[robotresearcher]

Freedom from the consequences of malware is more valuable than the low cost of turning SecureBoot off if you don’t want it.

We shouldn’t need the hassle of locks on our home and car doors, but we understand they are probably worthwhile for most people.

[thisislife2]

Do you lock your house or car and permanently handover the keys to some stranger, who you then have to depend on always to lock or unlock it for you?

[dwattttt]

No? I have locks on my house and car that I have the keys for. That an argument _for_ secure boot.

[jrm4]

It is absolutely not.

It's a decent one for "locks on an apartment building that someone else owns."

But no, purchasing a house ought not include by default "a set of locks that you must work around, permission-wise."

[robotresearcher]

Funnily enough, when you buy a house, the first task is to change all the locks.

Y’know, for security.

[jrm4]

Sure. Now, of the people who buy houses -- how many of them would find this a difficult or onerous task?

And then, do computers.

Apples and oranges here, for this point.

[robotresearcher]

Cost me $500 recently. Not difficult, but costly.

[Spooky23]

Sorry dwattttt, I’m unable to verify your identity and your keys are disabled. If you have an issue, please fax a copy of your DUNS number.

[dwattttt]

You don't have the ability to revoke my keys on this machine, that's the point. Not even MS could do that, because these are _my_ keys. The alternative proposed here is no keys at all.

[aeternum]

What's the improved security argument for terminating VeraCrypt's account though? SB does have clear benefits but what is unclear is the motivation for the account termination.

What's the likelihood that this account ban provides zero security benefit to users and was instead a requirement from the gov because Veracrypt was too hard to crack/bypass.