Of course, Microsoft would say it's not about DRM (at least right now), it's for "security." Which... its secure as Microsoft's servers are, to be sure.
Therefore win 13 will be a theme for ubuntu packaged with a FOSS version of office. MS will award large weekly prizes for the most useful FOSS app extending the eco system. It will be sold on multi TB external drives that work like live USB only daisy chained. Weekly new releases cramped with so much free stuff every neck beard around the world must own all of them. A few movies, some music, a game or 2. Each comes with a poster, a t shirt and a book. Prices go up and down using RNG making some releases rare and hard to get.
Besides, at enterprise scale, how do you trust internal teams? It could all be security theater and they aren't delivering on their promises as well.
MS remote attestation doesn't require remote cloud or anything like that, I recall it supporting air-gapped environment from the start (guess why, the top-price enterprise clients want that, including resigning windows with their own secure boot keys).
Disclaimer: for various reasons open source remote attestation in corporate is currently on my roadmap at work
Some parts of it maybe do. Some others, like multiple different Azure teams, don't even think about anything resembling security, or there wouldn't have been multiple critical and trivially exploitable security vulnerabilities on Azure in the last year only. (If you don't know them, please read up on them. Security is hard, but in those cases nobody even pretended to try!)
And yes, there's nothing evil involved if they are owner controlled, something that honestly was heavily Microsoft pushed because they do have clients that insist on them - the DRM functionality in intel ME has keys controlled by broadcasting associations instead (this is why you can't stream HQ on Linux from official sources), same with part of why AMD PSP got some uncontrolled bits (the blackmail goes that if you don't do that, customers will quickly find they can't stream netflix/whatever in high quality on your hw and will stop buying it).
Personally I believe that owner-control of hw should be enshrined in law, just like right to repair and modify, along with laws against deceptive "looks and quacks like a sale, is actually a lease" practices
Have you seen OCP's Caliptra RoT, which requires OSS firmware, enforced by dual-signing of firmware by both OEM and owner? Currently for hyper-scalers, but this approach can be adopted by other enterprise customers, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9PlCm4tLb8. Attestation will be done to Caliptra, which can then release SoC boot ROM from reset.
Don't people listen when a guy like Pompeo speaks he has pretty much outlined the plan with his Clean Network Initiative, I wouldn't be surprised that within a decade CloudFlare and other US cloud services will be used as the great firewall of the western sphere.
A legislative piece of paper (or many pieces of paper) have the power to reign in corporations far far beyond any technical solution or workaround.
And yes, that requires limiting (intellectual) property rights and regulating what certain contracts can enforce. Sometimes it's needed if you ask me
In my experience this sentiment is rejected primarily by many technical people because it feels like adding the human factor to a pristine world of logic. In reality it's humans all the way down and there is no reason to believe that Microsoft/Apple is a better steward than an elected body of representatives acting according to the rule of law
Because the music/movie industry benefits from DRM and made agreements with the software and hardware industry.
Also NSA and the military complex benefit enormously from having control over hardware around the world.
I see tons of interesting comments flagged/dead within minutes. there are rarely controversial, or low-quality, or rule-breaking
there are plenty of topics you are only allowed to express a pre-approved opinion about, and I can't even give you examples without getting muted
Because if they don't add whatever garbage Microsoft orders them to include in their chips then Microsoft can simply require that shit for the next version of their OS to boot. They could even force an update on existing PCs to check for it. Nobody is going to buy a chip if having it means they can't run the OS that 99% of computers on the plant are using. If Intel dared to say no, MS could pretty much run them out of business.
Be careful to not forget the distinction between "being allowed to" and "being able to". There are documented cases of countries (including the USA) using violence against people even when they aren't the government where these people live.
Unless that latest chip is vastly superior to what we have today, almost nobody is going to care. Most people couldn't tell you which chip is in their computer right now. They don't even care what a processor is. They just want to be able to click on the little picture that makes facebook happen and they don't want to have to learn anything new to make that happen.
If every chip manufacturer refused, you're right that we'd be pretty safe, but the moment they can get just one chip manufacturer on board every OEM will buy those chips or go out of business. Intel was "evil inside" decades ago for a reason, so we knew how this was going to play out.
And you can pretty much guarantee that ~50% of the population will always consider that statement true, no matter the government of the day.
The managers who want remote attestation aren't the people implementing it. They either pay someone else to do it, or they pay someone else to do it. The difference between paying a third-party company and an employee is that employees are more expensive, because the costs aren't amortized over other customers who want the same stuff. Why would they be more trustworthy? Why would they be better at it? Why would it be any less likely to be hacked if you did it at your company than if you outsourced it?
Speculation, Zuckerberg, Musk read new-sites like this, can't bear their egos to be deflated. I don't think that's necessarily realistic, but I would suspect someone like that, personally.
However, interesting conversations are missed because of noise (e.g. down-votes) - I'm less likely to interact with a down-voted post, they usually are not as informative or interesting.
Proposed solution - abolish negative points entirely, points should be per-thread, not per user. If a user is causing frequent problems (frequently downvoted), per admin review then issue ban/rate limits, etc.
I view the positive/negative points mostly as a sentiment rating - if I receive downvotes I can tell my point is unpopular/uncontroversial, if not I know someone found it interesting. That does affect how I post in two ways:
I make more effort to expose common context for posts which are down-voted, people who are lazy and don't care won't read the expanded post, people who are more open-minded (the ones I want to attract and start conversations with) are more likely to come around to my viewpoint, or at least offer more interesting conversation (disagreement is necessary to have a discussion).
So I find both positive and negative votes to be useful, even on my own posts. Even the manner in which I've been down-voted recently tells me something, and it tells me valuable data about who has which opinions.