zlacker

> The masses will always stay in the walled garden. It's where they want to be and they don't even realize there are walls. It is just what is for them.

The walls should have open doors, though, versus prison bars. Physical switches on devices (much like older Chromebook devices had) used to opt out of the walled garden should be mandated by consumer protection regulations.

>>EvanAn+(OP)
It's not entirely unlike the qualified/accredited investor rules which won't let you invest in unregulated securities without income/net worth/certification requirements. No form exists which would allow someone to say "hey, I get why these wall are here, but I understand and am opting out of your protection".

I personally think there should be (I value individual rights/freedom over preventing someone from harming themselves), but I also see why we ended up here. When bad things happen, people demand action and government wants to be seen as doing something.

>>EvanAn+(OP)
> Physical switches on devices (much like older Chromebook devices had) used to opt out of the walled garden should be mandated by consumer protection regulations.

I don’t want to live in the same society as the person that wrote this asinine comment with this much confidence. We are just ideologically incompatible

>>tucker+J4
Really, we're talking Singapore, which is one of the most restrictive places in the world.

Have the EU counterbalance this closing with extra fines for anticompetitive behavior.

>>ableto+Lh
How so? I understand the tension between freedom to tinker and consumer protection. It's OK to assign different values to either of them. And there are definitely ways to reconcile the two positions. Some of that will have to come through nuanced regulations.

For example, it could be regulated that if the flip is switched (or a fuse is blown irreversibly) on a device, responsibility for the device and its software fall entirely onto the owner. So if they get phished on an unprotected device and lose their life savings, it's entirely on them. Manufacturers and service providers have no obligation to support them.

>>gmueck+Fp
Once you have enough power to legislate and enforce this, what's to stop a future administration from tightening the ratchet just a little bit further and forcing users to purchase TPM computers with unbreakable DRM and encrypted blobs running who knows what, and no ability for users to modify their system, change hardware or operating systems without either running afoul of the law or losing access to banking and insurance?

>>soulof+hy
Well, you do realize that there are already a lot of laws covering these things, right? If you're this cynical, then you need to realize that stuff like what you describe could be legislated at any time. There's no real barrier.

>>soulof+hy
My comment (GGGP) was about regulating devices to require physical switches to allow the owner of the device to opt for freedom. I'm not sure where you got DRM-type stuff out of that.

I think efuses being blown by device manufacturers should be illegal.

I think bootloaders that don't allow the device owner to run whatever software they want should be illegal.

I think device owners should be permitted to repair their devices without losing functionality because of DRM embedded in the parts themselves.

I think a physical switch, exercisable only with physical access, should be present on locked-down devices to allow the owner to exercise their ownership over the device. If that means that "attestation" functionality breaks and that causes some third-party software to "break" so-be it.

(I think the problem with banks, etc, requiring "trusted" devices is also in the realm of consumer protection, probably in banking regulation. I haven't thought about it deeply.)

>>gmueck+vz
Obviously, why do you think I'm raising awareness? Right-to-repair is a huge issue across multiple regions and industries, with uneven progress across the US.

>>EvanAn+wC
Think about it some more. I'm talking about the incremental increases in power coupled with unpredictable administration changes, and how each new increase in federal power creates multiple branches for slightly increasing power even more, until without realizing it, we've let our government slowly move the Overton window right where it needs to be for an authoritarian power grab and restriction of freedoms. We have to be extremely careful about the powers we give our governments, because they do not give them back without a fight, and they're always looking to expand their reach.