AMD, Google, Microsoft and Nvidia announce Caliptra Root-of-Trust Alliance – Computer – News

Of course you can’t. This entire system is not meant to give you more confidence in your computer. This sounds like a new version of “Trusted Computing”. And by “trust” they don’t mean here that you can trust your computer, but that third parties can trust your computer not to do things they don’t want them to do. Think about content creators, software developers, etc., who want to stop you from copying something. This complete “trust” is actually the opposite of trust for you as a user. You can actually trust your computer less because it gets more capabilities to protect you than you do. The deeper and more integrated the layers are, the less you can trust that your computer is still yours and not working against your interests in the background. Why do you think MS increasingly insists that a TPM chip is a requirement for newer versions of Windows, but a Linux distro doesn’t care if you have one or not? MS has something to protect you against, Linux lets you do whatever you want.

So the question is really: Do you trust companies to represent your interests or theirs? In the latter case, I suppose they would like to offer these types of systems to DRM makers (audio/video, games, etc.), governments, and all other parties that have an interest in having some control over computer acquisition.

The article above looks like they want to extend the TPM from a user space system to something that uses the hardware itself to make sure you haven’t messed with it. Nice if you sometimes mess around with your computer. It sounds a bit Apple-esque, but out of the PC world. At least I know I don’t want a computer with this kind of junk file. Saying things about open source is a joke. Trusted computing and open source do not mix, so these are two simple things to counteract criticism. If you compile it yourself and somehow overwrite your firmware on your system, you won’t have a signing key from one of these US multinationals and then your device will be rejected by soc. Basically it’s the same way the Ubuntu kernel must be signed by Microsoft in order to run on a PC with Secure Boot enabled. They thus become the gatekeeper of the devices and no one will be able to make more devices without their permission, since this device does not have a valid signature from Big Tech.

See also  Bored Of Safari? Here Are 4 Cool Browsers You Can Switch To

Computers have become less and less fun over the years. More and more focus on the control of companies, less freedom for the user…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *