The idea that one should be forced to verify one's age or identity to use one's own computer absolutely baffles me.
-
Perhaps I am some kind of dangerous computer radical these days, thinking that one should be able to buy or make a computer, install one's choice of OSs and software, create a local user account, and get on with one's affairs, privately and without interference.
Quiet enjoyment of one's computer.
* No age or ID verification
* No jumping through hoops to install software, or third parties restricting the software that one can run
* No third party accounts
@neil exactly this, which is what we all did last millennium and even several years into this one. Its shocking how fast that went away.
So where would you start, these days? -
@aadeacon But I do currently control my computer, and I want to retain that control... I do not want someone else to take away the control I already have over my things
conservatism in my opinion is about “keeping the systems that control others in place”.
This sounds like you wanting to keep control over your systems in place.
Similar sounding, but completely different.
A 2018 comment by one Frank Wilthoit defined conservatism sublimely:
“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:
There must be in-groups whom the law protect[s] but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”
https://crookedtimber.org/2018/03/21/liberals-against-progressives/#comment-729288
-
The idea that one should be forced to verify one's age or identity to use one's own computer absolutely baffles me.
@neil They are willingly sabotaging the future of our kids.
They have absolutely no idea how many people got to 'break' their systems and learn from it.I think I was 7 when I first got to play with a 'computer', 13 when I broke my first OS.
Is not only about control, stupid people without skills and critical thinking is easier to manipulate.
-
The idea that one should be forced to verify one's age or identity to use one's own computer absolutely baffles me.
@neil We should totally go back to gold ways.
-
The idea that one should be forced to verify one's age or identity to use one's own computer absolutely baffles me.
@neil Knowing how many parents or grandparents are either share their own devices or use same account on children/gran children devices. That just means only wealthy enough for having you personal computer/personal mobile phone are affected and age restrictions won't affect poor anyway... unless we make pc/mobile only available to the "wealthy enough"...
-
J jwcph@helvede.net shared this topic
-
The idea that one should be forced to verify one's age or identity to use one's own computer absolutely baffles me.
@neil Apart from anything else, I think this means that it's not one's own computer.
-
@neil it already started with the online and cloud based approach for almost anything
@neil yes and they want subscriptions in order to build a solid and predictable MRR.
I don't blame organizations for making money because it's what they are for (also working in banking I would be hypocrite to say otherwise) but the whole system needs a critical approach. -
@janeishly @neil What happens when somebody you don’t want to use your computer turns it on though?
@gimulnautti @janeishly @neil
That’s why we have locks on doors.
-
@neil @revk I think we should ask what ownership even means today. If I buy a device but can only use it under imposed conditions, like mandatory ID or age checks, do I truly own it? Or is it becoming conditional possession, where key rights no longer lie with the owner? The real issue is whether lawmakers are gradually replacing true ownership with a regulated model of use.
@tdr @neil @revk
> lawmakers are gradually replacing true ownership with a regulated
Lawmakers do what they got the bribe money (or future desk) for.The age verification is a smoke screen to the full identification. Then to the full suppression of dissent. Then to the laws that will open the whole new market of slaves being a real commodity.
-
@neil There is exactly one person who gets to decide what happens in my computer. Me.
If you want to run things in my world, you play by my rules and only my rules.
Wait Shit. Am I'm turning in to a conservative, I want things to remain how they were twenty years ago... Is this is what they meant about getting more conservative when you get older?
-
@neil I am very concearned about age verification on OS level thing thats on the talks lately. So i am NOT trying to under estimate this threath, ok. Still i have a total noob question here: how could that ever be enforcable?
Somodoby just goes "fuck that!" Makes a linux distro that does not ask any of that shit and puts it out for free.
How can this effect those users?
You're assuming you'll always have access to hardware that will accept that linux image.
-
@neil I am very concearned about age verification on OS level thing thats on the talks lately. So i am NOT trying to under estimate this threath, ok. Still i have a total noob question here: how could that ever be enforcable?
Somodoby just goes "fuck that!" Makes a linux distro that does not ask any of that shit and puts it out for free.
How can this effect those users?
Bios secure boot normally turned on by default.
