> There is nothing about even the hardware-enforced security on premium Intel chipsets that forces you to use them Try running a company which sells modded gam

> There is nothing about even the hardware-enforced security on premium Intel chipsets that forces you to use them Try running a company which sells modded game consoles and see how long you last. That's exactly what Treacherous Computing advocates have in mind for PCs. > There is a limit to how secure you can make a modern PC without hardware support for security You have bought into the Big Lie of treacherous computing. None of it has anything to do with protecting you against what most people would recognize as malware. That would require writing robust and non-porous operating systems - an option which simply isn't on the table. The "malware" you will be protected against is, for instance: DVD rippers; P2P clients; TOR clients; and, eventually, compilers (for with an unrestricted compiler one might create any of the above.) > any hardware support that protects your machine can also be opted in to protect the interests of someone else Can I lock you in your house using the lock presently installed in your front door? How about the one in your car? Every security technology has a clearly delineated "outside" and "inside." The "outside" is where the keyed side of the lock faces. Another "outside" of this kind is the inside of a cage. Treacherous computing leaves users on the outside, no doubt about it. And the "keys" are in the hands of people who would like to dictate which bits in the machines you bought and paid for you are allowed to view or flip. I ought to point out that I believe that evil will triumph. We shall almost certainly lose general-purpose computing - in the none-too-distant future - in no small part thanks to people like yourself.