The TPM will become even more important as we move toward Web-based applications, where we may actually store our documents and files on remote servers. The TPM could automatically encrypt any files as soon as they left your computer, and only allow decryption privileges to your TPM and any others you might specify. It could automatically encrypt email as well, so that only specific recipients are able to read it. And it could more firmly identify where email originates, taking a big step forward in controlling spam at the source.

That is the potential good news. But some critics are worried that the TPM is a step too far. Their concern particularly revolves around using the TPM to control “digital rights management” — that is, what you can and cannot do with the music, movies and software you run on your computer.

A movie, for example, would be able to look at the TPM and know whether it was legally licensed to run on that machine, whether it could be copied or sent to others, or whether it was supposed to self-destruct after three viewings. If you tried to do something with the movie that wasn’t allowed in the license, your computer simply wouldn’t cooperate.

Story continues below ↓

The same would go for software. Now that Apple is moving to Intel processors, Mac fans are watching closely to see if the new machines will incorporate TPMs. That may be the way that Apple makes sure that its Macintosh operating system only runs on Apple computers — otherwise, hackers will probably be quick to figure out ways to make the new Intel-based Macintosh software run on HP or Dell machines as well. Similar concerns arise around how Microsoft might make use of TPM to insure that its software is used only on machines with paid-up licenses (as one joke has it: “TPM is Bill Gates’ way of finally getting the Chinese to pay for software.”)

(MSNBC is a Microsoft - NBC joint venture.)

Ultimately the TPM itself isn’t inherently evil or good. It will depend entirely on how it’s used, and in that sphere, market and political forces will be more important than technology. Users will still control how much of their identity they wish to reveal — in fact, for complex technical reasons, the TPM will actually also make truly anonymous connections possible, if that’s what both ends of the conversation agree on. And should a media or software company come up with overly Draconian restrictions on how its movies or music or programs can be used, consumers will go elsewhere. (Or worse: Sony overstepped with the DRM on its music CDs recently and is now the target of a dozen or so lawsuits, including ones filed by California and New York.)

To future historians, the anonymity we’ve experienced in the first decade of the commercial Internet may in retrospect seem aberrant. In the real world, after all, we carry multiple forms of fixed identification, ranging from our faces and fingerprints to drivers’ licenses and social security numbers. Some of these are easier to counterfeit than others, but generally most of us are more comfortable when we can prove who we are. In some situations — driving cars, boarding aircraft — we’re required to have identification. Of course, our real world policies on identification — what kind we must have, when we need to display it — have evolved over centuries of social and political thought and is still, post 9/11, a national hot-button. With the arrival of the Trusted Computing Module, the argument will now extend to cyberspace as well.

< Prev | 1 | 2

Discuss Story On Newsvine
Rate Story:
View popularLowHigh
Email
Instant Message
Print