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
> 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,

That is a nonsensical argument.

"You shouldn't be able to put anyone else in danger" - agreed.

"You shouldn't be able to modify your car" - wtf does that have to do with danger?

"Modifying brakes (not breaks)" is not the same thing as "Putting people in danger". Sometimes we modify them to have better braking than the standard.

What countries actually do is test the end-result, i.e. Does the car conform to the legally mandated required braking performance?

Rather than campaign to stop people from owning property anymore, maybe just enforce the existing laws (which, as far as I know, are enforced already anyway).

This campaign to divide people into an owning class and a servile class is pretty damn repugnant, and "Because someone can be harmed if we allow people to own things" is just the new "But think of the children" nonsense.

>>lelant+G82
I just tried to come up with a feasible example - maybe gas pipe installation would have been a better one?

But even for cars, it's quite clear that a modify-test cycle there is on the order of months/years (also, has a money burden that probably the owner has to pay). But this would 100% fail to scale to IT - like should I go to the government on each commit? Do I get a signature from them for releases?