cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/58764195
I was in the non-profit shop of a local charity. They accept donations of used computers then resell them to the public. The profit goes to charity. I asked for their oldest machine. It had an AMD chip from the 16h family. Thus, a spychip.
So their oldest machine was still too new for me. I asked why don’t you have anything older? They said the general public would not accept anything older, and so the shop also does not accept anything older. When machines are rejected, they go to a factory that destroys them and recovers the raw metals.
It’s sad to see that pre-spychip machines are being destroyed and that even 2nd-hand customers are being limited to anti-consumer spychip hardware.
Microprocessors embedded within a microprocessor which either facilitate remote access or impose closed source software.
That’s not what “spychip” means though. Spychip implies it’s spying on you, not just running closed source code (that you can dump, btw). And without the PSP, AMD processors would not necessarily be more secure, the vulnerabilities would just be moved elsewhere; secure VMs, memory encryption, secure boot, etc. would not be possible.
You asked. Then suddenly you claimed to already have the answer. Calling shenanigans.
No it doesn’t. A chip that spies on you is merely one subset of spychips. A spychip can also facilitate snooping or remote control, for example, without performing the snooping directly.
If a spychip is not a chip that spies on you then your words are meaningless. But then you say a spychip is a chip that enables spying, which is literally equivalent to a chip that spies on you. Please pick a definition and stick with it.
I didn’t say that
English is obviously not your first language. My words put through whatever translation tool you are using may be meaningless. Find a better translator.
Yes.
No it’s not. The chip need not be making direct observations to facilitate observations. Read the links.
Please get help from a native English speaker.
No, you just edited your comment after I replied. But if you’re going to start attacking me instead of the argument, then this discussion is already a waste of time. Hope you have better luck finding a spychip-free CPU somewhere else
I did not make a meaningful change. And it was before seeing your response. “A chip that spies on you is merely one subset of spychips” has the same meaning as the wordier original. But we need not rely on heresay. Feel free to quote the original if you are sure you were not drunk or hallucinating.
You’re pushing a straw man. If you feel attacked, suck it up and try to avoid logical fallacy. And in the future, try not to start off with intellectual dishonesty.