In Ten Years, Will You Own a PC, or Vice-versa?

(1/5) > >>

Mefiante (October 12, 2006, 10:03:17 AM):
This article, though a little more than three years old, still paints a frightening picture.

It seems that Micro$oft, Intel, IBM, HP and AMD are collaboratively intent on undermining individual authority over, and control of, digital content on your computer and other electronic devices. The bottom line of the article is that mechanisms are being put in place that will allow suppliers and vendors to administer your PC-based information.

I always thought that Bill Gates, in particular, had something of the mad despot in him.

qrios (October 12, 2006, 11:01:45 AM):
Or even worse...

(Methinks this should be moved to conspiracies? ???)

Taken from...

The microchip proof of potential mind control

MY EXTREMELY importatn messege!!!

This is VERY important information that pertains to EVERYONE. PLEASE take a bit of your time or take a look at some important issues that REALLY matter We need to be aware of what is going on with this technology NOW and decide your position on it and how you will respond. Below I HAVE irrefutable PROFF MOSTLY SHORT Videos of news clips etc and some text in between with references. Big corporations like the tobacco companies , wal-mart etc are up to some things we need to be concerned about for ALL our safety and well being! Take a look below! Decide where you stand.. It's pretty cut and dry if you are for human right and human decency please show you care by reposting this important issue.

brain computer interface

Scientists have built a device that lets you control a computer with your mind


While only a nascent field, the director of the
prestigious US National Science Foundation, Rita
Colwell, stated in 2003 that "the interface between
nano, bio, info and cognotechnology is where the
exciting discoveries are occurring."[1]

According to Yonas, nanotechnology makes it feasible
to use brain implants to moderate behavior or brain
functioning, allowing brains with disorders or brains
that have been damaged to function normally.[2]

Another developing field of cognotechnology focuses on
remote sensing brain function. Sensed brain function
will include the intention to commit deception, and
according to Yonas, is likely to be used for more
efficient identifying of potential terrorists at, for
example, airports.

Some fields of cognotechnology have the potential to
be used in possibly controversial ways, such as
modifying the behavior of criminals or pacifying enemy

Yonas gave an address on cognotechnology and these
areas currently being researched at a 2001 daylong
symposium sponsored by the American Association for
the Advancement of Science, the world’s largest
general science organization and the publisher of the
prestigious academic journal Science.

REFRENCE to the above text

biological implants in general and neural prosthetic
devices in particular



the microchip


Microchip - Just say no!

IBM, Verichip, and the Fourth Reich

Mark of the Beasts: Ian Brown "No I.D."

TEXT reference
Mefiante (October 13, 2006, 08:36:24 AM):
No, I don't agree that this is a case of conspiracy paranoia. Micro$oft's own words don't contradict anything in the earlier article I linked to, although the downsides to the TC initiative are not described. Also, there is nothing in the innards of RSA and other PK cryptographic systems - which systems I know very well indeed - that can prevent anything mentioned in that earlier article.

SecretCode (October 14, 2006, 22:29:10 PM):
I wasn't able to read the whole of your quote, qrios. The grammar - it burns us. But I got the feeling it related somehow to a brain-computer interface. That's real - in the lab, not commercialised. Although I didn't know nanotechnology had anything to do with it.

But as for the OP, yes, MS and others are putting a lot of effort into controlling our computers. It's already here in many specifics: Windows Automatic Updates, Digital Rights Mgt on software and video, and errm probably other things. Technologically it can be done, sociologically it can be resisted. Which will win? What's the balance of forces?

The forces that push big companies to do this are not really a desire for control (that they do with lockin via not publishing APIs, bundling of "free" software to kill competitors, etc). What they're afraid of is lawsuits: for insecure systems, from copyright holders, etc.

But there is a big constituency that will never allow unrestricted access: business users. And although they'd like to try to separate business and other customers completely, they won't be able to. Business users have laptops they use at home; individual consultants like myself work in big businesses; and techies in corporates will share their knowledge.

You might argue that a lot of digital content, like music and movies, has no interest to business. But the "hacker" community provides another force against it: freeware software to play unrestricted music and video, and tools to remove restrictions from restricted music and video.

And more (the more I think about this the more forces in support of the consumer I think of): the continual rise of malicious hackers, phishers and other unsavoury types has the effect of making even naive users aware of risks - and making them see attempts at control by big organisations in the same way - consider the recent Sony "rootkit" debacle. Firewalls and antispyware products will help to protect people - both directly and by causing a rash of naive consumers who say "I can't play the DVD I bought from you" or "I downloaded this track and it says 'cannot connect to server'". All the providers will say "you have to stop your firewalls and antivirus and antispyware software to play our content, since they are badly written." But eventually people will stop trusting this.

Meanwhile ...

Microsoft Brothel. Please remove your condom.
qrios (October 19, 2006, 18:02:05 PM):
No, I don't agree that this is a case of conspiracy paranoia.

I never doubted the ability to manipulate etc, I doubt the plausibility and feasibility to do it.
In Africa, most people cannot read, nevermind own or work with or on a computer, so I think it is irrelevant.

In my experience, programs, and even hardware protected software has been cracked or hacked before it is even available in South Africa.
So... the PC might be capable of "owning" but it will only be to the extend that we let it.


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Skeptic Forum Board Index

Non-mobile version of page