Talk:Fritz-chip

Why is it called "Fritz" in the first place? Is that a backronym of some sort? 212.144.209.130 21:54, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

..It is named after som politican in the senate (in usa), named Fritz, that has worked alot for a development in that direction.. or something like that.

Hollings was a fucking Klansman. No wonder he supports this Gestapo BS.

Fritz Hollings was the perennial junior (to the immortal Strom Thurmond) Senator from South Carolina. He became quite senior in the Senate, and while the Democrats controlled it, held several leadership positions (eg, charimanships of important committees); after the Republicans took control he was the senior minority member on assorted committees. His racial views were perhaps less 'advanced' than some would prefer, but were seriously in advance of many in South Carolina. I am aware of no evidence that he was ever a member of the KKK.

His interest in digital rights management issues, and advocacy of hardware enfocement of such issues was persistent until his retirement and it is unclear from where they came. Some have claimed he was 'bought' by industrial interests, but I find this unpersuasive at least in the baldest forms. I suspect this may have been a component and that ignorance and unwillingness to recognize a mistake probably contributed as well.

We may learn more in future. ww 16:17, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality, not

As an example of why I find this article dubious, just consider the following paragraph:

The Longhorn operating system from Microsoft will probably support Fritz; it is said to be scheduled for 2006 release. The "specialized software" that will enable compatibility with Fritz-chip hardware is code-named Nexus. In Longhorn, Nexus will be the last of the authorized software in the chain of trust. Nexus will then let other programs get access to the secure environment that Fritz enables. Such programs will be called "Nexus Aware". Such programs will be nearly impossible to debug or modify. Nexus is intended to be open source, so that people can trust that Microsoft doesn't have any backdoors in the software. Some say that the only reason for Microsoft deciding to make Nexus open source is that most countries' laws require it to be.

1. ‘will probably’, ‘is said to be’, ‘some say’: I would use the same wording to spread rumours

2. the ‘will probably’ becomes an affirmative ‘will’ shortly after the first sentence

3. all this has been shelved: http://www.crn.com/sections/breakingnews/dailyarchives.jhtml?articleId=18841713&_requestid=148561

So really I don’t understand what the point of writing an article for something which claims to be an encyclopaedia is, if the article is just like any piece of ZDnet…

An article about TCPA which has had specifications published would seem a better start. And moving the political discussion after the technical description rather than having them incorporated to the definition would be more rigorous.

Similar remarks apply to most of the articles related to this issue. None of them manage to separate clearly politics and speculation for technical description. It’s not because it’s an evil technology that it should be presented as such from the start!

Therefore, and to use the same wording, 'some say this article is not neutral!'

My 2 cents.

Given that MS changes plans (ie, feature sets in projected software) unpredictably, and the software finally released is sometimes not as projected at various times, use of contingent phrases such as 'it is said' and 'will probably' is about as clear as one can be if not privy to internal MS planning. Much is unclear about how things will actually be when (and if) NEXUS, TC, NGSCB, Palladium, etc etc are actually implemented and released. This is, however, a major public policy topic in re computing, intellectual property law and policy, cryptography, and so on, so it deserves to be addressed in WP. I for one, would appreciate some assistance in separating the (unavoidable for much of this) speculation from technical (but not too) description, so anyone who can help ...

Some edits today have cleaned up some of the facts alleged to be NPOV here. Perhaps they are sufficient? ww 15:42, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

move some content to trusted computing?

Here is another issue with this article which is supposed to explain what a ‘fritz-chip’ is. If I understand correctly a fritz-chip is a hardware component. It could be a chip used to support TCPA, NGSCB but also other similar technologies.

Unfortunately the article seems to focus on features which apparently belong to NGSCB, like sealed storage or attestation (http://www.microsoft.com/resources/ngscb/four_features.mspx). Why aren’t these sub-sections moved to the article on NGSCB then? In fact these sections a repeated in the article on ‘trusted computing’.

Similarly, it is unclear to me why the paragraphs from ‘TC is an acronym…’ to ‘hence unusable’ are part of the core definition of fritz-chip. Should this not be moved to the article on ‘trusted computing’?

