zlacker

I actually don't understand it well. What does it mean? I can't browse the web from xubuntu any more? I believe it's scary, but can't seem to actually sell myself on that.

If it's so bad, why can't we bring a monopoly lawsuit against them over chrome/chromium? This is pretty similar to what Microsoft did, isn't it?

>>boppo1+(OP)
The problem with remote attestation is that there's no bound to exactly how bad it could become. If you can get enough of the internet on browsers that support remote attestation, to the point where it's an acceptable loss to simply reject anyone who does not have a browser that does support remote attestation, you can theoretically assert full control over the end user.

What will actually happen? Nobody knows for sure. The most likely outcome is that you will not be able to do banking, watch Twitch streams, etc. on anything other than Chrome, Firefox and Edge, on Windows and macOS. Linux will probably be relegated to the legacy web that does not enforce remote attestation. Alternate browsers like Librewolf, Brave and Mullvad Browser will just disappear as if they never existed. You can not browse Tor on clearnet websites anymore, as if you really could anyways. Etc, etc.

> If it's so bad, why can't we bring a monopoly lawsuit against them over chrome/chromium? This is pretty similar to what Microsoft did, isn't it?

Microsoft of today is doing things blatantly in the open, that Microsoft of 199x would never dream of doing. The difference now is that all of the major computer manufacturers are basically going the same way, just at different rates.

The legal system is not coming to rescue us.