Now that I have read this paper over again recently I wish to offer some critiques. Overall I am in agreement with this paper. I believe we are losing quite a bit with allowing the creation of a consumer class on the Internet. Reading discussions in the CanFLI.org BBS you get the impression that a large number of people seem to believe that this is a "feature" that grants then anonymity rather than a bug which will further head them down the path of having not only no anonymity but also no control over the basic functionality of their own computers.
I have been in strong opposition to both the Orwellian double-speak "Trusted Computing" initiative (See TCPA FAQ) as well as starting the Canadian Digital Copyright forum to fight against Canada implementing what the USA did in their DMCA as a response to the claim we need to ratify the WIPO Copyright Treaties.
The problem with this paper is it did appear to lump together some good technologies with some bad. It is my belief that who is in control of a technology is critical to understanding what roll it will play in our society. The ability for the owner/operator of a computer to verify the authenticity of any software received is an important positive step for owners to take control over their own computers. The issue with the Trusted Computing (TC) platform is not the certificates for the software, but the fact that TC platform takes this control away from the owner of the computer and grants this control to a third party, namely the software vendors.
The same problem exists for things like Internet Protocol Security (IPSec). When in the hands of private citizens, IPSec is a powerful tool to protect the privacy of citizens. I have been a huge promoter of the FreeS/WAN project, and now the OpenS/WAN project. People are able to easily set up encrypted tunnels between each other such that no third party can eavesdrop on them, whether it be a neighbor, criminal or the government. Take this same technology, taking the control away from the owner/operator and granting it to a third party (software vendors, criminals, governments), and you then have the the opposite scenario that John describes.
The issue here is who is in control, not whether control exists. This question of citizen control over their own ICT was featured in a recent article contrasting the policy views of past MP Sheila Copps with those of Digital Entrepreneur Bob Young. I do not believe that the ability to misuse useful technology is a reason to not build the technology, but reason to try to understand it and ensure that it is kept in the hands of citizens in a democratic society. NAT and Dynamic IP assignments are creating a "consumer class", something that we as on-line citizens should be fighting against. On the other hand, on-line citizens should be able to verify the authenticity of information they receive, and have tools to protect their own privacy. We need to ensure both that the appropriate technology is promoted, but also that we ensure that it is put to appropriate uses.