Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (72643)	2/1/1999 4:59:00 PM
From: Paul Engel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

McMoron - Re: "Problem is that people are tired of getting cold calls at dinner time and are saying "enough already"." The Pentium III isn't even released yet and these COLD CALLS have been coming in for 20 years ! GET A GRIP - the Pentium III is no more a threat to non-existent privacy than that guy sitting across form your house with binoculars. Paul

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (72643)	2/1/1999 5:08:00 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

<But Tench, you are missing the point.You see Intels ID ad OK because you say there is no privacy now so why not "ME TOO"...> Yeah, I guess. I'm not saying there is no privacy now, unlike what Scott McNealy of Sun Microsystems says. I'm just saying that the doomsday scenarios that the privacy groups are scaring us about aren't going to happen with a mere addition of a CPU ID. One guy tried to justify the hype by saying that freedom isn't lost with a single blow, but with a thousand paper cuts, and Intel is just adding one more cut. With this justification, I guess I can now see why the privacy advocates are so gung-ho into making this a live-or-die issue. By attacking one corporation with a boycott, these privacy advocates are hoping that other companies, including those working for the government, will take notice and try to avoid anything which even remotely smacks of privacy invasion. But that also supports my notion that these guys are pretty hungry for attention. In order to get their (rather irrational) point across, they feel like they have to proclaim that the sky is falling. I guess it's up to John Q. Public now to decide whether Intel's CPU ID is a good thing, a thing worthy of boycotting, or a non-issue. I personally think it's a non-issue. Very few web sites will require the use of the CPU ID (though many will support it as an optional feature). Neither AMD nor Cyrix wants to even take a chance with serialized CPUs, and last time I checked, AMD has some significant market share, if not profit share. That means the CPU ID isn't going to become ubiquitous any time soon. And finally, the CPU ID is just a first step in Intel's drive to make transactions more secure on the Internet. It isn't perfect, of course, but I think Intel will take more steps in the future to provide better and better solutions for hardware-based security. Tenchusatsu