You seem to be misunderstanding the kind of security this is about. It's not about taking away control by the owner, just about preventing ways of control by third parties that you as owner didn't intend to give.
> TC is controversial as the hardware is not only secured for its owner, but also secured against its owner.
Whereas here if you're not happy with what the OS does, you can wipe it and still have full control over the hardware. And the OS is OpenSource, accessible to the hardware owner to modify if some kind of control it asserts isn't satisfying.
Not the parent commenter, but: A proven kernel could be seen as taking control away on devices where root access cannot be legitimately obtained. I guess some might perceive it as scary given many people in tech circles root their phones (and similar devices), when root access is normally obtained through OS-level security bugs, and it is often (though I think somewhat decreasingly?) used to install third-party OSes on such devices.
Agreed, although the blame then still lies with the device the secure kernel is running on, or the company that produces it, or the client for choosing to buy it.
I guess you can say that proven software is power, and power can be misused.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_computing:
> TC is controversial as the hardware is not only secured for its owner, but also secured against its owner.
Whereas here if you're not happy with what the OS does, you can wipe it and still have full control over the hardware. And the OS is OpenSource, accessible to the hardware owner to modify if some kind of control it asserts isn't satisfying.