> "Trust" is always used in "Root of trust" and "Trustworthy computing" to mean "deny software freedom to the user."
That's not what "root of trust" means. Root of trust is normally a certificate which signs other certificates. If you trust that top level certificate to be valid, it means you can trust that the certificates signed by it are valid as well. That's all there is to it.
What someone does with the certificates - whether that's signing TLS traffic, or execution attestation is completely separate. I don't think you'd argue that TLS is used to "deny software freedom to the user" - right? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_certificate)
You're probably referring to "trusted computing" which is a very specific use of signing and attestation of computing states. It uses the chain of trust in the same way it uses addition (or substitute any higher level concept you want) - you can't say "addition is bad, because it denies software freedom to the user" in this case.
You're probably referring to "trusted computing" which is a very specific use of signing and attestation of computing states.
If it is so specific, why is it present in every single Intel CPU? And why aren't end users able to delete the built-in root of trust and replace it with their own?
Trusted computing, as implemented by Intel, is actively hostile to the citizens of a free society. So in this case, I really can say that it denies software freedom to the user.
That's not what "root of trust" means. Root of trust is normally a certificate which signs other certificates. If you trust that top level certificate to be valid, it means you can trust that the certificates signed by it are valid as well. That's all there is to it.
What someone does with the certificates - whether that's signing TLS traffic, or execution attestation is completely separate. I don't think you'd argue that TLS is used to "deny software freedom to the user" - right? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_certificate)
"trustworthy computing" is not a technical term, but a marketing phrase. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trustworthy_computing)
You're probably referring to "trusted computing" which is a very specific use of signing and attestation of computing states. It uses the chain of trust in the same way it uses addition (or substitute any higher level concept you want) - you can't say "addition is bad, because it denies software freedom to the user" in this case.