Yawn. Same discussion when Intel introduced the TPM - doomsday didn't happen. Or the Clipper chip? Doomsday didn't happen.
UEFI SecureBoot on Intel/AMD is optional and will not deliver on its promises IMHO.
The REAL thing to focus on (and the one thing that all of these doosmday guys seem to willingly ignore) is that on the ARM platform it is truly worse what the Windows requirements are enforcing - locked bootloader, no way to change that. So instead of whining about an OPTIONAL problem, how about fighting a REAL problem?
TPM was widely misunderstood (thanks to the Anderson "TCPA FAQ", which went into hyperbole real quickly). It was also defused a bit due to public pressure.
With the Windows Logo Requirements (which are the real issue surrounding secureboot), there are some indications that things will end up bad, but that's speculation (but on a better foundation than the TCPA FAQ back then IMHO).
What's going on now is public pressure - and it already worked to some degree, since the Logo Requirements went from "has to provide it, disabling optional" on x86 to "must allow disabling secureboot".
UEFI SecureBoot on Intel/AMD is optional and will not deliver on its promises IMHO.
The REAL thing to focus on (and the one thing that all of these doosmday guys seem to willingly ignore) is that on the ARM platform it is truly worse what the Windows requirements are enforcing - locked bootloader, no way to change that. So instead of whining about an OPTIONAL problem, how about fighting a REAL problem?