full implementation of a TCP/IP network stack, it would need the ability to acquire an IP address from any DHCP servers (i.e. if you were running a router, you would see the PC connecting well before Windows starts), the ability to do DNS lookups (to find intel.com at least) and, in today's Internet, it would also need a firewall to protect from malicious attack.

    While it is possible to strip out some functionality, in reality this would still be a significant amount of code and its effects would be visible (e.g. outgoing connections to intel.com before Windows starts) to anyone using a router or packet sniffer. Until people start reporting this, I doubt that PCs are going to be "owned" on startup, and given the PR fallout from the Sony rootkit (and Intel's previous CPU identifier), they would have to be very brave (or very foolish) to risk this again - especially with AMD on hand to profit from any further slip-ups.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.