This is how macOS works, without a signature they will tell you they can't guarantee it doesn't have malware and you need to go to settings and choose to run anyway (and most people don't even know about it).
Microsoft would love to do that too, but it just has too much of legacy software to introduce such a major hurdle.
> This is how macOS works, without a signature they will tell you they can't guarantee it doesn't have malware
Even with a signature they can't guarantee it doesn't have malware. The fact that signed malware exists should be enough to put an end to the argument that it's for our own good.
If you had to give away your privacy to use one and could only use helmets authorized by your motorcycle dealer you might have a point. We accept impositions on our freedom all the time when what we get in return is worth the sacrifice. If signed binaries actually delivered on their promise of keeping people safe there'd be a discussion that could be had on whether or not it'd be worthwhile, but since they don't actually protect people we'd be giving up our privacy for nothing.
"the argument that it's for our own good." is their instance that we should accept this loss of our freedom to run the software we want because it protects us. It doesn't actually protect us though, so it isn't worth it and we shouldn't accept it.
My original statement had nothing to do with motorcycle helmets, but if using them required us to give up enough of our freedoms they could also become unacceptable for the level or protection they provide (or fail to provide) us.
The existence of signed malware does not mean that it isn't in our own best interest to have signed software. It's the argument of antivaxxers. You are probably equally confused how that works as well.
"It doesn't actually protect us though, so it isn't worth it and we shouldn't accept it."
That is completely false and dangerous misinformation.
Microsoft would love to do that too, but it just has too much of legacy software to introduce such a major hurdle.