Other uses of TCPA

[Eugen Leitl]

On Sat, 3 Aug 2002, AARG! Anonymous wrote:

> But you won't now say that TCPA is OK, will you?  You just learned
> some information which objectively should make you feel less bad about
> it, and yet you either don't feel that way, or you won't admit it.  I
> am coming to doubt that people's feelings and beliefs about TCPA are
> based on facts at all.  No matter how much I correct negative
> misconceptions about these systems, no one will admit to having any
> more positive feelings about it.

Whoa there. Hold the horses. You're completely inverting the burden of
proof here. You're *trusting* a preliminary spec fielded by *whom* again?
Were you on the design team? Are you on implementers' team? Have you
reverse engineered the function from tracing the structures on the die?  
Will you continue doing this, sampling every batch being shipped?

Consider the source. It is bogged down with enough bad mana to last for
centuries. Consider the motivations. They're certainly not there to
enhance end user's privacy and anonymitity. In fact, one of the design
specs must have been minimizing the latter as long as it not hurts the
prime design incentives. These are all facts you won't find in the specs.

It boggles my mind I have to explain this, especially to a member of this 
particular community. Are you really sure you're not a TCPA troll?

If they manage to slip that particular toad into high volume production,
hackers will of course use it, inasmuch possible thwarting the original
intent. But you seem to ask for blanket endorsement based merely on spec,
which is a rather tall order.