> But there's a more severe issue to consider. Suppose it was *totally* secure. If the option is *available*, services are guaranteed to appear that require it to be turned on. And sooner or later people are going to see enough services that require it to be turned on that they'll cave in and turn it on.
>
> The only real way to fight this is to refuse to buy a Pentium III or any other chip with this so-called "feature" and hope enough other people are sensible enough to do the same.
>

This is true, and it's an oft-repeated argument over on the Intel message forum. My hope is that as the trend towards greater public interest in online security and privacy issues continues, that will generate sufficient pressure that software and web developers will see the wisdom in mot forcing the issue on their prospective customers.

Microsoft seems lately to have received enough of a man-beating at the hands of federal prosecutors to have developed a somewhat less arrogant and invulnerable attitude. They now seem to be taking the fiasco surrounding Intel's PSN as an opportunity to learn from someone else's mistake, and are taking steps to get rid of the more privacy-intrusive features of Windows 98. Hopefully, other companies will learn the same lesson from the uproar surrounding the Pentium III. But that will only happen if consumers continue to demand that products and services respect their privacy and security, and refuse to buy products that compromise those things, as you've said.

Iss