On mySimon: Cat Mate C20 Automatic Pet Feeder
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 1 of 25:
Next »
Shades of Intel
Wasn't there a major public discussion when Intel wanted to add the ability to allow identification of computers based on a number in the processor? How is this different?

The current system allows for some tracking of computers through IP Addresses and Cookies.

IP Addresses determine which account with an ISP made a request. They can be tricked by using a proxy web server that accepts the request from the client and makes the actual request from its own IP Address. A true "Anonymizing" server keeps no records, so any tracking leads to that server and no further.

Cookies are handled by the client, and remember when that client made previous requests. They are easily blocked or deleted. They cannot know which computer made a request, just that the request came from the same computer that made other requests.

Intel wanted to put a number in every processor so that the actual computer could be tracked. They were stopped over privacy concerns, because there would be no mehtod to be truly anonymous.

The proposal in the article sounds very much like the Intel idea. The ID would just be an add-on chip rather than built into the core. Given the technical ability of most internet users, it would have the same effect and issues of Intel's idea.

Can anybody suggest how this is different? And why would it pass public judgement when it has the same effect as something that the public has already vetoed?
Posted by: solprovider   Posted on: 02/13/04 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

Shades of Intel  solprovider | 02/13/04
re  nrlz | 02/14/04
Yes, but  Fred Fredrickson | 02/14/04
re  nrlz | 02/14/04
But, it is easy to do!  Delaware Boy | 02/14/04
re  nrlz | 02/14/04
BIG difference  FirstNLastN | 02/14/04
Mischief of Anonymous Speech  Repeal | 02/13/04
Another point is *money*  Nigel Johnstone | 02/14/04
oh come on  JWatson77 | 02/14/04
Enemy of my enemy must be my friend  prong@... | 02/16/04
Whose going to buy this stuff?  Nigel Johnstone | 02/14/04
If it comes preinstalled and hardwired in......(nt)  nite_w0lf | 02/14/04
Not a problem for linux  Knorthern Knight | 02/14/04
It is going to be boughtable  Tomas Saduikis | 02/15/04
no need to worry - ms would never support it  JWatson77 | 02/14/04
why not - it's just another smart card  marksi@... | 02/15/04
Fine, keep it on their own hardware  FilledOut | 02/14/04
at least it's not built into OS  JWatson77 | 02/15/04
thank goodness for small miracles  prong@... | 02/16/04
Authenticity tends to make your product sink  Xunil_Sierutuf | 02/15/04
Java the worst programming language  Jose.Pinchero | 02/15/04
An architecture looking for a cash flow...  nowen@... | 02/16/04
Java is very 'unstable' and not trustworthy  idnew2005@... | 02/16/04
ABJ = Anything But Java ---- please for the sake of all future programming.  idnew2005@... | 02/16/04

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
advertisement

SmartPlanet

Click Here