Fuck that noise. No my computers in my home are not a public utility.
I will run or not run the software I choose on my machines. You can call me Typhoid Mary all you want, but if an Nigerian prince somehow compromises one of my machines and tries to sell you Viagra you can report it to my ISP or domain registrar.
I understand that this is a difficult thing to understand and accept, as it is happening in fast forward in our lifetime. People had similar sentiments initially about other things that end up using public shared utilities (e.g., automobiles and phones).
It's unfair to expect most users to be able to protect themselves. Even professionals with experience struggle to protect their hardware and computers. Only doing post-incident triage is not going to work here in the same way that we require traffic laws and automobile regulation to make sure that we don't spend even more time and money scraping people-goo off the road.
Therefore, as a matter of public safety, we're going to have to put safety and security rules on publicly networked computers. Consider funding and hosting a private network if you find that onerous, perhaps?
> It's unfair to expect most users to be able to protect themselves.
Correct. Problems in this area are the fault of the vendor, not the user, for producing shoddy software, not caring enough about security, and/or not going far enough to educate the user about important thins they do need to understand. None of this requires stealing user data (or "telemetry"), nor does it require taking agency away from the user.
Your "solution" is to take away the General Purpose Computer from the user. I realize that General Purpose Computers are frightening when in the hands of people who might make a mistake* or run some software you don't like, but that is what we call "freedom"[1]. Instead of supporting freedom, you seem determined to force centralized control on people. Do you not see how this is a major shift in power?
> Therefore, as a matter of public safety, we're going to have to put safety and security rules on publicly networked computers.
This is a cheap excuse to not address actual security. The negligent security practices of most businesses over the last few decades are becoming a serious problem, and as usual the guilty are trying to deflect the blame onto the people least responsible: the users.
I thought that's what security updates are?
> Problems in this area are the fault of the vendor, not the user,
That's what security updates are.
> None of this requires stealing user data (or "telemetry")
This is deliberately incendiary language trying to redefine an industry practice so benign and common that it's difficult to find any products that DON'T do it. Even in the free software space!
> Your "solution" is to take away the General Purpose Computer from the user.
Wait. Pardon me? I think you've projected an argument onto me that I am not having? Having your computer click an automatic idle reboot unless you step in to tell it otherwise is not "removing general purpose computing." That's not really even the auspice of most OS's right now!
> This is a cheap excuse to not address actual security.
The idea that security problems can be prevented in advance by better discipline and tools is a fantasy. The technology and process simply don't exist. Until such time as we verify every byte of code from the firmware up, security risks will exist (even then, hardware bugs!). You cannot simply say "Try harder!"
> The negligent security practices of most businesses over the last few decades are becoming a serious problem, and as usual the guilty are trying to deflect the blame onto the people least responsible: the users.
I submit that moving to a regular security update paradigm and tying business interests to product longevity and security. In this, I think Windows 10 is a better strategy for pro-consumer outputs than Apple's current strategy. More in line with Google's forevergreen OS goal.
Industry practice on IBM compatibles used to be that operating system didn't siphon data off the machine and that the user retained ultimate agency over metal that they bought.
I view this in the same way. The vast majority of consumers have better outcomes if their hardware is managed. The few people for whom this is not true have other options available.
Not good ones, in my opinion, but theres no positive outcomes for people pursuing a "bazaar" like strategy to software as far as I can see, anyways. It's somewhat ironic that devices visibly resisting national attacks are outrageously locked down.
In US but ok. Analogy would probably work out if for automatic transmission they disconnected airbags for no good reason and then went on and announced how wonderful it is that airbags are disabled (mind that the car is just as functional with airbags enabled, but you'd have a hard time convincing anyone that an average informed user would prefer airbags disabled) and if users really wish to use airbags they can enable them later.
> if their hardware is managed.
Telemetry isn't necessary for hardware to be "managed".
Not on Europe. Many people would be embarrassed to be seen with an automatic transmission. Coincidentally, privacy here has not (yet) been entirely eradicated either.