> No owner-controlled devices allowed [1]. This is actually a key point with respect to digital rights. When you analyse the debacle that put Jordan Peterson

> No owner-controlled devices allowed [1]. This is actually a key point with respect to digital rights. When you analyse the debacle that put Jordan Peterson in the spotlight it was not really about gender pronouns as such, but about compelled speech. Compelled anything is a problem. Compulsion removes responsibility. For example, I am currently not compelled to own a car, so I can make the choice to help the climate by walking. I am not compelled to own a television, as in Orwell's 1984, so I can select my own entertainment and news. What does this have to do with cybersecurity? Ownership and control are central to the psychological motivations that allow security to work at all. Let's ask the question, would you allow a stranger to dump their possessions in your lounge for a few weeks? No. You'd at least charge them rent for storage. Stuff that takes up your space, that you cannot use, and are responsible for is an encumbrance. Now let's say that a government or some cabal of tech-monopolists, begin forcing you to shoulder encumbrances that you must install in your home, or walk around carrying - physical devices that you do not own in any real sense. This is an imposition. An analogy that springs to mind is the US constitutional third amendment on the quartering of soldiers in private homes without the owner's consent [2]. With secure enclaves we are seeing a drift toward devices as both an encumbrance and imposition. Hardware one is compelled to use and take responsibility for, such as repair or charging batteries, which serves the interests of others (to track and identify you) is a cost without benefit, and has no future. Unless you physically attach it, like a prison tag, you can no more compel a person to carry an object than you can compel their speech. Unless the owner acts by volition, and chooses to take responsibility for an object in their own self-interest, various forms of sabotage are inevitable. I've seen this where workplaces have tried to push workers into carrying a "company smartphone". It gets "lost". It gets "broken". People lock them and then "forget" the password. Security solutions need the consent and cooperation of both subjects. Otherwise they are not "security", but simply means of control. At the very least we should stop dignifying them with the word "security". [1] "Owner-controlled" is already a tautology. Ownership implies control (and freedom to dispose of) and vice versa. Anything else is simply "in my possession" or "upon my person" as legal-people would say. [2] I never understood this seemingly ridiculous language about garrison of soldiers etc, but it increasingly makes sense to me as a catch all for any agent placed on my property. Hence I think that secure enclaves touch on 3rd amendment rights.