It's quite annoying when people use the term "secure" to refer to Digital Restriction Management mechanisms. A "secure buffer" is not a good way to describe a buffer that cannot be read by the user. "Protected buffer" is slightly better but still a bit misleading.
I've suggested "user-hostile buffer", but not sure how other people will like it :P
@lanodan Ah, I like "restricted" in this context, it makes it clear that some operations are forbidden.
@emersion Spotify calls it "secure media playback" and I don't think you could get them to say "user hostile media playback" lmao
I think at least "DRM" has a negative connotation which is good
@robots The context is a new Wayland protocol extension, so we get to choose the wording (even if I'd NACK the change in the first place)
@emersion arbitrarely permitted reading buffer
because it's not up to the user to decide when to read it
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!