On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, Jean-Christian de Rivaz wrote:
ksi@koi8.net a ?crit :
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Wednesday 24 June 2009 20:59:11 Richard Stallman wrote:
The principal purpose of these products is to restrict the
public's
freedom. So it is natural that their means involve restricting
our
freedom too.
it sure is nice to make generalities as it makes your resulting
argument
so much easier to digest. the companies ive worked with could give
two
sh*ts about end customers tinkering with their products. they're interested in keeping their product secure from other people in their
respective
industry and from malicious tampering for regulation/safety
purposes.
I would like to add that sometimes regulations EXPLICITELY require
secure
boot. No product can be approved without it. And this does not have
anything
to do with public's freedom. Just one example is gambling industry
which I
happen to work right now. Nobody cares about cloning or public's
freedom
here. What they care about is that nobody can cheat on those nice
shiny
machines that sometimes let a lucky person to win a multimillion
jackpot.
Please point out precisely the regulations that require secure boot. Should be trivial as regulations are by definition public.
Do you happen to know what "Google" is?
This is our Nevada regulations:
http://gaming.nv.gov/stats_regs.htm
I failed to understand how a secure booted machine can be updated by the manufacturer to fix a bug for example, but not by a customer.
The manufacturer can _NOT_ update his machine at will. _EACH AND EVERY_ change goes through the same approval process.
And one more hint--external hackers is _NOT_ the primary concern here. The most important task is to make cheating by casino _EMPLOYEES_ as difficult as it's possible.
--- ****************************************************************** * KSI@home KOI8 Net < > The impossible we do immediately. * * Las Vegas NV, USA < > Miracles require 24-hour notice. * ******************************************************************