5 ms·

Woah, wait. DRM and the ME are not fine in theory. Secure boot is. If the practice of installing your own keys is too hard, that's something we can fix. We can

by Rusky 9y ago

Woah, wait. DRM and the ME are not fine in theory. Secure boot is. If the practice of installing your own keys is too hard, that's something we can fix. We can't fix DRM or ME without just removing them.

digi_owl 9y ago
The line between the two is thin and ill focused...
betterunix2 9y ago
Secure Boot is part of an effort to harden DRM on PCs; this is something Microsoft and Intel have pushed for over a decade, especially now that they have seen how much money is being made on mobile devices (where DRM was baked in from the beginning). There is not much benefit to users, because bootloader malware was never a major threat and malware remains a constant threat for users despite years of Secure Boot deployment (just the other day my mother-in-law asked us to deal with a ransomware'd surface pro). The real point of Secure Boot is to create a system where users do not have the freedom to install arbitrary software i.e. where all software must be installed from an app store, where it can be vetted to ensure that it does not allow users to do things like breaking DRM systems or blocking ads.
Santosh83 9y ago
Yup that was mainly my point. The UI for easily installing your own keys needs to be more accessible to the average user. Also we need a Let's Encrypt like non-profit, standardised signing body who can sign off all OSes including Microsoft's, and not let the latter get a choke-hold in this vital area. I have disagree with you. DRM and ME are both fine theoretically the way I see it. Of course that's my point. Only theoretically. The way they're used in reality is far from okay, but that's not the fault of the idea in and off itself. It's just that industries and other powerful interests have twisted it into being their tool, instead of serving the users and artists.

5 ms·

Woah, wait. DRM and the ME are not fine in theory. Secure boot is. If the practice of installing your own keys is too hard, that's something we can fix. We can

by Rusky 9y ago

digi_owl 9y ago
The line between the two is thin and ill focused...
betterunix2 9y ago
Secure Boot is part of an effort to harden DRM on PCs; this is something Microsoft and Intel have pushed for over a decade, especially now that they have seen how much money is being made on mobile devices (where DRM was baked in from the beginning). There is not much benefit to users, because bootloader malware was never a major threat and malware remains a constant threat for users despite years of Secure Boot deployment (just the other day my mother-in-law asked us to deal with a ransomware'd surface pro). The real point of Secure Boot is to create a system where users do not have the freedom to install arbitrary software i.e. where all software must be installed from an app store, where it can be vetted to ensure that it does not allow users to do things like breaking DRM systems or blocking ads.
Santosh83 9y ago
Yup that was mainly my point. The UI for easily installing your own keys needs to be more accessible to the average user. Also we need a Let's Encrypt like non-profit, standardised signing body who can sign off all OSes including Microsoft's, and not let the latter get a choke-hold in this vital area. I have disagree with you. DRM and ME are both fine theoretically the way I see it. Of course that's my point. Only theoretically. The way they're used in reality is far from okay, but that's not the fault of the idea in and off itself. It's just that industries and other powerful interests have twisted it into being their tool, instead of serving the users and artists.