Comment by PunchyHamster

> People demonize attestation. They should keep in mind that far from enslaving users, attestation actually enables some interesting, user-beneficial software shapes that wouldn't be possible otherwise. Hear me out.

But it won't be used like that. It will be used to take user freedoms out.

> But why would the author of S agree to let you run it? S might contain secrets. S might enforce business rules S's author is afraid you'll break. Ordinarily, S's authors wouldn't consider shipping you S instead of S's outputs.

That use case you're describing is already there and is currently being done with DRM, either in browser or in app itself.

You are right in the "it will make easier for app user to do it", and in theory it is still better option in video games than kernel anti-cheat. But it is still limiting user freedoms.

> Yes, bad actors can use attestation technology to do all sorts of user-hostile things. You can wield any sufficiently useful tool in a harmful way: it's the utility itself that creates the potential for harm. This potential shouldn't prevent our inventing new kinds of tool.

Majority of the uses will be user-hostile things. Because those are only cases where someone will decide to fund it.