Talk:Trusted Computing/Archive 1
|This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.|
Archive 1 | Archive 2 →
- 1 Previous discussion
- 2 "internet commerce"
- 3 1984 commentary must STAY!!
- 4 Evidence? What evidence?
- 5 I would have to say...
- 6 My recent edit - NPOV fix, cleanup
- 7 Garbage
- 8 removed TCPA drafts made explicit references to DRM
- 9 on removing RJA comments
- 10 Nature of trust
- 11 Seriously, let us aim for NPOV
- 12 Faulty definitions
- 13 Open Source subject to the exact same issues as closed source
- 14 Made band example generic
- 15 Time to remove NPOV tag
- 16 Suggestion
- 17 Leave out literary analogies
Excellent article, makes everything very clear on what can be done and how.
That said, there's a non-encyclopedic, converstational tone; and a POV that, though many Wikipedians would agree with, is not NPOV. Don't know if I have time to work on it, so I've made this note. Radagast 16:05, May 8, 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, it is a little too alarmist. Though I don't exactly like the idea of TC, but the article does seem somewhat, well, paranoid. - Pingveno 04:57, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- The 1984 reference has got to go. Other than that, though, the list of possible advantages and problems looks pretty much accurate to me. The POV problem can be pretty much addressed by equalizing the relative length of the pros and cons and adding softening words like "it is possible", etc. --Shibboleth 00:35, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I read the whole article and could read barely any POV into it. Yes, the 1984 reference is there, but without the reference, would the article benefit? I doubt it. Seeing references to books, specifically books which are quite related (Such as relating Animal Farm to Communism), is not necessarily a bad thing, and it is up to the user to generate their own view of the data presented. I didn't even know this was up for NPOV dispute until I noticed the category, which is to say that if I had not noticed, I would not have thought there was any POV in said article. --18.104.22.168 21:37, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree. The first part of the article is relatively neutral but the section previously titled "Problems" was extremely slanted in my opinion. I changed the heading to "Drawbacks" and rephrased a few things to soften the rhetoric. "...and other evil things" seemed a bit over the top to me. I think a few more edits may be in order, but what I saw to be the worst of it, I've taken care of; I encourage others to change what bothers them. Solemnavalanche 20:05, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I believe this article is Aaron Swartz's authorized abridgement of my article "Trusted Computing: Promise and Risk". My article was intended to be advocacy and not NPOV, and was not meant to be as technical as perhaps an encyclopedia entry should be. I agree that it's not appropriate for the full text of Wikipedia's entry on TC. The conversation tone probably comes from Aaron's abridgment, which was meant to be particularly accessible to the general public. - Seth Schoen (not yet a registered Wikipedia user)
- Ah, I see you're an expert and have your own Wikipedia article :-). That would explain the article's quality. I think the level of technicality (though it could probably use a bit more) is actually pretty good for a general article on the topic rather than a specific implementation of it. --Shibboleth 00:44, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Had I not been the victim of a trojan and numerous hacker scannings at ports 3011 and 3012 of my computer (trusted web client and trusted web ports), I might agree with the "paranoid" prognosis. However, now that someone has had their way with my computer, my account numbers, my documents and pictures, my web surfing histories, and my music and audio files (some which I recorded of lectures and my own music and dialouges), I think that the 1984 references are wholly APPROPRIATE. Also, after cleaning all of the marketing advertising spyware and malware that did similar things, I noted with much dismay that a microphone program and keylogger were running, recording not only keystrokes on my keyboard into little files which were sent back into cyberspace, but actual audio files from the microphone.
It is not merely a potential event that webcams and microphones could be manipulated to violate privacy- it is in fact happening already on some level. I personally would rather have the ability to alter and choose what is on my computer and how it is running. I'm not a computer geek, but I am very concerned with privacy after what happened to us.
This article is far less alarmist than some of the stuff i've read on other websites, and pretty unbiased. Unbiased doesnt mean making a bad thing look somewhat good.
