Gene - A clear headed perspective on the Pentium III ID :
Read it.
Learn something.
Paul
{===================================}
cbs.marketwatch.com
Intel problem? Sorry. There was none.
By Rebecca Lynn Eisenberg,
CBS MarketWatch
Last Update: 7:45 PM ET Jan 28, 1999
Columns & Opinion
When Intel said its Pentium III chips would include individual IDs,
it thought that was good news. Instead, the announcement was
met with outrage of viral proportions. And Intel quickly backed
down.
But there was no problem in the first place.
The purpose of the ID numbers was to
ensure accountability. This would make it
easier for e-merchants to verify customers'
identifications, and could help parents, for
example, prevent the kiddies from cruising
through porn sites. It would also enable
companies to give Web and intranet access only to clients,
customers and employees, allowing them to protect the privacy
of valuable proprietary information. And it could help banks,
stock brokerages and online auction houses avoid fraud or even
trace it to miscreants.
But privacy paranoids, spearheaded by groups I usually like
including the Electronic Privacy Information Center (epic.org)
and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (eff.org) instead cried
foul, painting scenarios of Intel executives logging all customers'
user activity, then selling the information to marketers, merchants
and even the FBI. They called for a boycott of Intel (INTC),
building a Web site (www.privacy.org/bigbrotherinside/) and
handing out stickers that read "Big Brother Inside."
Most horribly, these advocates called upon government
assistance in their quest, an ironic (and ill-informed) decision
coming from so-called libertarian types. As if a government ban
on Petium processors would provide consumer protection.
So, buckling to pressure and fear of boycott (much less
government regulation), Intel made a second announcement,
promising disabling capabilities and pledging allegiance to
customer privacy concerns. It was all so unnecessary, and
completely absurd. Intel's IDs could and can make consumers'
computer lives easier, more convenient and more secure.
What privacy?
Sun Microsystems (SUNW) CEO Scott McNealy perhaps said it
best, when he flippantly remarked that we "have no privacy
anyway." His words threw journalists and readers everywhere
into a self-righteous tizzy. Tizzy or not, McNealy was right. We
don't have much privacy. And we don't want it, either.
Take the Internet, first. The Internet runs largely through ethernet,
a common networking communications cable standard. And,
computers with ethernet hardware (e.g. ethernet cards or built-in
ethernet ports) all have unique ID numbers that programs have
used for over a decade both to enable networking among
computers as well as to prevent software piracy.
Additionally, everyone who is logged into the Internet (including
you, dear readers) is already identifiable to your Internet service
provider (for example, Worldcom (WCOM) or AOL (AOL),
through your home or office Net connection) through your
computer's IP (Internet Protocol) address. Either you have a
static (or fixed) IP address, or else your ISP assigns you one
each time you log in. Either way, if your ISP wants to track you, it
most likely can. Most, of course, lack both time and resources to
bother.
Meanwhile, enterprise- and ISP-sized
computers and servers made by Sun,
Hewlett Packard (HWP), Silicon Graphics
(SGI), IBM (IBM) and others have contained
"host IDs" in their systems for over a decade
as well. They have done this similarly to
prevent software theft and to facilitate the
smooth networking communications from
which we all benefit. No one has before
suggested that we boycott Sun for this
reason -- which makes sense, since these
IDs help get us and keep us online.
Back on Earth
But how about when you live your life offline?
Do you boycott American Express (AXP)
and VISA for their ability to keep track of
everything that you purchase with your credit
cards? Most likely, you view it as a
convenience that the gold and platinum
versions of the cards itemize your purchases
for you and send you summaries at year- or quarter's end.
Do you boycott Safeway (SWY) and/or Lucky's (ASC) for offering
plastic discount cards that record all of your purchases (and
often cause the cash register to spit out coupons for competing
brands), or do you take advantage of the convenience of the
automatic coupons and savings built into the cards?
Similarly, do you boycott telephone or wireless companies for
being able to trace your calls? Or, pay-per-view television
vendors, when they provide automatic movie selection and
payment through telephone lines? Do you refuse to order pizza,
lest Pizza Hut have access to your home address? And refuse to
check out books from the library, to prevent your city or university
know what you have been reading?
Those of you who insist on keeping all of your purchases secret
are free to make them with cash, thereby foregoing whatever
cost savings, convenient and automatic itemization and interest
float in exchange. If you don't want your calls traced, you can
speak to others only in person. Don't order in; don't read. I think
you are silly, but hey, it's your choice.
The chip ID is nothing new, and even a minor addition to how you
can be tracked. Plus, it seems inevitable that high-tech startups
will seize upon consumer privacy paranoia as a potentially
lucrative product niche. Already two companies, Lumeria and
Zero-Knowledge Systems, are promising technological solutions
to hide Intel CPU IDs.
That is how technology works -- each computer "problem," take,
for example, viruses or the Year 2000 bug, creates a business
opportunity for "solutions," for example anti-virus software or Y2K
consulting services. It's the stuff on which the high tech economy
flourishes. Just ask Symantec (SYMC), maker of software
utilities of all shapes and sizes.
The bottom line is that every day consumers willingly give up
privacy in order to receive convenience and cost savings in
return. Built-in CPU ID numbers would be no different.
Except for one thing: Intel's ID-encoded hardware alone won't
enable many "privacy violations." In order for the company to be
able to track user behavior, it would need complicity from the
software companies that provide both the operating system and
the browser. I wouldn't put this past Microsoft (MSFT)(or maybe
even past Netscape), but the legions of Linux and Mozilla coders
would almost certainly come through with non-tracking
alternatives. (And of course there is always AMD (AMD) and
Cyrix (CYRX) machines.)
After all, for each high-tech problem, there is a high-tech solution.
In this case, there was no problem, so no solution was needed.
Rebecca Lynn Eisenberg of San Francisco writes her column
on Internet issues for CBS MarketWatch.
|
