decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Does "Secure Boot" make used computers worthless? | 124 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
FSFE welcomes German Government's White Paper on "Secure Boot"
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 22 2012 @ 07:48 AM EST
"me and you may have no choice about what is available in the market"

We do have control over what's avalable on the market. See Linux and Stallman
for how.

That sort of consumer attitude is one of the problems with the world.

If not you, then who?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Does "Secure Boot" make used computers worthless?
Authored by: FreeChief on Thursday, November 22 2012 @ 12:04 PM EST
It's a lesser evil if the initial purchaser has control of the computer, but it doesn't solve the problem.

I am sending this comment from a second-hand IBM Thinkpad that came without any manuals, and with pass-word protected MS Windows installed. (Children had been playing with it. It had been in the rain. The person who gave it to me thought it was trash and did not know the password.) It would have been completely useless if I had not been able to wipe the disk and install GNU/Linux.

Will this be impossible in the future?

Will good hardware become toxic landfill just so it doesn't cut into the software monopoly? Granted, not many computers are found in the weeds, but the second-hand market is non-trivial. Many churches and non-profit organizations get computers that way.

 — Programmer in Chief

PS: IBM makes durable hardware. I'm impressed.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

I'm curious how you understand the wording....
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 22 2012 @ 12:32 PM EST

The quote you provide from the article where you say it does not include the key demand:

...FSFE strongly recommends to exclusively purchase IT devices which grant their owners full, sole and permanent control over security subsystems...
Bolding mine. The white paper quote you provided says:
"device owners must be in complete control of (able to manage and monitor) all the trusted computing security systems of their devices."
Bolding mine again.

I understand the first talking about the concept that the owners must have full control over the computing device they purchased. I understand the second quote expressing the same concept.

I'm curious how you see them as not expressing the same concept:

However, that specific "key demand" is not mentioned in the second article

RAS

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )