3 ms·

Every security threat is a path to freedom: Security means you have a treasure, an attacker and a defender. In this case, the treasure is data inside the pro

Every security threat is a path to freedom: Security means you have a treasure, an attacker and a defender. In this case, the treasure is data inside the processor, the attacker is the current owner, the defender is a vague group of hollywood, previous owners, intel, governements, etc... Freedom means the owner (laptop thief) can steal the data from the previous owner (victim). Freedom means the owner can steal movies from hollywood. Freedom means Linus could create an OS without the blessing of Microsoft, etc... The problem is it is everything or nothing. So if you're a victim of theft, you want security. If you're pirating, you want freedom. If you want to clone the DVD your toddler keeps watching and destroying, you also want freedom. If you want to fully use all capabilities of your device, you want freedom.

necheffa 5y ago
This is an incredibly one dimensional view. There is "owner" in the sense of "who currently physically possesses it" and "owner" as in "rightfully, legally belonging to regardless of current physical location". Freedom in the OP context means we actually own the things we buy rather than existing in a total corporate oligarchy were we only ever lease the temporary right to use a product but never actually own it in the legal sense.
- hyperman1 5y ago
  You're correct there. The problem is that technology can't think in shades of gray. A TPM can only have an incredibly one dimensional view. Take your own example of "owner" as in "rightfully, legally". There can be a huge difference between rightfully and legally. Think about all the things western nations took away legally from 'their' colonies. Or the completely legal civil forfeiture procedures in the US. Plenty of multidimensional trouble just by putting the word rightful after legal. I want to actually own my hardware, hack mu hardware, and I would love to see things like TPMs and DRM and locked phones banished from this planet, even if this encourages some people to steal hardware. But plenty of corporations love bitlocker and love to trade away the useless hackability of hardware. And after talking for a few scary minutes with a movie exec, I got the impression they see computers as nothing more but theft machines and the current copyright enforcement mechanisms as way to inadequate.

necheffa 5y ago

This is an incredibly one dimensional view. There is "owner" in the sense of "who currently physically possesses it" and "owner" as in "rightfully, legally belonging to regardless of current physical location". Freedom in the OP context means we actually own the things we buy rather than existing in a total corporate oligarchy were we only ever lease the temporary right to use a product but never actually own it in the legal sense.

hyperman1 5y ago
You're correct there. The problem is that technology can't think in shades of gray. A TPM can only have an incredibly one dimensional view. Take your own example of "owner" as in "rightfully, legally". There can be a huge difference between rightfully and legally. Think about all the things western nations took away legally from 'their' colonies. Or the completely legal civil forfeiture procedures in the US. Plenty of multidimensional trouble just by putting the word rightful after legal. I want to actually own my hardware, hack mu hardware, and I would love to see things like TPMs and DRM and locked phones banished from this planet, even if this encourages some people to steal hardware. But plenty of corporations love bitlocker and love to trade away the useless hackability of hardware. And after talking for a few scary minutes with a movie exec, I got the impression they see computers as nothing more but theft machines and the current copyright enforcement mechanisms as way to inadequate.