US to take 10% equity stake in Intel, in Trump’s latest corporate move. What are you thoughts on this from a privacy standpoint? I’m not close to being an expert on this tech, but can the US Government exploit this?
You must log in or # to comment.
10% equity isn’t much and wouldn’t influence Intel siginificantly but if they wanted to embed spyware in the CPUs they don’t even need to acquire any stake in it and probably already would have done so. All Intel CPUs for sometime now have been running Minix, it would have been easy for them to do so all along without doing so in the silicon directly. Plus Intel introduces security exploits in the CPU by themselves without the US government demanding it.
It seems to me that Intel themselves aren’t doing anything wrong here by letting the government take a stake in their business.
They never promised you privacy, they sell complex tiny calculators that add and compare ones and zeros trillions of times per second.
As a Mac user, I feel that it affirms Apple’s choice 5 years ago to design their own silicon. Apple made the right move.
Owners of current Intel chips should be fine. It’s future Intel chips I’d worry about. AMD is probably still fine. PC builders and enthusiasts still have a lot of good choices.
As for the government, I don’t really see how. 10% doesn’t give them enough clout to ask for a back door. The UK didn’t ask chip makers anyway, they went straight to Apple and asked for the encryption keys. Apparently they’ve dropped the request, but that’s not something that needs to be done at the CPU level. It’s also the government — they’re not gonna do it the best way. They’re not gonna do it the way a mad Linux geek would do it if they were a fascist dictator. Governments are still run by Boomers.
It’s more likely exactly what Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders say it is: the government is investing in Intel so their investment through the CHIPS Act pays off. It’s just good business sense. Set aside the president’s nationalism and look at it strictly as a business decision. It actually makes sense, hence why Sanders is behind it as well.
Intel Management Engine is already a back door, and US capital doesn’t need laws to agree to give the US government access to said back doors. They’re on the same side.
I read: Corrupt gov plans to sell 10% of Intel to their billionaire buddies.
What’s a better alternative for a CPU
AMD
At least it’s not a majority stake. Then it’ll be bad.
so the Republicans are the communists after all
You are confusing socialism with communism.Socialism is owning infrastructure like roads, electricity and water supply etc.Communism is owning private entities with the goal of full control of all means of production.
This is a step towards communism and not socialism.
Edit: OP edited it to communism. I respect that.
I want to add:
That being said above, the US goal is not communism. It is to control all powerful companies like Russia does. I dont know what it’s called, but it’s not communism, as that will require no ownership at all.
This move by the US is also no different that China owning parts of Huawei.
They already control the companies. Top down orders occasionally come down making that clear
deleted by creator
Very correct, thank you.
“Communism is when Capitalism”
I do wonder what their angle is here. Collecting dividends to fund ICE while lowering taxes on the rich? Pumping Intel stock so insiders can sell? Although it’s “passive ownership,” the government will have voting shares, but they “promise” to vote with the board on most issues, with undisclosed “limited exceptions.”
