Intel is also upgrading its Wi-Di technology, which enables users to wirelessly transmit images and video from a PC to a high-definition TV. Users will now be able to stream 1080p content, an improvement from the previous 720p resolution. Users will also be able to stream protected movies from the Intel Insider feature, Regis said.

At a first read, to me that just sounds like they will have support for wireless HDMI, but the blog gets a bit of a bee in its bonnet about Canadian copyright laws and whether a TPM in terms of said law is a Technical Protection Method or a Trusted Platform Module. (I’ve got a feeling I blogged about this before, but I cannot find it.) It is the first to the best of my understanding, but the article assumes its the second – the second can support the implementation of the first – and quickly goes off down the slippery slope of DVDs that will only play on Intel chips.

It’s a bit depressing that even though the person interviewed is very knowledgeable about both the legal and technical aspects of content protection, he either consciously or unconsciously chooses to paint a Doomsday scenario.

One issue is China’s strategy of developing closed, national standards for trusted computing through Trusted Cryptography Modules (TCM) rather than through participation in the ISO and Trusted Computing Group. The Chinese TCM requires that cryptographic algorithms and protocols used to perform specific security tasks, such as verifying that only authorized codes run on a system, be based on Chinese technology. U.S. industry representatives have raised concerns that Chinese development of TCM technology is motivated by the desire to reduce royalties for patents embedded in TCG technology standards and that it will negatively affect interoperability and globally integrated supply chains.

As the usual disclaimer, I will point out that the TCG’s TPM does not perform nor specify how to  "verify[…] that only authorized codes run on a system", although I could easily believe that the Chinese TCM does.

Moreover, the components developed in the project, have been designed in a way that make them compatible with future generations of online connected personal devices – this includes everything from personal digital assistants, TV set-top boxes, Internet services, professional radio, personal video recorders and mobile phones.

I’ve seen slides of some of their demos, and apparently some of the fruits of their labour has made it into commercial devices.

Now, it’s beginning to look like the NSA is stepping up to provide some leadership – defining requirements for the use of trusted computing in government environments. This could give these technologies a real boost, and move us all much closer to a fundamentally safer computing environment.

I know some people will be sceptical about the fox guarding the henhouse, however, but I feel the NSA’s recent trusted computing video shows their commitment.

"It will be a lot of work, but the benefits that trusted computing can provide are worth it," said Neal Ziring, Technical Director in NSA’s Information Assurance Directorate, in a keynote address at the conference.

There’s also a 25 minute video demonstrating the HAP available on the NSA site.

• Trusted Computing: What the Future Looks Like
• Trusted Computing: Deploying in a Mixed Environment
• Trusted Computing: How The Government Is Leading Adoption
• Trusted Computing: Considerations for Deploying in the Enterprise
• Network Security: How to Defend an Infinitely Expanding Frontier
• WAVE SYSTEMS CASE STUDY – Mazda North American Operations

All the content is free to access, but you need to create an account first.

"The rapidly changing hardware environment" has led to "rapid commercial product release and obsolescence," Ross said in his keynote talk about the difficulties of cobbling together various vendor products to build TAP-approved solutions such as the HAP workstation. "We’re out of sync with changes in commercial technology."

Virtualisation is another key area, but again, a two-year approval process means that in this rapidly-developing area stuff is almost (I wanted to say virtually!) obsolete before it gets deployed.

Lifelong free software activist Richard Stallman

Richard Stallman believes in free software and freedom for source code, but he doesn’t believe in the freedom for developers to choose not to make their source code free.

The reason most companies restrict those freedoms is because, in their assessment, there is more money to be made if their own freedom and control over devices is maximised.

That’s capitalism for you.

Software developers routinely leave "back doors" in their products. A good example is RIM’s recent agreement with the Saudi government to make the encrypted communications of BlackBerry users accessible for surveillance.

No, RIM does not have a backdoor in their encryption – they are apparently relocating the encryption hub for Saudi Arabia to Saudi Arabia.

Microsoft, in co-operation with hardware manufacturers like Intel, has included a "trusted computing" system ("treacherous computing" to Stallman) in Windows 7, which gives them the power to interfere with users’ systems remotely.

Perhaps I should design a Free Software vocabulary for Buzzword Bingo – I think the paragraph above would win the game. Oh, and the implementation of a TPM can be Open Sourced, even under the GPL 2.0 license, I believe.

Opening up the source code of software like Windows, RIM’s BlackBerry OS, or Apple’s OS would enable the online community of programmers (real "hackers") to examine it and expose unfree elements.

What? I thought the argument for open source OSes was to find critical bugs, not to do a witch hunt for proprietary code.

This would not compromise a product’s profitability – most people wouldn’t have the knowledge or inclination to spend hours compiling source code into a usable program.

Hint – only one person needs to compile it, then everyone can just download it.

Making source codes available would not only be a safeguard for users, but hasten the end of software patents.

I don’t like software patents myself, but having source code available does not affect software patents, as a patent by definition is open for examination.

The best example of this is Apple’s ongoing lawsuit against competing smartphone manufacturer HTC based on its patents – including "unlocking a device by performing gestures on an unlock image" – something so obvious and fundamental that success in the suit would effectively give Apple a monopoly.

I’ve not examined the Apple patents in detail, but a workaround would be a software or hardware push-button instead of a gesture, hardly enough to give Apple a monopoly.

What needs to be done to get more people to adopt free software? People need to start evangelising

If there’s one thing I never see online, it’s a free software evangelist.

Thankfully, the majority of the commenters, including free software supporters, give the article the thumbs down.