zlacker

>>gjsman+(OP)
I'm completely missing how his example of a Word document that can only be opened by approved users on approved hardware within the corporation is supposed to be a bad thing.

Honestly, that sounds pretty fantastic. I've been using 3rd party tools/extensions to do this sort of thing in corporate and government environments for years, but having the attestation go all the way down to the hardware level is a big value-add, especially with so much ransomware/spyware/extortion/espionage going on these days.

Can someone please explain to me how the author might see this level of security as a bad thing?

>>Gh0stR+eg
What you can install on YOUR pc will be at the sole mercy of microsoft/or maybe someone else.... That's the cusp of it. Not that it can be used for good, but that it sets the way for heavy misuse by large corporations.

Wait a few years. Smaller companies won't even be allowed to order high end cpu's. You'll be at 100% mercy of these corporations.

If after 2 years they decide to brick your pc, they'll just do it. You think government will help you out here? Lol...

>>ftyhbh+Ih
Secure chips like this are already in all devices but PCs. And in none of these areas has any of that happened. Quite the opposite, Apple got a fine when they slowed down older devices to save battery (at least what they said).

So the government will clearly help out here. And none of these companies has an incentives to stop sales to smaller companies, they make a lot of money with those.

>>dx034+QK
> Secure chips like this are already in all devices but PCs. And in none of these areas has any of that happened.

Ah, that must be why we all have root access and can freely modify or install anything we want on every device we own! Oh, wait, we don't have those things and our non-PC systems are increasingly locked down and routinely do things against the wishes of the people who own them.