It can attest to changes in the code run on the device, potentially preventing "secret" modification to that code.
But devices with practically unmodifiable boot code (at least for the average Joe) have been sold for decades (and I still had a lot of fun with our C64). And it didn't mean that customizable & modifiable systems became a thing of the past. There will no doubt always be a market for them, so someone will always make them.
But what about the potential for trusted computing to reduce the amount of loss of private data that goes on? Where's the knee-jerk reaction from the masses demanding that organisations that store our private data can remotely attest to their system's security?
How many innocent Grandmas are really happy about the fact that their PC is actually controlled by a Russian crime syndicate and that all their "personal" data actually isn't?
Like most technology it can be used for both "good" and (for those that expect to be able to modify their systems without telling others) "evil" (in that it can prevent that).
Generally with such technology, although their may be some hiccups along the way, common sense generally prevails in the end. I like Google's use of "optional" trusted computing on Chrome OS - to me the it's the best of both worlds.
Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds