> > Not to seem totally ignorant (I always open stupid questions with that phrase), but why does it matter if a third party knows your PSN? Is it used for something?
>
> It *could* be used for anything. It's a serious invasion of privacy and infringement on your civil rights. With it turned on, it basically means that *ANY* remote system you visit could read your number. The data could be used to model your entire lifestyle, business transactions, everything. Our society already makes that too easy, but this is a giant leap in the wrong direction.

To elaborate a bit further, the serial number by itself obviously means nothing; it's just a number. Ideally, a user should be able to associate his/her PSN with an online identity, for example as an extra level of identity verification when shopping online, or as authorization to enter a restricted chat room, and so forth. The problem is that because the serial number is susceptible to being read without a user's permission, over time it can become associated with a profile not intentionally created by the user.

As the same serial number makes an appearance on various web sites, for example, it develops a history that conveys information about the surfing habits of the person with that number. If at any point the serial number becomes associated with the user's email address, that person could be subject to spam advertising, which would be one of the milder possible consequences, but still very irritating. It would also be possible for another party to emulate a person's serial number and in that way impersonate them online, with results worse than merely irritating.

The frustrating thing is that the idea and implementation of this serial number are so intrinsically flawed that it boggles the mind how Intel could have decided to release the product in such a state, or failed to predict the public's reaction against the introduction of such a vulnerability in their online security and privacy. The same benefits offered by the PSN could be had much better from other solutions, and the PSN doesn't even offer a well-designed implementation to make up for its limited usefulness. Presumably, Intel succumbed to the tendency of large corporations to assume that the buying public prefers to remain ignorant of the quality of product offered to them, and decided that so few people would notice the problems with the PSN that it was safe to go ahead with it. A pretty colossal misjudgment on Intel's part, matched only by their inexplicable stonewall position about the whole thing, as though they're waiting for it all to blow over. It's a problem that really needs to be nipped in the bud before it gets any larger, not something that can be safely swept under the rug.

Iss