The intent of DRM in this context is to embed the supervision/control aspects (choose your own phrase for this) as deeply in the system as possible. Thus, an operating system level component would not be deep enough to prevent copying of DRM'd material in a disk file. Anyone who boots another OS (or the same one w/o the component here imagined) would clearly be able to defeat a DRM veto of subsequent copying until the component is reinstalled. In fact, any loadable software would be defeatable in principle this way. Accordingly, the logic will have to be at a more fundamental level and in some less evadable form. Ultimately, the base component is planned as a part of CPU dies. It was something like that which was envisioned in the most recent of Fritz' proposed Bills in Congress. The mandate would have been in legal language, but the easiest implementation would have been within the CPU.

The terminology thus becomes rather indistinct. This notional fundamental component could be firmware in a ROM on a motherboard. Or the same component could be implemented as a FPLA or other programmable logic device (perhaps as a separate chip on a motherboard) or as microcode embedded in a CPU. Similar inexactitude of terminology is required when a Floating Point Processor (once a separate chip) has been embedded in the CPU (in the x86 CPUs, it happened first with the 486). Can one speak of the FPU (if it is now part of a CPU)?

The Fritz-chip notion is of the most fundamental component of the DRM system, at least usually. As is the practice in English, Fritz-chip has also been used for the entire magilla of which the term is the most colorful part. For both language reasons, and technological ones, I think the scope of this article is about right -- or at least as right as it's possible to be in such a contingent situation. Trusted computing in particular is about the entire magilla and should probably have a pointer here for that most fundamental component thing, whether separate chip, microcode, PLA, or whatever form it might be in. ww 17:24, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In that case one may want to move content from ‘trusted computing’ to ‘Fritz-chip’. There is clearly duplication between the two at the moment. Alternatively, one could argue that ‘Fritz-chip’ seems to be a terminology used by users who are against this technology and who claim its sole purpose is DRM. And so the hopefully objective definition should be with the original word. Anyway duplication does not look good.

I agree that the duplication of content is unfortunate, but in such cases I think it's the real world which is bedeviling us, not inability to write good WP articles. Where there is overlap of this sort, we may (and probably will have to) live with it. Until the world revises itself into neat WP article sized categories. ;) ww 19:58, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

rmv NPOV tag

No response having been made to edits intended to reduce NPOV worries some weeks ago, I'm removing the tag. ww 20:30, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

NPOV objection

[quote] The single biggest problem with "Fritz" and "trusted" computing is the cruel irony: systems that are "trusted" by software manufacturers and "content owners" thus cannot be trusted by their owners. Such systems will hamper the system's owner, rather than help him or her. It would be hard to imagine consumers actually choosing such a situation unless it were imposed on them through legislation. [/quote]

I find this imbalanced. There is no reason not to trust your system just because your motherboard incorporates a Fritz chip (at least, I see no more reason than to distrust one without). A Linux nub is underway, and soon, anyone should be able to run a Fritz-protected version of Linux. How can you distrust that, presuming you used trusted tools and source to build the kernel from scratch, then modified the nub to load your self-compiled kernel (in which you can include as many backdoors as you wish)?

In short, Fritz simply provides a means of extending hardware-enforced protection to any system, the nub, OS, and app determining exactly how those protections are enforced. Thus I ask: How can this statement be made in the article?

Your objection would be that the inappropriateness of the phrase "trusted" would be better placed on the trusted computing and other software pages, rather than on the pages of hardware dedicated to supporting that so-called trusted computing?

We should probably also mention Schneier's explanation of the difference between "trusted" in computing (which means something which is entrusted with the job of access control) and "trusted" in everyday life (which normally implies that the recipient of trust is deserving of it). That 'human' definition doesn't apply in software, so a "trusted" system is just defined as one which is capable of breaching your security policy if it were to fail. I think TCPA is probably guilty of using this difference in definitions to cause confusion, by describing systems unworthy of trust as "trustworthy". Ojw 18:36, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, or at least reworded to something like what you just said. To me, what is there now conveys the idea that trusted computing takes away the right of a user to know what their computer is doing when that need not be the case. Rather, the danger (and the benefit) is that it takes away the right of the user to do whatever they wish with protected information. Of course, side effects may be that the user is locked into a particular line of software (which may be proprietary, from the way things look) if they wish to exchange documents, but that seems to have already been discussed.

Deleted most of the article

I've deleted most of the article. The information here is already presented in a more up-to-date fashion at Trusted Computing, which is the correct title for the technology. "Fritz-chip" was never more than a moniker used by critics of the technology put forth by Sen. Hollings. The article now represents this fact. Warrens 23:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Computing

I have removed the WikiProject tag, as this article is either a redirect or deleted. If you oppose, please restore the tag. Thank you, fahadsadah (talk,contribs) 16:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]