zlacker

>>gjsman+(OP)
The problem isn't the capability of remote attestation. The problem is who's using it, i.e. who's defining what "security" means. As noted above, for a company, "security" often means intentionally inhibiting my freedom, not actually securing anything I care about.

We would benefit from a better public discussion of what "security" encompasses. Else, we risk conflating "what MS wants me to do with my computer" with "preventing hackers from stealing my credit card number".

Imagine a world where you could submit personal information to a company, with the technological assurance that this information would not leave that company... and you could verify this with remote attestation of the software running on that company's servers.

>>alexhs+ne
Imagine a world where you could submit personal information to a company, with the technological assurance that this information would not leave that company... and you could verify this with remote attestation of the software running on that company's servers.

That's a classic "road to hell paved with good intentions". The approaching reality is more like:

Imagine a world where to be allowed to use the Internet you will be mandated to run certain software, which reports your personal information to a company you are obligated to use, and whose use of that information is absolutely something you do not want.

Yes, the problem is indeed "who's using it". Unfortunately you aren't going to be able to decide either, and it will certainly be used against you.