The full quote is: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety" Is the ability to run

The full quote is: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety" Is the ability to run an insecure bootloader on a system that has an installed OS with a security policy built around it not running insecure bootloaders an essential liberty? Let's say it is, for the sake of argument. Have you given up that freedom? Given that you can disable secure boot, or boot a live image and remove the SBAT entry, or boot an updated image and recover your existing install, I think it's hard to say that you've actually given it up. Is that security temporary? A well-maintained secure boot chain provides you long-term security against a variety of threats, so I don't think it's clearly temporary. It's fine to disagree, but please don't do so by pretending that a misquote is meaningful.