4 ms·

It has nothing to do with absolutism, we are talking about basic human rights for privacy, massively disrespected recently. That fact though doesn't make them

It has nothing to do with absolutism, we are talking about basic human rights for privacy, massively disrespected recently. That fact though doesn't make them less valueable, relevant or required for the free society to function. May be for you it's not even crazy to regulate what kind of paper person uses for own notes because who knows, may be he will bring those notes to the public one day. But for me this communist and totalitarian way of disrespect to personal rights and freedoms is crossing the red line. I've been in such situations and I saw in person the results of such disrespect therefore I think those who are willing to attack personal freedoms should learn some history and shouldn't be surprised about what people can do to protect their freedoms when words do not work.

pvg 6y ago
No, you're trying to elevate some flaky security feature to a debate about human rights. It's not particularly meaningful or conducive to any kind of insight because once you make that jump, you just get to fulminate endlessly about principles and oppression. It's like starting to recite the Universal Declaration of Human Rights every time you stub your toe instead of just saying 'shit!' and thinking about maybe moving that table out of the way.
- leereeves 6y ago
  The broader topic is a debate about human rights that's actively being fought in elections, parliaments, and courts. The right to privacy and the right to repair, for example, and a nascent debate about the right to run whatever software you choose. "Your computer isn't yours" is a powerful way to express the essence of those debates. Who has the right to do what they want with a computer, the company that built it or the person who owns it? Software signing is admittedly a relatively minor battle in that war, but it's not completely separate from the broader issues.
- lovelyviking 6y ago
  >you're trying to elevate some flaky security feature to a debate about human rights. It is not a "flaky security feature" It is a main thing that defines who controls the personal computer. Accessing and controlling Personal Computer with personal notes is the same as accessing and controlling personal notes written on paper. There is no elevation here from my side, it is literally about human right for privacy and I am not the one who tried to elevate the issue to unrelated areas like cars and houses.
  - pvg 6y ago
    It is a main thing that defines who controls the personal computer It's a flaky feature that people had a workaround for in minutes. Nobody lost control of their computer. There is no elevation here from my side, it is literally about human right My secondary school had a bigass Universal Declaration of Human Rights mounted on a wall behind plexiglass. Whenever I got detention I'd protest citing Article 9. At 12, this seemed both funny and trenchant commentary on my predicament.

pvg 6y ago

No, you're trying to elevate some flaky security feature to a debate about human rights. It's not particularly meaningful or conducive to any kind of insight because once you make that jump, you just get to fulminate endlessly about principles and oppression. It's like starting to recite the Universal Declaration of Human Rights every time you stub your toe instead of just saying 'shit!' and thinking about maybe moving that table out of the way.

leereeves 6y ago
The broader topic is a debate about human rights that's actively being fought in elections, parliaments, and courts. The right to privacy and the right to repair, for example, and a nascent debate about the right to run whatever software you choose. "Your computer isn't yours" is a powerful way to express the essence of those debates. Who has the right to do what they want with a computer, the company that built it or the person who owns it? Software signing is admittedly a relatively minor battle in that war, but it's not completely separate from the broader issues.
lovelyviking 6y ago
>you're trying to elevate some flaky security feature to a debate about human rights. It is not a "flaky security feature" It is a main thing that defines who controls the personal computer. Accessing and controlling Personal Computer with personal notes is the same as accessing and controlling personal notes written on paper. There is no elevation here from my side, it is literally about human right for privacy and I am not the one who tried to elevate the issue to unrelated areas like cars and houses.
- pvg 6y ago
  It is a main thing that defines who controls the personal computer It's a flaky feature that people had a workaround for in minutes. Nobody lost control of their computer. There is no elevation here from my side, it is literally about human right My secondary school had a bigass Universal Declaration of Human Rights mounted on a wall behind plexiglass. Whenever I got detention I'd protest citing Article 9. At 12, this seemed both funny and trenchant commentary on my predicament.