Talk:Trusted Computing/Archive 3

message: according to this article , 
http://www.informationweek.com/industries/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=180201733
"TPM hardware itself is rapidly becoming ubiquitous. “The TPM is standard across 100% of our product line,” says Clain Anderson, director of wireless and security at Lenovo. “We make a few low-end machines without them, but only for foreign governments that have their own specific requirements.” He cites China and Israel as examples.
Even these low-end machines aren’t without a security chip. “Lenovo ships a lot of PCs inside China with a Chinese government chip instead of the TPM,” he says. “We don’t know what it does.” 
"
anyone knows something more about that chip ? do you think we should talk about it in this page or this topic is not suitable for the 'trusted computing' page ,because ,after all , that chip does not follow the TCG specs ? 
Dbiagioli 17:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chinese security chip

message: Please rid this article of all second person tenses. Eww Eww Eww. This is an encyclopedia, not a phone conversation.
BTW, if Microsoft ends up doing what is described in here I will personally sue them as a user of OpenOffice. — Ilyanep (Talk) 23:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eww Eww Eww 

message: Currently there are two shortcomings to the article. Firstly the technology itself isn't well described. This is partly due to the lack of good technical statements - not specs - by the TCG (vs. the marketing stuff they put out), and also because it is yet to become an established technology, and thus there is a degree of flux about what TC actually is. Secondly the criticism / controversy section doesn't disambiguate well between where quotes start and end. Currently there are the headings such as "Users can't change software" which have been derived from the origins of this article in Seth Schoen's paper. That's not so terrible, but another heading in that section is "Proposed owner override for TC" which isn't a criticism so much as an EFF-proposed alteration to the TPM specs. Would it be appropriate to have either the criticism section sub-headings in quotes (although they aren't direct quotes, so I doubt this is a great idea), or to add something along the lines of "Criticism 1 : Users can't change software"? Or lifting the owner-overide paragraph out of the criticism section might be an acceptable alternative? --Boxflux 08:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think owner override should probably move elsewhere in the article. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 15:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The trouble is that it doesn't fit very well elsewhere in the article - I've tried moving it to a few different places, but it breaks the flow of the text. Any suggestions? --Boxflux 16:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A few observations

message: Let's discuss this a bit. I'll number the links 1 to 5:
# ZDNet article
# Bruce Schneier's Cryptogram
# Copy of a NYT article
# Blog post
# Link to 1
* Link 1 - Short news item on ZDNet. Definitely worthy of mention. Current and from a good source. Quotes Ross Anderson and Alan Cox, both acknowledged experts discussing TC. Some quotes: "[TC] could have negative consequences for customers and rival software makers, according to security experts", "Trusting Computing is not inherently 'evil'".
* Link 2 - Bruce Schneier's Cryptogram from 2002 - a recognised security expert. Again, worthy of mention. Some of the information in it is no longer current (e.g. references Palladium a lot - Microsoft stopped using that name a long time ago; also discuss some technology that got ditched after one of the early Longhorn Beta's as I recall). Probably the best quote to sum up the article is "There's a lot of good stuff in Pd, and a lot I like about it. There's also a lot I don't like, and am scared of. "
* Link 3 - Seems to be a blog of some kind containing a summarised version of an article from the New York Times from 2003. Secondary reporting of a good media source, although the website linked to is probably breaking NYTimes copyright by quoting verbatim, and you can't get to original content without paying the newspaper, so I don't think we can quote it. Article again quotes Ross Anderson, Dan Sokol from the HomeBrew Computing Club, Bob Meinschein from Intel, Mario Juarez from Microsoft, Steve Jobs, Mitchell D. Kapor, Bill Gates and Stuart Schechter a researcher from Harvard. There are some good quotes for and against TC there, but I don't think it's usable material (correct me if I've misunderstood the WP rules!). 
* Link 4 - Blog post from 2005. Quotes this article and the WP article on TPMs. Quotes Cory Doctorow being pretty negative towards Apple's rumoured inclusion of a TPM in Intel development kits. Quote from Doctorow "An application can write documents in “open formats” but use Trusted Computing to prevent competing applications from reading them". There's a reference to Doctorow's essay on Tim O'Reilly's blog too (). 
* Link 5 -  From 2006 - links to Link 1, without adding any more commentary.
I think we can discard links 3 and 5; Cory Doctorow doesn't ever seem to have been quoted as a 'security expert', but I'm happy to be corrected here. I don't think they show that 'most security experts distrust TC' - being completely honest with the citeable evidence suggests about three acknowledged security experts don't like TC, so I'm going to change it to 'a number of security experts', and remove the un-citeable links. --Boxflux 08:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edit looks very good.  I guess I got a little ticked off at a brand new editor with no history or userpage who deleted longstanding material claiming to be "an infosec expert".  As someone who actually is a published technical author on cryptography and security, bad edits combined with unsupported "arguments from authority" annoy me.  But my hasty list of cites were of mediocre quality, and you've picked the best of them, and rephrased in a neutral fashion.  Thanks, Boxflux. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 09:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Would you have any objection to removing the Cory Doctorow link? I'm not sure it's the best source to go in the paragraph using it and so I don't think it adds much to the article at that point. If you felt it had merit, it might be better just in the External Links section. --Boxflux 09:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem.  As long as we can get the general sentiment expressed, I'm not too concerned with the specific citations or their number. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 09:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Many security Experts"

message: "It has also been compellingly argued that many of the assumptions which underly TC are impractical "in the real world," to the extent that many users will find it pragmatically necessary to employ Owner Overrides on a regular basis, or simply decline to use the features altogether ... even if this puts them at odds with software vendors who may wish to insist upon its use."
Does anyone have a reference / quote for this? Who has argued compellingly? Who said the arguement was compelling? --Boxflux 16:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV language?

message: I really encourage some of the new pro-TC editors to look at the history of this article and of this talk page.  I was skimming through, and it really sort of drove in how absurd and insulting the accusations against me are.  Reading above, I've worked even harder to prevent the insertion of POV anti-TC rants as I have recently to prevent the latest pro-TC apologetics.
Moreover, in general there's nothing remotely novel about the latest set of "discoveries" of bias in the page.  They are almost identical to what tin-eared new editors claim every couple months (well, half of such newbies, the other half are POV to the same degree, but in the other direction). It's frustrating for sure. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page history