zlacker

>>jakobd+(OP)
That's wrong on so many levels, I don't know even where to start.

First of all I hate this "proposals" which is actually, "we implemented this in our flagship product, and kindly force it on our users, you don't have to use it, if you have a choice", stance.

Then comes all the "ensuring they aren't a robot and that the browser hasn't been modified or tampered with in any unapproved ways." part. I'm using an open source browser which is not Chromium based (i.e. Firefox). I can modify and recompile the way I want it. I can use links/elinks/lynx/dillo if I want (and I use them, too). Who do you think you are, and how come dictate my software I use on my own computer?

It's 90s DRM wave all over again. Constant attacks towards open software, open platforms, open protocols.

It's maddening and saddening at the same time.

>>bayind+2e1
> It's 90s DRM wave all over again.

Except in the 90s you controlled 100% of the code running on your computer. Now there are all kinds of treacherous computing with all those "trusted" execution environments and TPMs and all the other bullshit that can't be avoided, with someone else's public keys burned into the silicon.

>>grishk+by1
You can still control the code running on your computer. But the websites you send http requests to don’t have to respond.

>>judge2+DE1
You can't. On most modern systems there is software that runs with privileges above your OS kernel that you can't remove or modify because it is signed with the manufacturer's key. The key is part of a "trusted" boot chain. The root of trust is usually burned into the silicon in the fuses or the initial bootloader (boot ROM).

TEE on Android, for example. Intel ME on PCs, and probably TPMs also have a firmware of their own. Secure Enclave on Apple devices.

There's an outstandingly good perspective on the issue in another thread: >>36859465

>>grishk+UF1
But you can still get computers that have none of that stuff, or where it can be disabled.

>>JohnFe+QV2
Can you give me an example?

A computer without TPM, a "management engine", an Ethernet card with real Firmware in a real ROM, no platform controller, nothing.

...and a completely open BIOS w/o any binary blobs, and UEFI layer.

Almost a 486DX, almost.

>>bayind+393
I don't have the models memorized and I'm not at home to check, but I recently bought four towers that don't have TPM or a management engine and allow you to disable UEFI. They're not new, true, but they're certainly not 486 level.

> an Ethernet card with real Firmware in a real ROM, no platform controller, nothing. ...and a completely open BIOS w/o any binary blobs

None of which I was talking about. But I am pretty sure that with any motherboard, you can disable onboard Ethernet and install whatever adapter you want instead.