Talk:Trusted Computing/Archive 1

message: The introduction only talks about internet commerce which, whether you're for or against TC gives the incorrect impression that this has mostly to do with things like online banking and web stores and securely doing business with them. Preventing copyright infringement, security (viruses, trojans, hackers), interestingly even ensuring privacy seem to be among the main promises given by the technology's proponents.
The rest of the article does discuss these features, but the introduction offers a rather narrow view.
* The introduction of this article is a poor attempt at NPOV which turned out redundant and repetitive. If somebody competent doesn't step up and rewrite it, I'll do it myself. --Sn0wflake 14:56, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly am biased on this matter, but that doesn't mean that I can't write the article impartially. I will just have to triple-check everything. The only thing that discourages me is the edit war that will likely ensue. Well, I will get around doing some research and will give at go at this sooner or larter. --Sn0wflake 18:27, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "internet commerce" 

message: What this issue really boils down to is an all out assult by the "powers that be" to retain their power.  How many people who voted in the 2004 elections understand the link between Diebold, the NSA, the easily cracked DES encryption used on the e-voting machines?
Expect this issue to be pushed through the courts under some "counter-terrorism" crap as quickly (and quietly) as possible while most of the current end-user population only sees their computers as a way to talk to uncle Joe while he's on vacation.  The full power of the internet is FAR from realised by the general public in 2005.  Let's fight this together to DESTROY this corruption and abuse of power by the establishment for ever!!!!
*First, stop with the propaganda. If you would mind wording that clearly, with evidence backing you up, you would have a slew of editors by your side. But right now you are not very convincing. The 1984 reference IS biased, even though it's true. Maybe it could be inserted in the article in this fashion: "Some theorists compare TCPA to the ever-watchful Big Brother - from the book 1984 - by George Orwell." --Sn0wflake 09:08, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  1984 commentary must STAY!! 

message: You mean of e-voting fraud?  Oh wait!  There is none, hmmm software glitch maybe?  Perhaps by evidence you mean something substantianted by the AP, CNN or Fox News.... yeah just don't hold your breath there snowflake.  "Trusted Computing" is backed by all the same friendly people.
*Yes, yes. We have all been there. The conspirancy. I dislike Bush as much as the next guy, but you have to open your eyes here, man: the election wasn't manipulated. What, because Bush is a good-hearted person who wouldn't stoop that low? Nope. Not at all. But rather because he had opressed the people of the USA enough to get their votes. The war made enough people scared of retaliation for them to elect him. Most of my non-radical American friends were making the same comment: "If we elect Kerry, we will get attacked and die.". So, I am looking for factual information. Not that you have to give it to me, I'm just curious. Well, anyway, the Wikipedia has to be NPOV. It's a place where everybody needs to agree with things, so that comment can't be directly placed on the article. If I get around editing it, I will insert it in the fashion I proposed. PS: create an user name, yes? --Sn0wflake 22:39, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence?  What evidence? 

message: ....it is the disagreement and discord that makes Wikipedia and Independent web-based media important (and better) than the mainstream press.  This person is not being paid, what do they have to gain by convincing me of this supposed fact?  Why should I believe someone who is being paid to inform me of world events?  My only point is in the digital era the mainstream media has been rendered redundant when everyone online is a "reporter".  Personally, I believe the 2004 election was subverted.  The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were too important to leave to the chance of democracy.  The evidence is there for anyone who is willing to look into the issue and who exactly Diebold is funded by.  Prove it?  Prove to me that the official version of 9/11, the 2000 and 2004 elections are correct?  Why is the burden of proof on me?  Because I do not own a television station?  Because I am not paid and purchased by those who have the most to lose?  Why does the 9/11 commision refuse to release all pertinent documents?  Why should Americans trust a closed source code voting system designed by a secretive company shrouded in scandals and looming law suits when every other democracy in the world (sans Holland) uses verifiable voting systems?  Why is Dick Cheney not forced to resign and be investigated over conflict of intrest with Halliburton?  I'm sorry, but your very definition of "conspiracy" would fit my definition of rational-objectivity.
* Seems fair. I am not here to deny anybody's point-of-view. I believe in freedom of speech, but we are getting really off-topic here. I told you to create an user name so that you'd have a "face", if you know what I mean. But that's your choice too. You could insert the whole theory in Presidential election and TCPA, but it would get reverted quicker than the page would reload to you, and with reason. The way you are putting things can only be seen as propaganda. You'd have to work out and word it very carefully for it to be overlooked. The Wikipedia is an utopy, but so far it is the one that works the best out of all I have seen. Sometimes things get unfair? Yes, they do. But most of the time they work out fine if you are willing to overlook a couple of things. Well, this is not exactly the place to elucidate people about what is right or wrong in the world. That is something they have to figure out for themselves. And some people never will. And I sincerely don't care. --Sn0wflake 00:46, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I would have to say... 

message: I just edited the "Users don't control their applications" section - the one with the 1984 reference.  My goal is to preserve the essential information and message while fixing the NPOV problem, though I personally strongly agree with the original author's oppostion to TC.
Here are a couple examples:  "other bad things"  --->  "other things which most civil libertarians would find repulsive"   "Worse, these technologies can be used for a form of remote control" --->  "TC opponents are even more alarmed at the prospect of these technologies being used as a form of remote control."
I also did some cleanup type stuff, such as eliminating the use of second person, which made this section seem way too informal.  This is a serious issue, so it deserves a more serious tone in order to be taken seriously.
The 1984 reference, which btw is also used by Richard Stallman , remains, though now it is not asserted but presented as an opinion of TC opponents.
I'm hoping that everyone will be happy with the way this section looks now and that it can be used as a model for fixing up the rest of the article.  After that is done and someone finds a couple comments on the record from TC supporters for balance, it should be a really great article...
--Blackcats 06:23, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  My recent edit - NPOV fix, cleanup  

message: Sorry, this article is garbage. I can't believe the number of paragraphs which are basically "Microsoft could steal your babies, if it wanted! Microsoft's online magazine Slate could rape your pets, if they chose! Metallica could invade your home, if they chose to do so!" Much of this article is baseless speculation. Rhobite 06:55, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
:I removed the portion of this article which was copied from http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/rja14/tcpa-faq.html . This "FAQ", while GFDL licensed, is unacceptably biased. Please don't add it to the article again. Rhobite 07:07, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
:Please do not remove the 1984 reference, as it is noteworthy that in the heated controversy over this technology, such a comparison is being made by someone as noteworthy as Richard Stallman.  --Blackcats 09:16, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I do agree that the article was in need of some major NPOV fixes and a lot of clean-up.  It actually seemed to be written not in first-person, but second-person ("you"), which I consider worse.  But anyway - my point is that despite those problems I do feel that among the most noteworthy things about "trusted computing" is the fierce controversy surrounding it.  And it's important that we make sure the views of its critics, particuarly notable ones like Richard Stallman, are well presented.  And of course those of its supporters (whatever relevant on the record statements we can find) should be too.  --Blackcats 06:45, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Garbage