On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 06:14:43 GMT, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, Tim Smith
<reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>
> In article <5h4g5199kj4u55ed327i3982jgi352iaat@news.speakeasy .net>,
> Jay T. Blocksom <not.deliverable+usenet02@appropriate-tech.net> wrote:
[snip]
>
> > Further, the specific document you cite is nothing more than a single
> > dissenting (and highly suspect) opinion. It is also both obsolete and
> > badly
>
> Since IBM has released GPL'ed Linux drivers for their TCPA hardware, we
> can look and see what TCPA does, and guess what--it agrees with what IBM
> says, and not with what that paranoid FAQ says.

You're making the same fundamental error that "rebuttal" article did: You are
presuming that the specific implementation by IBM is completely equivalent in
all respects to all other possible implementations -- and that's simply not
the case.

Furthermore, you *cannot* "look and see what TCPA does" simply by examining
the hardware, or any given manufacturer's drivers for same. Much of the more
ominous functionality is (or will be) actually implemented in much
higher-level software (such as the OS and applications programs, for example).

--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet02[at]appropriate-tech.net

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this domain is expressly prohibited under
47 USC S227 and State Law. Violators are subject to prosecution.