The security issue you linked to was not something that provided the owner of the computer security but instead provides security for third-parties against the

The security issue you linked to was not something that provided the owner of the computer security but instead provides security for third-parties against the owner of the computer and their meddling notions of privacy or transparency. It is totally fine to make an argument for why they made a rational decision here, and you can even argue it has something to do with benefits to the user--though I am unsure I've ever heard of, say, a movie company banning computers from HQ video over stuff like this--but using the term "security" is disingenuous as like, I read your comment and seriously upvoted it as "sounds reasonable" until I decided to go and actually read about this fascinating exploit... and then I was all "oh :/".