But...it doesn't restrict user freedom. If the user wishes to do so, they can disable SB.

CodesInChaos 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

And will then be locked out from an increasing amount of Applications, Media, and eventually even Websites.

	▲	arcfour 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I run Linux with Secure Boot and I don't feel locked out of any media, applications, or websites. My mom uses Secure Boot with Windows and doesn't know or care that it's enabled at all.

▲

kelseyfrog 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

They shouldn't _have_ to do anything. The point is that no demands should be placed upon users.

Same problem with age gating. It's fine, as long as zero additional demands are placed upon users.

▲

UrMomsRobotLovr 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Are the demands that users become experts in provider their own security against more advanced actors not significantly worse? The control part is unfortunate but the defaults should make it so users can focus on sharing pictures of cats without fear or need for advanced cyber security knowledge.

▲

robotresearcher 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Freedom from the consequences of malware is more valuable than the low cost of turning SecureBoot off if you don’t want it.

We shouldn’t need the hassle of locks on our home and car doors, but we understand they are probably worthwhile for most people.

▲

thisislife2 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Do you lock your house or car and permanently handover the keys to some stranger, who you then have to depend on always to lock or unlock it for you?

▲

dwattttt 2 hours ago | parent [-]

No? I have locks on my house and car that I have the keys for. That an argument _for_ secure boot.

▲

Spooky23 37 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Sorry dwattttt, I’m unable to verify your identity and your keys are disabled. If you have an issue, please fax a copy of your DUNS number.

▲

jrm4 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

It is absolutely not.

It's a decent one for "locks on an apartment building that someone else owns."

But no, purchasing a house ought not include by default "a set of locks that you must work around, permission-wise."

	▲	robotresearcher an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Funnily enough, when you buy a house, the first task is to change all the locks. Y’know, for security.

▲

aeternum 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

What's the improved security argument for terminating VeraCrypt's account though? SB does have clear benefits but what is unclear is the motivation for the account termination.

What's the likelihood that this account ban provides zero security benefit to users and was instead a requirement from the gov because Veracrypt was too hard to crack/bypass.

▲

bigfatkitten 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Users who care enough to do so can enrol their own keys using the extremely well documented process to do that.

Users who don’t care about the runtime integrity of their machine can just turn it off.

Both options are so easy that you could’ve learned how to do them on your machine in the time that you spent posting misinformation in this thread.