zlacker

>>kotaKa+(OP)
Every day we stray farther from the premise that we should be allowed to install / modify software on the computers we own.

Will once again re-up the concept of a “right to root access”, to prevent big corps from pulling this bs over and over again: https://medhir.com/blog/right-to-root-access

>>medhir+Lg1
The question really isn't whether we should be able to modify computers we own, its whether we own them at all.

>>_heimd+Cj1
regardless of what the corporations say we do own the devices we purchase.

>>yesbut+Ak1
Not always. There have been car manufacturers that sold vehicles with features only enabled by a subscription. You may buy a car with heated seats, but the heated seats only work if the manufacturer enables them.

>>_heimd+Nl1
And there should be no law against enabling the heated seats in the car you own without interacting with the manufacturer.

>>Anthon+Im1
The heated seat is an edge case, but there is also the entirely valid argument that you shouldn't be able to arbitrarily modify your car (e.g. replace the breaks with some home-grown solution), as it can put yourself and others in danger, and I see no evil in that being enforced by the government. A more IT-related example might be what radio frequencies can we use - if anyone could spam the whole spectrum, we would lose more than from the "freedom" of being able to do that.

So it's actually far from trivial to draw a line.

>>gf000+Zv1
It's trivially easy to draw the line. If it's to be illegal to make some modification to your car then that law is to be enforced by the government rather than the manufacturer.