ropers wrote:
quoted text
> On 24/10/2007, Lars NoodC)n <larsnooden@openoffice.org> wrote:
>> Seriously, what (affordable) non-x86 hardware options are available,
>> especially those without AMT or AMT-like backdoors?
>>
>>         http://softwarecommunity.intel.com/articles/eng/1148.htm
>>         http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20050301net.htm
>>         http://www.intel.com/cd/ids/developer/asmo-na/eng/320959.htm
>>
>> Or is workstation and server hardware covered by CALEA now, too?
> 
> Relevancy links:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Active_Management_Technology
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_Law_Enforcement_Act

I'm not sure there is a context in which Wikipedia is ever relevant: it
is not now nor has ever been an authoritative source. (Look up
authoritative).  Lately it's become the playground for PR teams and even
politicians' agendas, further reducing its accuracy.

In the specific context of CALEA, the AMT wikipedia page as of Fri Oct
26 07:45:59 GMT 2007, does not contain any references to CALEA, but do
contain the links I provided above.  The CALEA page points to links
easily found with search engines.

Neither page points to non-x86 hardware options.

The two points of all that grousing are 1) it's fine not to know the
answer, just don't pretend to know by pointing to Google or Wikipedia,
and 2) Wikipedia is not authoritative, nor in many controversial
specialized cases, reliable.

The question remains, what (affordable) non-x86 hardware options are
available?

A new question is added, are AMT-like rootkits required in all
architectures, and further, is it required in closed source software?
I seem to recall an anti-trust trial in the US where one company's
executives said under oath something tot the effect that it would be
their "patriotic duty" to put back doors into their systems if called on
to do so.

Regards,
-Lars