Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

It's been like that since the beginning of "Trusted Computing" --- it was originally for DRM. Only within the last decade(!) has it been advocated strongly as a security feature, and my belief is that the companies (and the government) have realised that security paranoia is a powerful tool of control. Unfortunately most people won't question anything if it's "for security".

I don't think open-source is really all that important, and the article is being very misleading in that respect; in fact, if we don't have the keys, all that being open-source does is to allow us to easily see how they're oppressing us. (Of course, there's also the Ken Thompson Hack --- inspecting the binary is the real way to determine if there's anything unusual.)

This is a related article which everyone interested in this topic should read: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html






I long back to the days when we said security is compromised when a adversary had physical access and that zero point many zero's 1 dollar jumper physically setting things to read only works just fine. Today I primarily don't trust my systems because of the manufacturers seeing me -the owner- as the #1 security risk and favoring corporate interest over client interest.

Even inspecting the binary doesn't prove anything in general. Halting problem...



Applications are open for YC Summer 2020

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: