• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

WTF: Kill switch for Sandy Bridge?

It starts with little information about a feature, and then goes off on a Patriot Act and CIA rant.

I'm going to withhold my judgement on this one.


People can already destroy your information if they really want to, adding a user-enabled kill switch for a stolen computer wouldn't really scare me.

If you think it is that scary, just use some of the extra tinfoil from one of your hats you have laying around to cover your CPU. It will disable the feature.
 
Last edited:
Yea as much as final silicone cost I am sure they spent money to put in a cell phone reciever in every chip let alone all the other sure signs of BS like, as OCGuy pointed out, the Patriot act and such.
 
Marlin1975 said:
Yea as much as final silicone cost I am sure they spent money to put in a cell phone reciever in every chip let alone all the other sure signs of BS like, as OCGuy pointed out, the Patriot act and such.
Click to expand...

The cost portion is why conspiracies are bunk. If something happens to be cheaper and causes problems with something (poor food quality ect) then it's not the economic system at fault! It's just a NWO conspiracy. That's how they justify sticking with advocating pure capitalist economics with no regulation. Global warming has to be false, because if it were you would have a strong, if not mandatory reasoning for some form of world government. They are scared of -any- government, because they are not vigilant enough to be good citizens of one.

But if the device needed for a conspiracy is expensive, suddenly that's logical because companies love to spend money on extra R&D and material with no product value. Way too much logic and facts removed for me in the conspiracy world. I do believe the world works on conspiracy (as in, backroom deals) but more difficult to pull off some of this stuff brought forward.

Your signature makes me laugh everytime I read it.
Originally Posted by spidey07
I'm proud to be a racist now. VERY proud.
Click to expand...

VERY proud. 😀 What a hoot.
 
gevorg said:
Anyone heard about this? I hope this is just FUD.

http://www.eutimes.net/2010/12/remote-kill-switch-added-to-intel-sandy-bridge/
Click to expand...

This isn't anything to get upset about. The Anti Theft tech is available on chipsets with a "Q" in front of the name(Q4x/Q6x etc), and is mostly aimed at business. Mobile versions of the chips exist too, with the naming at "QM". If you get regular chipsets(like the X, H, and P series) without the vPro and Anti Theft you don't get the feature.
 
OCGuy said:
It starts with little information about a feature, and then goes off on a Patriot Act and CIA rant.

I'm going to withhold my judgement on this one.


People can already destroy your information if they really want to, adding a user-enabled kill switch for a stolen computer wouldn't really scare me.

If you think it is that scary, just use some of the extra tinfoil from one of your hats you have laying around to cover your CPU. It will disable the feature.
Click to expand...

ROFL... that gave me a good laugh... thanks
 
Intel can control my brain through quantum brainwaves, I swear it's true. Omg, they are closing in! Run for the hills! Run for the-...*static*
 
aHHH.. flash back gamer..

so when can i have my computers all dance in the union like they did in the gamer?
 
IntelUser2000 said:
This isn't anything to get upset about. The Anti Theft tech is available on chipsets with a "Q" in front of the name(Q4x/Q6x etc), and is mostly aimed at business. Mobile versions of the chips exist too, with the naming at "QM". If you get regular chipsets(like the X, H, and P series) without the vPro and Anti Theft you don't get the feature.
Click to expand...
Exactly. I've been banging my head on my desk since I saw this story at Slashdot this afternoon. A non-technical journalist saw vPro/AMT on the Sandy Bridge spec sheet, didn't realize what it was for, and it's been spiraling ever since.
 
IntelUser2000 said:
This isn't anything to get upset about. The Anti Theft tech is available on chipsets with a "Q" in front of the name(Q4x/Q6x etc), and is mostly aimed at business. Mobile versions of the chips exist too, with the naming at "QM". If you get regular chipsets(like the X, H, and P series) without the vPro and Anti Theft you don't get the feature.
Click to expand...

Aha! That makes total sense for laptops, for some reason that article makes it seem like all Sandy Bridge CPUs would have that feature. FUD indeed.
 
The articles about this have a negative slant on the feature and some of you buy into it. Come on guys, I expected better from the AnandTech forums.
 
AdamK47 said:
The articles about this have a negative slant on the feature and you guys buy into it. Come on guys, I expected better from the AnandTech forums.
Click to expand...

umm... I'm pretty sure 90% said this was bogus dude... and others routed us to reputable sites telling people what to expect from the feature that's ACTUALLY true.
 
Imagine the Viruses made to exploit such a thing though. It would make reaching across the Internet and slapping someone in the face a reality! 😀
 
VirtualLarry said:
You don't think that the RIAA is begging Intel for that sort of capability?
Click to expand...

I'm not convinced that the RIAA wants to stop piracy per se, I am convinced they want to make money off of the piracy industry though.

Killswitching a pirate's rig doesn't net them any money. Suing folks with evidence in hand of said piracy nets them some money.

If RIAA was begging for anything it was a method of detecting and documenting acts of piracy, not killswitching to stop it.
 
Idontcare said:
I'm not convinced that the RIAA wants to stop piracy per se, I am convinced they want to make money off of the piracy industry though.

Killswitching a pirate's rig doesn't net them any money. Suing folks with evidence in hand of said piracy nets them some money.

If RIAA was begging for anything it was a method of detecting and documenting acts of piracy, not killswitching to stop it.
Click to expand...

they never get real $$$ when they sue; it's for the publicity
 
Intel is really killing the awesome vibes of the Sandybridge by stuff like this killswitch and (AFAIK) bolting their crappy GPU solution to 'each and every' processor of this microarchitecture.

BTW this killswitch stuff is already present with BIOS support like in AMI BIOSs why do Intel consider it worth their time to build redundancy in their processors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top