Comment by charcircuit
18 hours ago
>You say this as if the user is a guest on your machine and not the other way around.
The user is a guest on someone else's network though. You may be a guest to Netflix and they require you to prove your machine is secure for them to provide you 1080p video. You are free to do whatever you want with your own machine, but Netflix may not want to give you 1080p video files if they don't trust your machine.
>When some remote party has placed countermeasures against how you want to use your computer, that's the opposite of security. That's malware.
I think it's fair to have computers that allow you to disable integrity protections and do whatever you want. You just shouldn't be able to attest that your system is running 1 set of software when in reality it's running something else. It's fraud.
No it's still my network that I'm on. I don't have to be a good neighbor because I also own all the adjacent hardware.
There's already a body of laws that incentivize against violating copyright. It lunacy to stack on additional ones in service of the same goal. That's like saying that it's both illegal to speed, and it's also illegal to tell your friends that you'll be there in 15 minutes when you'd have to speed to get there sooner than 20, whether or not you actually do the speeding.
Devices are not legal persons, they can't sign contracts on your behalf, nor can they commit fraud on your behalf. If a bogus is attestation is necessary in service of interoperability, that's a technical detail not a legal one. If what you want is copyright enforcement, focus on the crime not the circumstance under which a such a crime is possible.