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
In the meantime, corporate is thinking about locking browsers down. Remember this? https://chromestatus.com/feature/5796524191121408

They’ll try again, with big business and governments cheering on them.

>>baq+yv1
Government in EU will want it once they introduce the Chat Control legislation and observe that it is trivial to circumvent by either modifying clients to not scan or using free open source alternatives. Logical next step is to lock down all devices and thereby also ensure total and utter surrender of all our digital infrastructure to the current duopoly in the mobile device market (Apple and Google).

>>ulrikr+oP1
So, people who need can always use linux and can even just compile everything from source.

>>hoppp+RY1
How will you install Linux when all the hardware manufacturers are forced to enforce Secure Boot? All for security, of course.

>>gkbrk+E32
A lot of Linux distros work fine with secure boot

>>TheRoq+ND2
They all works fine because Microsoft allows distros to sign their keys. We are a single bad law or a change of corporate politics away from them not doing that and deleting Linux out of existence on personal computers.

Now, maybe you’ll still be allowed to if you have a special license from the government to purchase approved hardware to run it in a datacenter. Which can be promptly revoked if you were found to be running illegal VPN software or something like that.

>>oceanp+aT2
You can self-sign keys. Secure Boot has had a mechanism for that already for years (mok on Linux).