Computer security doesn’t have to be a binary state

Robert Atkins, on John Grubermissing the point” about the EFF’s “crystal prison” argument:

It’s a pity Richard Stallman is such a boor because he’s actually right about some things: if we aren’t vigilant, the general public will have its legal right to build and run arbitrary software on hardware they own eroded to the point where it’s impossible to do so legally.

What I think both John AND the EFF are missing is that this is not a black/white, either/or argument.

Chrome OS gets this right: you can’t install any executable on the machine at all, or tinker with the operating system in any way. It is, to all intents and purposes, arguably more locked down than iOS. Thanks to the inclusion of TPM, a Chromebook simply won’t run if so much as one byte of its OS code is changed.

But flip a hardware switch on the side, hidden behind a panel, and you have full access to everything. If you want to tinker, you can. But if you want a secure, safe machine you can have that, too.