>In the background there is a war going on, but it isn't what you think. It is a war between malware creators and OS creators.
No, this is _exactly_ the war we think. It is a war between Apple and malware over control of _my_ personal(!) computer.
At this point both malware and Apple leak personal data from _my_ personal computer. So from the perspective of controlling MY personal computer they are both malware and differences are neglectable if I do not even have a choice to install my own OS.
Secure boot is secure if I(!) can secure it, not Apple or any other external authority.
>For me, Apple products really are designed to protect my personal information.
Apple products designed to get _control_ of your personal information from you and thus to control you and your behavior.
Computer is no longer a "Personal Computer" with all of these developments. It's simply a termianal of some big machine where your 'personal' space isn't even really your personal.
Probably it is a good idea to recall what "Personal Computer" meant and what it should mean.
For me it is My control over My computer and My data if I wish to, and this a minimum for My privacy.
And privacy is a minimum for society respecting freedom and rights of a person.
How much private entities get to shape this stuff is a sensible concern but this sort of absolutism is how pretty much nothing actually works. You can't drive an unsafe car on public roads. You can't build an unsafe house, even on "your" land, etc. It's not crazy to regulate what kind of computer you can put on the public network.
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.
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.
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.
>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.
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.
No, this is _exactly_ the war we think. It is a war between Apple and malware over control of _my_ personal(!) computer.
At this point both malware and Apple leak personal data from _my_ personal computer. So from the perspective of controlling MY personal computer they are both malware and differences are neglectable if I do not even have a choice to install my own OS.
Secure boot is secure if I(!) can secure it, not Apple or any other external authority.
>For me, Apple products really are designed to protect my personal information.
Apple products designed to get _control_ of your personal information from you and thus to control you and your behavior.
Computer is no longer a "Personal Computer" with all of these developments. It's simply a termianal of some big machine where your 'personal' space isn't even really your personal.
Probably it is a good idea to recall what "Personal Computer" meant and what it should mean.
For me it is My control over My computer and My data if I wish to, and this a minimum for My privacy.
And privacy is a minimum for society respecting freedom and rights of a person.
All of this is really like R. Stallman predicted.