3 ms·
This sort of of statement is one I made back in the lates 90s and early 00s. As an absolute statement it was wrong and still is wrong, and I think the enthusias
by xoa 7y ago
This sort of of statement is one I made back in the lates 90s and early 00s. As an absolute statement it was wrong and still is wrong, and I think the enthusiast tech community's adoption of it has done a huge amount of harm. We reflexively opposed things like TPMs at all, rather then recognizing that the real question is who controls putting keys there. It would have been (and still would be) better to fight to make sure the standard is that the end people in charge of the device have the right to control the master keys on it. By going for a blanket "no chains of trust at all" we gave up a lot of useful capabilities and left the door open for companies to come in making use of them but with unpleasant and unnecessary extras tacked on.
- shmerl 7y agoTPM itself is neutral of course. Devices which are locked out from the user to control are already not. So when I refer to DRM, I refer to the later. Users should have the ability to break and remove DRM, that's the point of "right to repair".
- _emacsomancer_ 7y ago> This sort of of statement is one I made back in the lates 90s and early 00s. As an absolute statement it was wrong and still is wrong, and I think the enthusiast tech community's adoption of it has done a huge amount of harm. It's absolutely a correct statement from a user perspective.