zlacker

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+(OP)
Can I tweak it? Can I simulate a NN autocomplete?

"Government in EU [which is a very marginal part of the production of electronic devices, wants to implement a "Digital Euro" that requires relying] all our digital infrastructure to the current duopoly in the mobile device market (Apple and Google)[, completely external yet planned crucial part of the forthcoming monetary system]."

<think> They do not sound pretty sound to me. </think>

--

Edit: speak up, snipers (we are in front of a freefall and you play the fool)... I think it is rational in the discourse to show that in malice or stupidity there is a relevant upper level that shows a more radical condition.

The EU is posing towards reliance of «all our digital infrastructure to the current duopoly in the mobile device market (Apple and Google)», which is controlled by third parties.

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

>>hoppp+t9
They can, but if service providers start requiring client attestation, it won't help at all.

>>hoppp+t9
How will you install Linux when all the hardware manufacturers are forced to enforce Secure Boot? All for security, of course.

>>gkbrk+ge
They can't force the entire world to use Windows, its a national security risk for countries other than USA.

Each country would need a locally maintained OS they can force on people

>>baq+Q9
This isn't a technical problem. It's a political problem. We should be fighting this with our wallets, votes, voices and influence, not technology. Politicians and industrialists should be informed in no uncertain terms that the enaction such draconian measures will result in significant hits to their ambitions.

>>hoppp+t9
And you can do that, but your bank and all government services will use Web Environment Integrity API to refuse to service you unless you are using a Google-approved flavor of Linux (e.g. ChromeOS) or Windows.

>>hoppp+dl
They are effectively forcing official Android on all smartphones in most countries with digital ID apps using Play Integrity. More and more people are using smartphones as their main computation device now.

>>ulrikr+em
Well that is true sadly but desktops and servers are still a different subject

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

>>TheRoq+pO
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+M31
You can self-sign keys. Secure Boot has had a mechanism for that already for years (mok on Linux).

>>goku12+Il
The only problem is that it's a tiny minority of us which can even grasp the concept of having root access on your owned computer. The majority believe the Apple (and now Google) narrative that "only the manufacturer can keep them safe" and why would they themselves ever have an opinion on the specific code running on their computer?

>>hoppp+t9
Not when vendors you count on require you to use a provably locked down version and when the government makes it a crime to circumvent. At first u It'll be the banks who are pushing for it now, but why not Amazon and Netflix abd everyone else eventually?

>>hoppp+Eq
For now. They have a legacy of openness that will take a while to squash for sure. But they're experts at this kinda maneuver.

>>xp84+6g1
We have a duty to explain to our fellow citizens that freedom is worth having.

>>xp84+6g1
Weirdly, the answer is politics again. It's up to the experts who can foresee the problem to inform the general public. Lawyers must inform the public about the hidden harms in a new bill. Doctors must inform the public about the implications of health policy decisions. Likewise, it's up to us to inform the public about the misconceptions you mentioned and their impact. Who else is there to speak in their interests? The fact of the matter is, there is no escaping from politics. No matter what line of profession you choose.