The 1984 reference is not only needed, it is most relevant. To say things such as: "The 1984 reference has got to go." Simply outs you as an enemy of the truth. You might as well be saying "The truth must be removed from this article". However much you were paid to say this will never be able to compensate you for taking a stance against humanity as a whole.
Personally, I am very much against the TCPA, and yet my edit added some balance to the "Owner Override" section. Owner Override is an idiotic idea, because it will take all of the potential benefits (few as though there may be) and destroy them. TC should either be implemented fully or not implemented at all.
- I'm guessing you added the last paragraph. I agree it gives the article balance, but it seems tacked-on. In an article full of examples, it gives only a vague description of what's wrong with overrides.
- As for the 1984 reference, while it's not technically wrong, it sounds alarmist to me; my personal perception is that comparing something to 1984 immediately brings the discussion down, much like mentioning Nazis or Hitler on Usenet has become.
- You don't need the reference to realize that the scenario described is a Very Bad Thing.
I agree that the reference does not seem disinterested. There is little to no value added by paralleling TC to 1984, the reader should be encouraged to come up with their own opinion based on facts presented in a manner as unbiased as possible. The problem with using 1984 as a parallel, is that the literary community generally accepts that 1984 is a dangerous, dystopic society -- this is insidiously suggesting a negative conclusion to the reader. I do not understand why the reference has to be there.
As for the actual hypothetical, it seems rather extreme. From the paragraph in question, "rewriting history" certainly isn't the first thing that came to mind when I read it. I thought of annoyances, and corporate exploitation of the consumer. However, using the phrase "rewriting history" implies changes on a massive scale, usually with a political goal, that will profoundly affect society. This is not the type of hypothetical that should be used to make this point. The paragraph is about a company being able to erase their tracks, and modify their own content retroactively -- it should not be made into a hypothetical Orwellian prophecy. Advocates against trusted computing should realize that using extreme hypotheticals just hurts the credibility of the article -- the reader may lose faith in what is being said and write off what are legitimate drawbacks as "alarmist" or "cooky conspiracy theory". In order to more effectively make that paragraph's point, a less extreme example should be used.
Even the metallica hypothetical seems unfair. If someone makes up a scenario that is relatively far fetched (limiting song playing by the time of day doesn't seem like the first thing the music industry might try to do), s/he should also make up a band -- unless it is factual. I suggest replacing "Metallica" with "a band" or "a group", so as not to pick on them in particular.
Minor note: The heading "Users can override TC" confusingly implies that such an ability currently exists, changed to "Proposed owner override for TC".
Main note: The final paragraph in that section was not NPOV. It claims to speak for the entire "technical community", then denies the existance of the benefits a TC system with Owner Override would provide. I admit I'm fairly new here, and maybe I'm biased (I think TC with Owner Overide would be fantastic and wish I could buy one right now), but I tried my best to neutrally explain exactly what would be preserved and what would be lost with Owner Override. Any cleanups by someone more experienced are invited.
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)
- I also find the introduction confusing. I personally think that trusted computing is intended 1. (primarily) to make certain Copyright owners wealthier and 2. to increase personal and corporate document privacy. I would mention in the article that trusted computing is known as "treacherous computing," according to Stallman and some of the FSF followers. Read Ross Anderson's Trusted Computing FAQ and Richard Stallman's Can you trust your computer?. Also read Microsoft's white paper. I'm probably too biased to rewrite this well, but good luck. Connelly 11:48, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- 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)
1984 commentary must STAY!!
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)
Evidence? What evidence?
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)
I would have to say...
....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)
- The reason why the burden of proof is on you is because you are making an accusation. That's the way things work in any rational society: the burden of proof lies on the accuser, not the accused. Innocent until proven guilty, and all that. And yes, this is off-topic.
My recent edit - NPOV fix, cleanup
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)
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) And PS - the most recent edit was mine - I had just forgotten to login.
