[te7447]

> Cellular radios in a PC? You don't get root on those. Same situation as they are in a cell phone: They are licensed-band transmitters, and they are required to be tamper proof to protect the licensee.

The original post said:

> Locking down the bootloader and enforcing TEE signatures does stop malware. But it also kills user agency. We are moving to a model where the user is considered the adversary on their own hardware. The genius of the modders in that XDA thread is undeniable, but they are fighting a war against the fundamental architecture of modern trust and the architecture is winning.

So, as I read it, Fiveplus is saying that we are moving to an architecture where the user is an adversary on the computer (the phone) as a whole. While licenses may require that specific components are out of bounds, the new thing is that the whole platform is denying the user the ability to do what they want with the parts that are not explicitly off-limits.

IIRC, a Blu-Ray drive is required to store data about revoked keys and to stop playing discs if its own key is revoked. Presumably the BR license also states that the user can't be allowed to wipe this revocation list and start playing Blu-Rays again. But BR drives can still be fitted in computers where the user has root access, just like PC cellular radios.

Phones are made to be default-deny instead of default-allow, and I think that makes it different from "enclosed modules you don't have control of".

[tadfisher]

Of note is that there is apparently one single application licensed to play Blu-Ray disks on PCs, CyberLink PowerDVD. Anyone watching Blu-Rays through alternate means on general-purpose computers today, by using MakeMKV or similar, are likely breaking anti-circumvention laws.

As of November 2023, zero applications are licensed and capable of playing UHD Blu-Ray disks [0], and PC manufacturers are just not including the hardware necessary to do so.

0: https://www.cyberlink.com/support-center/faq/content?id=2834...

[kube-system]

My point in context to the original post was simply that this isn't a new perspective -- the idea that the end users of a phone should have any control over the operation of the device was something that came later in the timeline of cell phones.