Linux needs keys signed by Microsoft to boot.
So Microsoft can deny use of Linux distros if not compliant.
"When Secure Boot is enabled on a system, any attempt to execute an untrusted program will not be allowed. This stops unexpected / unauthorised code from running in the UEFI environment.
Most x86 hardware comes from the factory pre-loaded with Microsoft keys. This means the firmware on these systems will trust binaries that are signed by Microsoft. Most modern systems will ship with Secure Boot enabled - they will not run any unsigned code by default. Starting with Debian version 10 ("Buster"), Debian supports UEFI Secure Boot by employing a small UEFI loader called shim which is signed by Microsoft and embeds Debian's signing keys. This allows Debian to sign its own binaries without requiring further signatures from Microsoft"
-
The idea that one should be forced to verify one's age or identity to use one's own computer absolutely baffles me.
@neil "You should own nothing, and be happy***"
-
Perhaps I am some kind of dangerous computer radical these days, thinking that one should be able to buy or make a computer, install one's choice of OSs and software, create a local user account, and get on with one's affairs, privately and without interference.
Quiet enjoyment of one's computer.
* No age or ID verification
* No jumping through hoops to install software, or third parties restricting the software that one can run
* No third party accounts
@neil I have never used my full name when setting up my user on a personal Linux device.
I generally give computers hostnames that do not identify the devices type.
My email addresses to do not include my name nor parts of my name.
My online usernames are unique per site and do not contain references to my real name.
Not that this helps much with device fingerprinting as it is today but I feel I have to try to do something.
Every act of resistance counts.
-
-
The idea that one should be forced to verify one's age or identity to use one's own computer absolutely baffles me.
@neil
One could argue it'd be more important add locks on fridges which only open if you verify your age and identity, since the top shelf inside has a can of beer on it.
Or locks + verification on drawers, since there's a steak knife inside.But turning the world into an unsafe surveillance dystopia with even more phishing + data management malpractice + exploit opportunities is insanity and dangerous.
-
Bios secure boot normally turned on by default.
Linux needs keys signed by Microsoft to boot.
So Microsoft can deny use of Linux distros if not compliant.
"When Secure Boot is enabled on a system, any attempt to execute an untrusted program will not be allowed. This stops unexpected / unauthorised code from running in the UEFI environment.
Most x86 hardware comes from the factory pre-loaded with Microsoft keys. This means the firmware on these systems will trust binaries that are signed by Microsoft. Most modern systems will ship with Secure Boot enabled - they will not run any unsigned code by default. Starting with Debian version 10 ("Buster"), Debian supports UEFI Secure Boot by employing a small UEFI loader called shim which is signed by Microsoft and embeds Debian's signing keys. This allows Debian to sign its own binaries without requiring further signatures from Microsoft"
@SuperMoosie @Kantikainen @neil this stranglehold MS has over home computers including Linux has never fully dawned on me before. I can't imagine China accepting that, do they have knock off x86 chips without the "secure bios"
-
Bios secure boot normally turned on by default.
Linux needs keys signed by Microsoft to boot.
So Microsoft can deny use of Linux distros if not compliant.
"When Secure Boot is enabled on a system, any attempt to execute an untrusted program will not be allowed. This stops unexpected / unauthorised code from running in the UEFI environment.
Most x86 hardware comes from the factory pre-loaded with Microsoft keys. This means the firmware on these systems will trust binaries that are signed by Microsoft. Most modern systems will ship with Secure Boot enabled - they will not run any unsigned code by default. Starting with Debian version 10 ("Buster"), Debian supports UEFI Secure Boot by employing a small UEFI loader called shim which is signed by Microsoft and embeds Debian's signing keys. This allows Debian to sign its own binaries without requiring further signatures from Microsoft"
@SuperMoosie @neil sooooo....is this a problem if you just turn secure boot off? I have done so every time i installed new OS anyway.
-
@SuperMoosie @neil sooooo....is this a problem if you just turn secure boot off? I have done so every time i installed new OS anyway.
@Kantikainen @SuperMoosie Yes, and that is fine *while that remains an option*.
-
The idea that one should be forced to verify one's age or identity to use one's own computer absolutely baffles me.