The 1984 reference is fine, I'm sorry for removing it. The rest of the open source POV needs to go. The fact that it is GFDL licensed doesn't keep it from being an outdated, unsourced rant. Wikipedia articles should not be speculating about what corporations might do. Rhobite 15:35, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
To give people a sense of what I'm removing, here are some choice quotes from the POV rant:
- "For years, Bill Gates has dreamed of finding a way to make the Chinese pay for software: TC looks like being the answer to his prayer." - we can read Bill Gates' dreams now?
- "TC has placed at risk the priceless inheritance that Gutenberg left us. Electronic books, once published, will be vulnerable; the courts can order them to be unpublished and the TC infrastructure will do the dirty work."
- "The Soviet Union attempted to register and control all typewriters and fax machines. TC similarly attempts to register and control all computers." - false
- "TC will undermine the General Public License (GPL), under which many free and open source software products are distributed. The GPL is designed to prevent the fruits of communal voluntary labour being hijacked by private companies for profit." - this passage is particularly biased and speculative.
- "The evaluation is at level EAL3 - expensive enough to keep out the free software community, yet lax enough for most commercial software vendors to have a chance to get their lousy code through."
- "Once the majority of PCs on the market are TC-enabled, the GPL won't work as intended. The benefit for Microsoft is not that this will destroy free software directly. The point is this: once people realise that even GPL'led software can be hijacked for commercial purposes, idealistic young programmers will be much less motivated to write free software."
- "if you change your PC configuration more than a little, you have to re-register all your software with Redmond" - this one is just plain inaccurate
- "During the late 1990s, as people debated government control over cryptography, Al Gore proposed a `Trusted Third Party' - a service that would keep a copy of your decryption key safe, just in case you (or the FBI, or the NSA) ever needed it. The name was derided as the sort of marketing exercise that saw the Russian colony of East Germany called the `German Democratic Republic'. But it really does chime with DoD thinking. A Trusted Third Party is a third party that can break your security policy."
It's all opinionated speculation. None of it is referenced. The parts I've pointed out are among the worst, but there is almost nothing in the rant which is salvageable for an encyclopedia article. Parts of it are even written from a first-person point of view. It's an interesting, if extremist, opinion piece. It has no business in an encyclopedia. Rhobite 18:09, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
- 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)
On that point we agree. The TC controversy is noteworthy (partly because it's a surrogate MS vs. Linux argument) and it should be neutrally described here. But Ross Anderson's piece is useless for that purpose - it doesn't describe the debate, it is the debate. It's a central reference for opponents of trusted computing. It's a great example of the paranoid nature of some complaints against TC. We can describe its main points, but we can't use it as the basis for our article here. Rhobite 06:52, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
removed TCPA drafts made explicit references to DRM
Ross Anderson and Christophe Le Bar already testified that now removed TCPA drafts stated explicitely that they were designed to enforce DRM against the user's will.~~
- How does that justify the inclusion of an extremist rant in this article? I'm going to remove it yet again. Rhobite 20:03, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
NPOV is having all the different sides of controversy. Just write your side of the story instead of destroying the other. A lot of dictatorship dissidents would tell you that Trusted Computing will effectively bring digital imprimatur to many humans. And I think the odds are it will happen in the West too. Let our view be expressed. Write yours.
- What if I'm largely indifferent? What you're suggesting isn't how Wikipedia works. We don't set up little walled sections and fill them with polemic. We don't engage in debates, we describe them. And perhaps most importantly, we cite our sources. If Ross Anderson's opinion article is included in this article, then we are publishing his original research. That's not what we do. Please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Rhobite 20:48, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
on removing RJA comments
Anderson is a reference! He's one of the world's premier cryptographers and computer security experts, author of Security Engineering (Wiley in the US), and perhaps the most fluent writer amongst that group. He invented the phrase 'programming Satan's computer". Much of the objection to tone neglects the underlying layer of fact. Perhaps, if there is extnsive objection to tone, the factual material could be rewritten to retain the factual basis and elide the tone?
