For appliances as they're currently developed (completely locked down, firmware infrastructure owned and operated by the manufacturer), this definitely seems li

For appliances as they're currently developed (completely locked down, firmware infrastructure owned and operated by the manufacturer), this definitely seems like a good idea. I do think there's a fine line to walk between these devices and "general purpose computer"-type devices though, and I'd worry about this at least a little bit given the trend that appliance-type devices seem to be taking over the world (especially if you include phones). Separately, I do still want to see a UEFI-style secure boot architecture for appliances. An appliance can have a default mode where it only accepts firmware signed by the manufacturer. But then if a user wants to install their own key and load their own firmware (because the manufacturer has stopped supporting the device, has gone out of business, writes shitty firmware, or just to use hardware that they own in a different way), most devices should make this possible, and it would be interesting to think about what a legal requirement would look like here. A manufacturer could gate access via a configuration menu, or by cutting a trace/jumper or with a write protect screw like on Chromebooks. And you could have entire classes of devices where open access is explicitly not allowed, like medical devices. But smart speakers? Manufacturers should not be allowed to cryptographically guarantee that they become trash after two years.