[qczfawlvcgt]

> The point is that you can't trust anything on the disk.

But the disk is where my choice of software lives. I trust my choice of software, by definition. I don't want to be removed from that equation any more than I want someone else sleeping with my wife.

If I don't trust my (current) on-disk bootloader, the appropriate thing to do is clean it and put something I do trust in its place. If I wake up hearing a noise, I check my house for intruders - I don't lock myself out and throw away the keys.

The reality is that any chain of trust has to start somewhere. It should start in the place I have the most control: on physically-removable, writable media.

[nikbackm]

> It should start in the place I have the most control: on physically-removable, writable media.

Same goes for malware on most PC operating systems does it not? How can you know the disk has not been silently compromised?

[qczfawlvcgt]

I don't, but if I am in doubt, I can replace the disk. The alternative is worse - I have to replace the whole system. It is fascinating to watch such subtle abuses of language ploddingly erode our free(ish) societies from the inside out, when secure is obviously "newspeak" for centralized. Even technologically-literate people are clearly willing to buy the logic that "well, you might get an STD by having sex... therefore, let this small group of condom manufactures move in and have sex with your wife, in your place, for your protection."

We can't outsource confidence. It doesn't help improve my self-esteem to watch someone else live my life, and it doesn't work to fight "the terrorists" to let someone else make me safe (for some definition of "safe", that I can seemingly no longer contribute to) - but that all seems to be beside the point. :(