>The leaked private keys affect Intel’s 11th, 12th, and 13th generation processors and were distributed to various OEMs, including Intel itself, Lenovo, and Supermicro.

I understand this is the internet and being super dramatic is part of it but can we please be for real for one moment?

No they want games without hackers. Which kernel based anticheats helps with. Can it also impact privacy and security? Yes no doubt but so can any program running on the computer even in userspace. Remember we are talking about kernel anticheats on windows lol.

If you are really worried about it you could dual boot like many people. Either way this whole argument seems silly to me.

Of course if you lose your keys you can't sign anything else and that would make it basically ewaste, but most things end up as waste when you take actions that are reckless and can't be reversed (which is what losing the keys would be). Plus tech tends to ends up as ewaste after less than a decade anyways. Like sure you could still be using an AMD steamroller CPU but realistically after 10 years you'd be better off using a cheaper more power efficient chip anyways.

People might not like who holds the commonly preinstalled keys (Microsoft and motherboard OEMs) but even then you can add your own keys and sign your own images if you want (there was just a post yesterday about doing this for raspberry pis),

As for games, lots of people play games and want good anticheat. If you don't like that you don't have to play those games but no need to act like the way you are because other people want decent anticheat.

From Microsoft's website:

>Memory integrity works better with Intel Kabylake and higher processors with Mode-Based Execution Control, and AMD Zen 2 and higher processors with Guest Mode Execute Trap capabilities. Older processors rely on an emulation of these features, called Restricted User Mode, and will have a bigger impact on performance.

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/security/threat-pr...

There is a legal difference between a state banning it and a city. States have far more powers that cities don't (unless the state delegates that power which they often do)

You can do that in the US though with cash. There might be some transactions that you can't do in physical cash but that is more of a practical/convince limitation and not a legal one.

Are you being serious? By this time in history Libya had already established a history for terror attacks and targeting civilians. So yeah I wouldn't have any issue believing it.

Just like when the UK blamed Russia for poising people Salisbury with chemical weapons. I believed them because they had intelligence about it & Russia has a history with this type of attack. Just like Libya already had a proven history of terror attacks in the 80s.

It is beyond silly to think a false flag bombing (injuring 250+ friendly nationals) is more likely than LIBYA, a know rouge state and user of terrorism, bombing a civilian dance club.

You and others are more than happy to bury your heads in the sand and pretend like the world is a TV show where countries post all their intelligence to twitter or in the paper lol.

Again this isn't a TV show. No country needs permission to react to an attack against them by another state like Libya.

>The entire world is truly their own backyard!

Yes..? If you are a state actor like Libya and you attack other nations civilians to cause terror then they have the right to attack you back. The US bombing Gaddafi's compounds and some other military targets in Libya was 100% justified. To act like a country can't retaliate in such a situation is honestly childish.