> They're tamper proof to the extent that they can verify their own integrity. They're tamper proof in that they are designed to physically resist decapping an

> They're tamper proof to the extent that they can verify their own integrity. They're tamper proof in that they are designed to physically resist decapping and electron microscopy. Don't dance around this issue, it is a key one. The phrase "tamper-resistant" has a rather specific meaning among chip vendors. I have read a substantial body of Treacherous Computing-related literature (I don't keep up with the field very diligently, I admit - my stomach is only so strong.) There is unending talk of encrypted electrical buses and display links. Would you like to tell me with a straight face that these ingenious measures are meant to protect against virii or intrusion by script kiddies? > in the TPM-free world, we have basically no privacy Speak for yourself. I suffer no intrusions into my privacy which a TPM would prevent. > our computers are all controlled by people with enough time and energy to find secret flaws in the software we run Even if this were true, it is much preferable to a world where computers are controlled by those with access (legitimate or otherwise) to a TPM master key. (Rest assured there shall always be a master key, regardless of what the spec sheets say.) I'll take traditional malware chaos over media cartel totalitarianism any day of the week.