Mere opinion is not NPOV if attributed, and not 'too disconnected'. Where exactly too disconnected might be is harder to determine. I would put the von Danikenites in teh disconnected category, some others would not. It is hard to claim that RJA is, save perhaps for the colorful and distinct tone. I would retain, re insert. ww 20:35, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- So throw in a quote or two from him. Summarize and cite his opinions. But don't paste in pages upon pages of Anderson rants into supposedly neutral articles. Anderson's rant isn't neutral, and it isn't suitable to be included an encyclopedia article wholesale. Rhobite 05:09, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
Nature of trust
I've tried to start an overall refactoring for clarity, conciseness, and NPOV. Under the section I labelled "the nature of trust", I feel the existing description is badly redundant.
The whole pro/con thing is almost repeated, first con/pro in paras 1/2, then again in paras 3/4. Does someone want to make a try at condensing the points here. (a lot of the rest of it is rambling and redundant too; but let's start at the top). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:23, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
- Nevermind, I made a stab at it. But please improve. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:43, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
Seriously, let us aim for NPOV
Disclaim, disclaim: I dislike TC just as much as anyone. In fact, I've probably had some more practical effects in opposing it outside WP than most editors have (if you care how, message me privately). But the intro blurb really isn't the place to stick in the criticisms and parodic terms like "treacherous computing". This same thing gets stuck into the related entry on DRM, FWIW. But an article like these should really contain just a plain definition (as "officially" used) before the TOC. Criticisms can follow in named sections. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:08, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
I'm already seeing faulty definitions that are used to back POV. For example: "For example, the United States Department of Defense's definition of a trusted system is one that can break your security policy; i.e., "a system that you are forced to trust because you have no choice."" As a security professional this definition makes no sense to me.
According to TCSEC (as presented via the CISSP exam study materials) the DoD defines a trusted system as: "A trusted system is one having undergone sufficient benchmark testing and validation to achieve the user's requirements and those established in the evaluation criteria [i.e. Orange Book]. These requirements include those for reliability, security and operational effectiveness with specified performance characteristics." [Official (ISC)2 Guide to the CISSP Exam, Hansche, Berti and Hare, 2005, pg. 116].
This definition is a far cry from "The DoD defines a system that can break your security policy." In fact, it is the opposite; the DoD says a trusted system is "trusted" because it *enforces* your security policy. Darfsnuzal 06:20, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- These definitions are far from contradictory. They actually support each other. However, Darfsnuzal makes an important point that the article should not claim DoD's "definition" says something without a citation or direct quote.
- In terms of complementarity: A computer system that is not connected to any network and that stores no sensitive data cannot be a "trusted system" no matter how much or little testing and validation it has undergone. We have no requirement to trust that system, because it is not in a role where it could violate a policy. The Orange Book definition places requirements on testing that must be tested specifically because it is a potential weak link in policy. The tourist kiosk in the front of the Pentagon (if there is one) or the PSP that a general's kid plays with are not trusted, not because of how they're programmed/tested, but because they couldn't violate policy even if they do have malicious/buggy code on them.
- In other words, if it can't break your security policy, there's no need to test it to make sure it enforces policy. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 14:28, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
Open Source subject to the exact same issues as closed source
Text revert in dispute: It has also noted that this issue and trusted computing in general is only applicable to closed source software, and would not be an issue if everyone used free software, something which Stallman strongly supports.
That text is factually false. Remote Attestation means that internet connections may rejected except from unmodifed software, and Sealed Storage ensures that you cannot view the document except with unmodified software. You therefore cannot read the document at all without also enforcing any "unpublishing" or "document updating" capabilities in that document's compliant and unmodified application. It does not matter if that application was open source or closed source.
