Big boy Intel ME is present from Sandy Bridge and up, play with FITC and an ME dump if you dont believe, it can be disabled by corrupting it at least in Sandy Bridge based systems.
Sandy bridge - I know. I'm one of the first few who posted here about the IME, remember? 'Disabled' - that's a whole can of worms I haven't looked into. Problem is how can one ever be sure it's totally gone? Also what other back doors are in the silicon? It's a waste of time fighting a demonstrably hostile opponent who has vastly more resources than you. Better to just walk away. My minimal effort approach is just to stick with older CPUs. (A side benefit is that they are free.)
One thing I'm still looking for, is an Intel CPUs timeline, that includes what is known about the ME and other backdoors, and when each was introduced. Even the Pentium 1 had SMM code execution invisible to the OS and user-code, and I don't trust that either.
Ultimately, the only solution is to dump the entire Intel-MS computing ecosystem, and start with something fresh. Something with active countermeasures to prevent this kind of creeping OEM spyware plague, and a political-legal foundation with teeth to ensure this shitty situation doesn't happen again.
All OS's do that, even Windows 7 as telemetry, and lots of it with the latest updates, as does lots of Linux distros, with Ubuntu saying that they will do almost the same as MS.
Which is one of a list of reasons I don't switch all my machines to Linux. It may come to that, but there are downsides, and Linux doesn't solve the privacy problem. Just makes it maybe slightly better in some respects. That's not good enough.
If you dont want forced updates, disable them, and then complain how you are part of a botnet
Ha ha, you assume that with my views on MS (and other software majors) I'd allow auto-updates of _anything_.
You also assume that MS updates will close all known 'holes'. But we know for a fact from the NSA toolkit leak and other things, that this is false and MS and Intel are actually responsible for creating and maintaining many holes. And now lots of those holes are in the wild due to the NSA toolkit leaks. Which was inevitable, and merely a practical demonstration that deliberately creating holes is a deeply retarded thing to do. But that's fascists for you.
Aside re updates: The whole 'Windows Genuine Advantage' (aka we're going to try and force you to take all the updates, or none) is such a pain in the arse. But that was just an incremental step towards the nastiness of Win10.
Edit to add:
Rejecting stories because the source isn't reliable is the only sensible thing to do. There are so many trash stories out there that you cannot expect people to go on the hunt every time some claim is made. It has nothing to do with an ad hominem or any other fallacy. Information is only as valuable as the source it comes from. It it's a trash source, you cannot depend on the information it dispenses. Added to that is the expectation that the one to claim is also the one to prove. Both are principles science and the legal system heavily are depending on in major ways.
You're wrong in both the general sense, and the specific. Firstly, we've now established the recycling PCs court case story is real. Yet you still seem to be justifying to yourself the act of rejecting it due to initial source.
So why are you wrong in general?
You're applying the rules of scientific method and legal exactitude, to the real world. But they do not apply, because in the real world there are people operating by the principles of Game Theory (lie and cheat, obfuscate your motives, maximize your advantage any conceivable way), the Hegelian Dialectic (manufacture fake crisis, to which you propose a solution - that is what you wanted in the first place), the principles of Propaganda and cognitive dissonance (lead people to believe absurdities, break their connection with logic and truth, and you can get them to do anything you want.) And so on.
The Scientific Method works, because Physics isn't actively trying to deceive and trick you, and is consistent. (And still there's currently a huge crisis of irreproducible published results, ie fake science.)
In the real world otoh, there is NO SUCH THING as an absolutely reliable information source. Not the mainstream media, figures of authority, or anything online. Some are just worse than others. To further complicate things, we're seeing a cultural split into multiple mutually incompatible belief-sets. As recently complained about by Alphabet/Google's Eric Schmidt, bitching that Google's AI is hard to program to arbitrate what is Truth and what isn't, because of this social split. So how to AI-censor the views different to his, and why does he have to put up with this trouble? Poor Mr Schmidt. (And I'm leaving out his further issues with a certain Presidential EO.)
"the expectation that the one to claim is also the one to prove"
Also false in the social sphere. Especially when dealing with conspiracy (which this whole issue of Microsoft's ultimate objectives does involve, by definition.) The function of noticing some possible connection, stating it publicly, so others can add anything relevant they have found, thus evolving public understanding of what's going on... that's a very valuable thing. It's how ALL socio-political revolutions arise, and it's what's happening again now in a much faster and detailed way, thanks to the Net.
It's why the Elites are freaking out about the Internet - for the first time in human history the control mesh involving official news channels (which includes the commercial MSM, when all are owned by a very small pro-State clique) and official pronouncements, is starting to lose effectiveness.
"There are so many trash stories out there"
Yes indeed. In fact a lot of that is deliberate, much of it due to the existing power structures attempting to poison the challenger to their authority - the Net.
Which doesn't alter the fact that the only way to deal with _any_ story, is to judge it on it's own merits, whether it contradicts other information you've established as probably true, whether it makes sense, etc. The nature of the source should only be another bit of background information, giving you some idea of the information's credibility. But never in itself excluding a story from consideration.
Also bear in mind that almost all web sites have economic needs, and so likely have to mix stories to suit their advertising and clicks needs. But they also often serve as news comcentration nodes, since they get stuff sent to them by their audience. Hence, you can get a mix of trash, lies and worthwhile news. Just like the MSM only with different slants, unlike the MSM's almost entirely homogenous bias, by nature of their very homogenous ownership.
The MS-vs-recycler story exactly fit what I knew about MS philosophy and practice, so I didn't bother finding independent backing. I've been caught out making that kind of easy acceptance (selection bias) a (very) few times in the past. But this time not.
It also seems the problem wasn't selling these computers with newly installed copies of Windows. The problems seems to have been the distribution of copies of the discs Windows came on. Whether that's actually a problem is up for debate, but that's not quite the same as suing someone for reselling a computer with a fresh copy of Windows.
No, the problem is that MS wants to stamp out the reuse of old PCs. Their legal argument to the court is bullshit and so are their EULAs for the original restore CDs. Just a means to an end. Which is killing any alternatives to people being forced to move to Win10. For reasons I've stated. Even statistically tiny numbers of people. MS wants it all, no escape permitted.
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
