> The societal downsides from abuse of remote attestation - eg computational disenfranchisement of end users - far outweigh any claimed benefits.
Your new comment is basically re-iterating this sentence I quoted from the old one.
I'm not sure, if I outright agree; but I do see the point and was not arguing against it.
It is indeed worrying!
> Or you can just run security-critical code on your own hardware on your own premises, as has been and will always be the answer for strong security.
My comment was arguing against this part of your original comment. On-premises doesn't have to be more secure; and it misses out on some gains from division of labour and specialisation.
Your new comment is basically re-iterating this sentence I quoted from the old one.
I'm not sure, if I outright agree; but I do see the point and was not arguing against it.
It is indeed worrying!
> Or you can just run security-critical code on your own hardware on your own premises, as has been and will always be the answer for strong security.
My comment was arguing against this part of your original comment. On-premises doesn't have to be more secure; and it misses out on some gains from division of labour and specialisation.