> I'm assuming that that hasn't been used in this case because the intention here is actually to lock the owner out and only allow the manufacturer access to change the device. Is that the case?
No the intention is to lock out functionality. Either programming code that can't be decrypted without secure boot actually booting security, or access to remote networks. That second one is where the controversy comes in because it means if the owner of the device is Netflix (or FB/Youtube/HBO/...) and the network is owned by Netflix you cannot change anything on the device in your house and still watch Netflix.
Because of this locking out functionality it is referred to as "rendering your device useless". It can of course still do everything it can do, at the owner's request, just not with Netflix' data.
No the intention is to lock out functionality. Either programming code that can't be decrypted without secure boot actually booting security, or access to remote networks. That second one is where the controversy comes in because it means if the owner of the device is Netflix (or FB/Youtube/HBO/...) and the network is owned by Netflix you cannot change anything on the device in your house and still watch Netflix.
Because of this locking out functionality it is referred to as "rendering your device useless". It can of course still do everything it can do, at the owner's request, just not with Netflix' data.