There's no such thing as "secure", and frankly complaining that anything that has better security than regular products shouldn't advertise as such is ridiculous.

How else is there any progress when the community's just pulling everyone down with this "it's no good if it isn't completely perfect" crap?

This product makes full disk encryption a bit more convenient, but that's about it. Even that turns something to know in something to have, which you could argue is easier to coerce someone into handing over.

The parent comment is right to point out this computer has a fully functioning Intel ME, running it's secret, unaudited, possibly backdoored, firmware on the co-processer which runs even when switched off, and can interact with the rest of the system undetected. Any "secure" system with this foundation isn't really secure.

IMHO a product which would focus more on this (like libreboot laptops) can make a bigger claim on doing something for security than this.

I respect your opinion on this. We sought to build hardware that is a significant step up from what is available on the market today in terms of access control and tamper protection. We also open source the BIOS and customize it the most we can afford to minimize the ME capability thanks to Eltan's help. Secure cannot be an absolute state, it can only be temporary... till the 1st one finds a way to get in. Execution of non-auditable code is what we deal with on nearly every machine on the market. We are minimizing this, while still staying compatible with peoples use models. We are as open and transparent as we can legally be. In our plan, this is only one step in the direction of taking back control of the machines we all are working on and want to trust completely. https://www.orwl.org/wiki/index.php?title=File:SowDESIGN-SHI...

> Frankly I'm not sure it is any better than regular products.

Care to elaborate?

> It still has a backdoor baked in.

True, but this does not explain or validate your previous statement. You are saying: "A has these pros and this con, B has the same con but none of the pros, hence A and B are the same". This sounds like a poor argument to me.

> Keep on downvoting because you disagree, though.

I believe that you are being downvoted because your last two comments are poorly articulated.

They advertise it as "physically-secure" in the text. I didn't watch the video. They explicitly call out many risks, why they're there, and what they do about them.

We have built a list of hacks that we addressed and how. Please feel free to read up on all of these and more in our Product Description in the section "Potential attacks prevented" : https://www.orwl.org/wiki/index.php?title=File:ORWL_PRD_v0.6...

It's secure, "trust us".