> that might (it's pure speculation) contain a backdoor
Maybe, just maybe we have come to the point in time that unless a system has been shown to be secure, it should be assumed to be wiretaping the user. We can no longer assume secure until proven insecure.
Absolutely. This is what the reputational damage to american firms like Microsoft looks like. Why the hell should their systems be trusted now?
>Maybe, just maybe we have come to the point in time that unless a system has been shown to be secure, it should be assumed to be wiretaping the user. We can no longer assume secure until proven insecure.
I 100% agree. But I really fail to see how this makes Windows 8 a worse operating system in that regards than its predecessors. A system that provides no trusted computing support is equally easily hacked by the NSA as is a system that does support trusted computing. The latter does have the benefit of making hacking significantly more difficult for everybody but the NSA, so I would say it's still a net positive and not a huge negative which the article makes it out to be.
Security-wise only of course. I hate the idea of losing control over the hardware I purchased and I will resist as long as humanly possible installing a system that removes this kind of control from me. It just has _nothing_ to do with NSA spying and everything with corporate control of the OS maker.
If a system has engineered access for government investigators, then that system is more vulnerable than systems which have no such access built in, because it really isn't "hacking" (cracking) if the system is built to allow access.