blah blah blah. Canada != California.
On Thu, Mar 5, 2026 at 2:17 AM jslee <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 5 Mar 2026, at 11:57, Kevin wrote:
> > California != Canada
> >
> > The end.
>
> A rather myopic post, IMO.
>
> Firstly, regarding the most likely enforcement mechanism:
>
> Have you forgotten (or were you not around for) the “Trusted Computing” and
> “Secure Boot” saga?
>
> Don’t be so quick to believe that you’ll always be able to turn it off/work
> around restrictions of what boot images your computer will allow.
>
> Secondly, regarding “it’s just California”, and trying to not be too
> political here: have you not noticed the multiple waves of nations
> implementing eerily similar legislation at around the same time?
>
> Eg. age verification for social media, or requiring[1] platform vendors like
> Apple to provide backdoors when requested.
>
> It may well be only California now, but don’t expect that to remain true for
> very long. And if it’s enforced via the “trusted” platform stuff, how do you
> expect the motherboard manufacturers to respond? SKUs per variant of the
> laws? Sounds unwieldy and inefficient and expensive
>
> I do fervently hope it ends up being a storm in teacup, as the saying goes,
> but I’m not feeling particularly confident about it.
>
> [1] see “assistance and access” legislation in Australia and equivalents in
> quite a few other nations
>
> John
