Another month, another Intel vulnerability

pluush

@TimboJones said:

@pluush said:

@TimboJones said:

@naing said:

@TimboJones said:

@naing said:

@TimboJones said:

@naing said:

@pike said:
Intel CPUs can defeat DRM encryption isn't even bad news for me.

This. The shitload of "security features" (i.e., glorified DRM systems) embedded in hardware nowadays are not-so-subtle ways to deprive the owner of control and therefore freedom.

You've got that backwards. The owner is the content creator. You come from entitlement that you should have access to any and all information, so far as to remove the control the content creator has and should have. It's fucking leeching. The DRM content owners do not wish you to have it unless you agree to purchase it under certain terms. Don't like it? Don't fucking buy or pirate it and you'll never have to worry about DRM capabilities of your owned processor that you want ultimate control over.

Content creators should not have any control over my computer. Book publishers (real books, not e-books) have no means to prevent the reader from making millions of copies of the book, is that fucking leeching, too?

Wait, have you not heard of copyrights?

Apparently my point here is that there are laws that protect copyrights, and that copyright worked fine without technological restrictions (as in real books), and there is no clear evidence that copyright is better protected with DRM (as the analog loophole is always an easy way out).

No, that wasn't your point, or else you'd see how a technological solution is needed in this technology age. And you'd have to be seriously dense to say "there is no clear evidence that copyright is better protected with DRM". Billion dollars industries and companies beg to differ.

TimboJones said: Don't buy the CPU, then. No one forced you. You're trying to control what others do without offering a solution.

My solution is legal, not technological. Boycotting is one solution, but "trying to control what others do" is important, too. Because like you said, they "put DRM because it is wanted", because people who "want content" and who "want to sell that content" tried, and managed to "control what others do", not because they all boycotted good old DRM-free CPUs.

No, obtaining content and removing protection without permission is not legal. You come across as a 16 year old kid who has yet to become an adult and live in the real world instead of fantasy. When you get older, you'll realize as a society, we need rules, regulations and protections for health, safety, and just to make things work better. There's "anti-features that restrict the owner from controlling the computer" in every day appliances and devices around you all the time for your benefit. It's a common place thing, get used to having controls on hardware and software you've purchased.

Your comment sounds like you would also justify Apple’s walled garden smh.

I don't use Apple products, I find them restrictive, but I understand why people use them and I understand why an embedded device connected to the Internet and operated by the masses requires a walled garden.

That’s the point. I use them, but it’s okay for someone to hate the walled garden. I can understand them. You find Apple walled garden restrictive, some find DRM restrictive, so hating DRM is understandable.

P.S. I use an iPhone.

Which has a shitload of DRM by a company long behind DRM measures. What is your point?

See above.

P.P.S. Everyone can have their own opinion. It’s funny you try to force yours on them.

Forced? I didn't realize anyone was being forced to visit and read LET posts Clockwork Orange style.

Not my point. I was just saying you should probably accept that some people are going to hate DRM. And some just for reasons you find Apple devices too restrictive. People like you avoid Apple devices. So some people are also going to avoid DRM, since some of them are highly restrictive and invasive.