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 (75452)	3/5/1999 1:12:00 AM
From: Paul Engel	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

McMannis - Re: IIntel needs a "reality" check!" Still hung up on your single issue ? Relax. That is last week's news. The Pentium III is OUT. It seems to be selling extremely well. I have gone to 4 or 5 computer stores in the past week and there were no more than 3,000 or 4,000 JUNKBUSTERS outside each one protesting. Well, there were a few less after I ran over a couple at each store. Paul

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (75452)	3/5/1999 3:36:00 AM
From: Paul Engel	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 186894

McMannis - Junkbusters has a SHORT attention span. They are now going after Microsoft and Windows 2000. Remember - Pentium III was last week's PUBLICITY STUNT for jUNKbUSTERS ! You'll need a new one too. Paul {==============================} newsalert.com March 04, 1999 12:37 Junkbusters to Microsoft: No E-commerce Without E-privacy Jump to first matched term WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--March 4, 1999-- -- Privacy Advocate Warns of Compulsory Registration in Windows 2000, Criticizes Internet Companies' Failure to Deliver Real Privacy Protection -- Junkbusters Corp. President Jason Catlett today released a report arguing that Microsoft's ability to coerce mass registration of personal information from users in Windows 2000 may threaten both consumer privacy and competitiveness. Documents released during the Microsoft trial indicate that the company is considering requiring periodic payment for Windows 2000, which would virtually compel users to identify themselves, and give the company an opportunity and economic incentive to treat consumers and competitors unfairly. The 2,600 word report is available at junkbusters.com on the Web. Catlett also criticized Microsoft, its MSN division, and other electronic commerce sites for failing to provide the fundamental privacy protections that consumers need before they will be willing to participate freely and fully in the online medium. The privacy advocate said that industry-sponsored "seals of approval" such as TRUSTe and BBBOnline do not guarantee an adequate standard of privacy compared to the risks consumers take when they move their shopping and entertainment activities online, where they are being recorded in minute detail and kept forever. According to Catlett, "Consumers need to see more than just a warm and fuzzy seal on the corporate vaults that contain their personal information. They need to be able to examine what's inside so they can order the destruction of information that might harm them." Catlett illustrated the importance of access to personal data by referring to Kenneth Starr's subpoena requiring a bookstore to disclose details of Monica Lewinsky's purchases. "If she had bought online instead, the government investigators would have been given not only the titles of the books she bought, but also the reviews she looked at, the amount of time she spent looking at them, the keywords she searched for, and much more information than most people imagine would be recorded. Consumers need to be able to see all the information that companies keep on them, and to have it corrected or destroyed when they want." Many countries guarantee this as a legal right to their citizens, he added, but Washington lobbyists have so far succeeded in stopping Americans getting such rights. "Because the industry has been free of even minimal requirements for privacy protection during the growth years of the Internet, they are now trying to convince the increasingly worried consumer that the sloppy standards on which the Web has been built are all that should be expected," Catlett continued. "Web browsers could easily be given a way to show each person what is stored about them in the huge marketing databases that personalization technologies are generating. But MSN and other portals are trying to convince consumers that just about the only interactivity they should expect from their profiles is filling out their own change of address forms." Catlett said that the principle of access to personal data is one of eight internationally-recognized principles of "fair information practice." "Seal programs fall badly short when compared to the standards set down in 1980 by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. So the industry created its own conveniently low standards through groups such as the Online Privacy Alliance and the Direct Marketing Association." Another important principle is openness, Catlett said. "Companies should disclose what they do with personally identifiable information. Because Microsoft's registration process links people to ID numbers, the company has a responsibility to inform the public about where those numbers go. The New York Times is not the place where you should discover that every Microsoft Word document you create has secretly been tattooed with your ID number," Catlett said, referring to yesterday's front page story. He called on the company to disclose whether Microsoft Windows reads and stores the Processor Serial Number from Intel's new Pentium III chip. If stored on the user's hard drive, it could be read by any program even if the number was subsequently switched off in the processor. Catlett and other privacy advocates began calling for Microsoft to announce a commitment to fair information practices almost a year ago, when it acquired Firefly Network Inc. Firefly was best known for its "Passport" product, aspects of which appear to have been incorporated in MSN's recent offerings. Microsoft's record was criticized in November when Chairman Bill Gates promoted the Online Privacy Alliance. "The monopolists of the information age cannot be relied on to make decisions in favor of privacy when they have a huge economic incentive to exploit all the personal data they can collect. The bigger the company, the more comprehensive the profile they can build. Consumers should think about how much of their private lives go through computers, and ask themselves whether they want Intel inside their PCs and Microsoft in the middle of their business." Junkbusters Corp. helps consumers defend themselves against intrusive marketing and protect their privacy online. At junkbusters.com the company provides extensive free resources for stopping telemarketing calls, unwanted physical mail, junk email, and commercial invasions of privacy on the Internet. Junkbusters' News page contains a critique of Microsoft's record on privacy at junkbusters.com Earlier press releases on this topic are at junkbusters.com and junkbusters.com This document is junkbusters.com CONTACT: The Krantz Group, Inc., New York Jeannette Boccini (212) 891-7234 jboccini@krantzgroup.com More Info

