On 2026-03-05 08:22, Stephen Wiley wrote: > What and selling CPUs/firmware with writable boot keys will be > contraband like some sort of cyberpunk novel?
assuming this is satire, but the pattern we've seen over and over is much more boring, and more effective: you make the open configuration non‑compliant for market devices, then the market shifts accordingly. > Worst case this makes a mess but the practical reality is there's no way > to actually make it work. you’re right that practical enforcement would be a mess. they can’t lock down every CPU, microcontroller, or dev board. that’s not the part i’m worried about. what worries me happens once lawmakers figure out it can be bypassed at the OS level, the natural pressure likely goes downward into layers they are able to control. again, it is just age verification, but if this trend keeps going the way it is, they might take further measures to shift the burden onto hardware vendors, because that's the most likely the only place they can get predictable compliance. and that's the part that worries me: regulators don't need perfect enforcement to reshape the market; they just need to make OEMs liable for "allowing circumvention," then the easiest path for vendors is to lock down hardware/firmware. we've already seen this pattern with DRM and mobile bootloaders. these still ended up making open hardware/software the exception rather than the default. again we've seen movements like FOSS, or Right to Repair push things the other way, so it's not like the trajectory is predetermined but it's still worrisome. but yeah again as of now this law has no threat against openbsd. it's what happens after which is important. -ben
