zlacker

>>gjsman+(OP)
nowadays 98% of things implying "security" are actually unwanted products, protections for "the other side" or trivial distortions of reality where, conveyed by "security" itself, the user himself becomes the product

- no, I don't need protections for the side channel, I never asked for them

- no, I don't need a unique identifier, who is the demented person who asked you for it

- no, I am not going to glitch the power supply, and even if I did it means I am interested in doing it and wish it worked instead I was prevented from doing it

- no, I don't care at all about having a hw store for certificates, which are ephemeral and dropped from above anyway so what am I supposed to trust?

- and so on

"not secure by design" nowadays comes close to being a coveted feature

>>__void+wk
Could not agree more. Security only means control. I don't want security. I don't even want safety. I have never cared about either, and I'm now too old to die young, so I'm not afraid.

> "not secure by design" nowadays comes close to being a coveted feature

That's a huge market opportunity. I would buy "insecure" products over secure ones every time.

>>bambax+xt1
Ah, but it won't work on the internet once ISPs are forced to use remote attestation to prove you're using a government approved device.