Yes, even then. Every sandboxing scheme ever devised has the same premise. That's why tools like Firejail were written. DRM/anticheat and anti-rootkit countermeasures are more or less the same technology.
What GP obviously meant was "secure against the [rightful owner & user of the system]". That's never been the premise of *nix system security where the owner can ultimately do anything, no matter how self-destructive it is.
You're changing the semantic definition of "user" to mean "secure against the [restricted user account]" and thus mocking an argument that was never made.
Guidelines:
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize.
