Trusted Computing? Yes or No

It's really simple. Trust is a mutual relation. I.e. since DRM always views users as potential criminals, it's natural always to view DRM as potential malware (and thus a security threat). Here it's put in easy to understand terms: [this video] Practice proves that point spectacularly, because DRM always has an overreaching unethical nature (since it's an overreaching preemptive policing which uses the logic of presumption of guilt). As the Sony exec voiced the core idea behind DRM: > We will develop technology that transcends the individual user. We will firewall Napster at source - we will block it at your cable company. We will block it at your phone company. We will block it at your ISP. We will firewall it at your PC... These strategies are being aggressively pursued because there is simply too much at stake. (See [link] ). I.e. overreaching nature of DRM straight from the DRM proponents mouth. And it applies to all DRM by its very definition.

> "Digital Rights Management" -- you know, words mean something. They mean what they were designed for. And that is excessive preemptive policing. About "trusted execution" you are wrong. Original meaning of trusted execution is exactly about security, not about DRM. Actual usage of that term is more than often happens to be about DRM (which is conflicting with security actually, because DRM can be viewed as a security risk). See [this video] If you constantly mix up security, authentication, trusted execution with DRM, I think you should consider your own level of knowing what you are talking about. I explained everything above.