2 ms·

Huh, good point. I wonder how that would be fixable too.

• mindslight 4y ago
  Does it need to be? I'm a staunch supporter of libre software, but I don't see the harm.
  • mschuster91 4y ago
    > I'm a staunch supporter of libre software, but I don't see the harm. The harm is we're still perpetuating DRM crap. The music industry has accepted that Spotify's DRM can be trivially broken and completely given up trying to police BitTorrent... it's time for the movie industry to realize the same. Sadly, Netflix failed to get enough dominance to bend over and cane the movie industry into submission, and regulatory agencies worldwide just accepted happily that movie studios went all-in on vertical integration again.
    • mindslight 4y ago
      The concept of DRM was initially created on general purpose open computers. No TPM, no code signing, no remote attestation. Just plain old proprietary software running on open systems was enough to create something with DRM functionality, and put blood in the water for the control freaks. Having a device be able to store and use secure keying material that cannot be read back out seems like a very useful basic property. A basic property which directly implies being able to store keys for decrypting media content, thus making for a better DRM scheme than could be achieved with a fully-debugger-able processor. Of course, I could missing a way that this property could tweaked to neutralize some of its downsides - akin to how my original comment laid out slight modifications to the usual TPM/SE requirements that would prevent much abuse of TPMs/SEs by centralizing entities.
• cryptonector 4y ago
  It can't be "fixed" with technology. It's a matter of market power, and maybe legislation.
  • EMIRELADERO 4y ago
    The fix would be to make "persons who choose to gain full control and code execution of the device" a protected class.