The article sadly doesn't address why foreign-made (or should it be "foreign-controlled"?) TPM chips are viewed as a national security concern.
> “Those specific offerings are tailored for countries that don‘t allow original encryption technologies, namely China and Russia,” said Li.
This statement is especially confusing. "Original" encryption technologies? So if someone were to plagiarize the TPM chip, but made it otherwise identical, it would be allowed? Or is it only the underlying math that must not be "original"? Is an encryption scheme only original the first time it's implemented, and subsequent implementations are allowed? I just can't find an interpretation that doesn't leave "original" in that statement utterly meaningless.
I'm left with the troubling feeling that the vague language is used to conceal legitimate concerns.
> “Those specific offerings are tailored for countries that don‘t allow original encryption technologies, namely China and Russia,” said Li.
This statement is especially confusing. "Original" encryption technologies? So if someone were to plagiarize the TPM chip, but made it otherwise identical, it would be allowed? Or is it only the underlying math that must not be "original"? Is an encryption scheme only original the first time it's implemented, and subsequent implementations are allowed? I just can't find an interpretation that doesn't leave "original" in that statement utterly meaningless.
I'm left with the troubling feeling that the vague language is used to conceal legitimate concerns.