| ▲ | userbinator a day ago | |
but by and large provide what's known as "Trusted Computing Base". In other words, DRM. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Computing#Criticism (I knew from the beginning that this was known as the Palladium project, and until recently, a search for "Palladium TCG" would find plenty of information about that history, yet now references to that group and its origins in DRM have seemingly disappeared from Google. Make of that what you will...) | ||
| ▲ | cam_l a day ago | parent | next [-] | |
Are you saying that someone is using yugiyoh trading cards to cover up incriminating historical details of Microsoft's long term plan to purge general purpose computing from the world? https://www.tcgplayer.com/product/593140/yugioh-quarter-cent... Bizarre, I did find it on bing though.. | ||
| ▲ | perching_aix a day ago | parent | prev [-] | |
This should not be a surprise. Mechanistically enforced trust (like in trusted computing), and even better, mechanistically assured trust (like in verifiable computing), will be relied upon by anyone seeking trust. This means both consumers and producers, and anyone else in-between. If I want my device to be secure, I want this trust. If I want to sell a copy of my virtual asset to only be used in ways I approve of, I want this trust. You can't have only one of these at the same time, either your device can provide this trust or it cannot. That's not the battle in my view. The battle is to implement this appropriately, such that e.g. if we're representing access control, identity, and ownership, then that representation should match reality. So if I'm said to own a device, the device can and will attest so, and behave accordingly. It's just that instead of that, I'm always somehow just being loaned these things, only have some specified amount of control over these things, and am just a temporary user somehow. That's the issue. And that these systems are not reimplementable, and as such entitlements do not carry around. | ||