4 ms·
Whatever the intent, the point stands: why would they need secure boot to do that? They could just do it with proprietary controls. So how does the existence of
by shawnz 2y ago
Whatever the intent, the point stands: why would they need secure boot to do that? They could just do it with proprietary controls. So how does the existence of secure boot as a user-controlled feature affect that risk?
- immibis 2y agoThe specific proprietary controls you're referring to are called "secure boot".
- shawnz 2y agoI think that is a uselessly reductive interpretation of what secure boot is because you could apply the same logic to any security technology. Why should we allow login passwords or user permissions or disk encryption, since those could be used as lock-out technologies by manufacturers, if they just ship them with defaults you can't control? Manufacturers don't need any user-facing standardized controls to implement lockouts. So the possibility of a feature being used as a lockout shouldn't be a justification for taking away the option of having a user-controlled security feature. Taking it away from users isn't going to stop manufacturers from doing it anyway with proprietary technologies instead.
- immibis 2y agoBecause manufacturers do use secure boot to prevent you changing your OS and don't use fingerprint recognition to prevent you selling your device to someone else. If they did the latter, that would also be bad, but they don't.