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (75452)	3/5/1999 3:29:00 PM
From: Jeff Fox	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Jim, re: Great article on the CPU ID debacle. It frames the issue accurately. Just now CNBC NASDAQ report cited that Intel was the only high tech to dip into negative territory today on reports of concern that the the PIII acceptance is weaker than expected. The CPU ID debacle was cited as the primary reason for this. Sorry for Intel, the CPU ID issue is big. It isn't going away. The article you cited tells a lot of the real story - better than others I've seen, but still falls short from a full disclosure of Intel's larger plans to make the PC secure from its owner/users. Here are highlights clipped from your article: zdnet.com "The biggest security threat: You" By Robert Lemos, ZDNN February 25, 1999 4:55 PM PT PALM SPRINGS, Calif. -- Who's the biggest threat to computer security? A foreign spy? A malicious hacker? Maybe neither. According to an encryption expert from Intel Corp., just as potent a threat could be none other than you -- the ordinary computer user. "This is a new focus for the security community," said David Aucsmith, security architect for chip maker Intel. "The actual user of the PC -- someone who can do anything they want -- is the enemy." . . . Privacy fight may escalate With such turmoil around the chip ID, such a revelation of the industry's view of users might be construed as impolitic at best. "Intel originally tried to convince users that the processor serial number would make e-commerce transactions safer," said Jason Catlett, president and CEO of privacy information firm Junkbusters.com. "The real reasons have nothing to do with protecting the user. They want to allow for better copy protection and, possibly, tracking on the Internet." . . . Not backing down That doesn't mean that Intel is backing off, however. During another presentation, Michael Glancy, general manager of Intel's platform security division, told developers to expect the chip ID in all the company's products soon. "You should anticipate that this will be used all across the major product lines," he said. His statements were not just limited to PCs, either. Internet appliances and portable devices based on Intel's StrongARM processor will soon have the technology as well. "Those devices will need technologies like this to be more secure," he said. In the end, unless something comes from the privacy protests, Intel will be putting the processor ID technology everywhere. "We have announced this feature with the Pentium III,"said Glancy. "We intend to ship it." ---------------- What is Intel thinking? Why is this initiative sprung on the market with the PIII introduction without testing or preparation? Now why such determination even when it is now proven to be something that Intel Customers do not want? (I say "customer" here meaning the folks that spend actually use the PCs) Why is Intel willing to lose over 15% market value worth $30billion in stockholder equity to pursue the mission of eliminating user control in computing? I for one believe Intel should be a business. I own it to achieve gains resulting from it doing business. I am not interested in Intel becoming a social force. -------------- This issue has cost me over $20 per share so far - Needless to say I am not a happy stockholder on this issue. Jeff