DRM is a technology and is inherently evil. Web attestation is DRM for the web, and is inherently evil. Age ID is a technology and is inherently evil.

We have over 30 years of the world wide web and for these more than 3 decades this was never a problem. Suddenly, we "need" to create new technology that seem to be security features, but are essentially just being used for evil, thus being inherently bad.

It's not like these technologies were created for the greater good and misappropriated by bad actors. They were proposed by bad actors in the first place, they cannot not be inherently good.

DRM is arguably a specific use of various generic technology ranging from whitebox cryptography to trusted computing.

I don't think remote attestation (or even more so its umbrella technology, trusted computing) is nearly as specifically targeted as DRM.

> We have over 30 years of the world wide web and for these more than 3 decades this was never a problem. Suddenly, we "need" to create new technology that seem to be security features, but are essentially just being used for evil, thus being inherently bad.

I agree that requiring remote attestation for generic web use is evil. It's way too heavy-handed an approach better reserved

I still don't think this somehow outright disqualifies the technology itself.

>We have over 30 years of the world wide web and for these more than 3 decades this was never a problem.

Are you seriously trying to suggest copyright infringement has not been an issue over the last 30 years? Both of them are solutions to problems that we've had over the last 30 years and were created for the greater good to solve problems that developers were facing.