This also just so happens to be able to defeat the GPL as well. Any modification renders software incapable of opening existing data files, and any modification means its internet connection attempts may be rejected. Modifying the software generally means it will not *work* anymore. The source code is pretty much useless.
Made band example generic
I've edited the section "Users don't control information they receive" to change the Metallica reference to "a band" - no point in singling out any particular band in an example unless it's factual, it is in fact counterproductive if you're trying to make a point as you risk alienating the reader. I also changed the section from the 2nd person ("you") to a more neutral style (although it can still be improved, was a quick edit). I forgot to login before making the edit, but it was me.
I am completely against TC, it is an intolerable abuse of our rights as consumers. That said, this article needs some rewriting in parts, in order to look more professional. The 2nd person needs to go, the text should be made impersonal. I do not feel the article is POV at all, it's providing both points of view as well as can be done on something that clearly has no real benefits for anyone other than a few corporations. Being NPOV does not mean making something bad look less bad; it means laying things out like they are. Just because an article on murder, for example, doesn't say '"Well, on the other hand, sometimes the victim might be really ugly"' or something doesn't really mean it's not NPOV.
Capi 8 July 2005 02:04 (UTC)
Time to remove NPOV tag
I think the article has improved enough that it really does not need to keep the POV tag anymore. It definitely has room to improve further, of course, but different positions are presented in a fairly neutral tone. What needs to be done seems like general WP cleanup, not POV issues per se.
Absent disagreement, I'll pull the tag in a few days. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:02, 2005 July 14 (UTC)
Since this is my first time doing anything at all on wikipedia ill just put this in as a suggesiton for people that have more practice on this type of stuff.
In reading it over i think the first bit about trust isn't well explained and is a bit misleading and overly suggestive, i paused and read that over a couple times then disregarded it as a carefully selected quote meant to mislead.
I mean, if you read Ross Anderson's FAQ, a page that is obviously biased but he at least explains trusted computing well enough so i'm not left there wondering what it really means.
24. So why is this called `Trusted Computing'? I don't see why I should trust it at all!
It's almost an in-joke. In the US Department of Defense, a `trusted system or component' is defined as `one which can break the security policy'. This might seem counter-intuitive at first, but just stop to think about it. The mail guard or firewall that stands between a Secret and a Top Secret system can - if it fails - break the security policy that mail should only ever flow from Secret to Top Secret, but never in the other direction. It is therefore trusted to enforce the information flow policy.
Or take a civilian example: suppose you trust your doctor to keep your medical records private. This means that he has access to your records, so he could leak them to the press if he were careless or malicious. You don't trust me to keep your medical records, because I don't have them; regardless of whether I like you or hate you, I can't do anything to affect your policy that your medical records should be confidential. Your doctor can, though; and the fact that he is in a position to harm you is really what is meant (at a system level) when you say that you trust him. You may have a warm feeling about him, or you may just have to trust him because he is the only doctor on the island where you live; no matter, the DoD definition strips away these fuzzy, emotional aspects of `trust' (that can confuse people).
On another note the wikipedia entry is informative about trusted computing however it falls short of saying if there is anything like this happening today, and what.
Its suggestive by pointing to the NGSCB MS page however i cant seem to find information on that page talking about how much Trusted Computing technology they play to implement in longhorn other than it's “more secure”
Even if there isn't clear evidence it would seem to me a good idea to explain as much that there is speculation that Longhorn and near future hardware will be implementing this so the reader isn't left hanging.
Leave out literary analogies
I took out the 1984 analogy again. I saw someone had corrected a typo in the section "Users don't control their applications", and that prompted me to read the section again. The literary analogy is utterly gratuitous; it's solely a play on emotions: Orwell described really bad (fictional) stuff, and TC reminds Stallman of this (uncredited, so I'm not sure if Stallman ever actually said this himself), therefore TC must be equally bad.
The actual description of users' loss of control is mostly factual and encyclopedic. We should not force-feed readers on what it ought to remind them of. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:44, 2005 August 7 (UTC)