Civil War General-Purpose Computing | Cory Doctorow | Talks at Google

Always interested in what Cory Doctorow has to say. While this particular blog post isn't about DRM, his work is benefiting everyone (except those who would rather enrich themselves at the expense of humanity). It's probably bigger than you think. I highly recommend reading up on what Cory has to say on DRM and the war on general purpose computing. It may change your mind. link link Also watch the various youtube videos of his talks, like this one: ▶ this video

There is this talk about the civil war on general purpose computing by Cory Doctorow: link He gave the same talk at Google: ▶ this video It's slowly becoming reality.

> Really? We're there now? It's become Apple's "responsibility" to police every last corner of iOS? I find it disgusting, but really Apple is the only one to blame for that when they started aggressively policing and removing apps, and then marketing to customers based on that. I've heard people on HN state ad nauseam that they love that Apple does this, and that it's one of the reasons they live in the Apple ecosystem. They want to be protected from running apps that might do something objectionable (according to Apple's standard), and are absolutely willing to trade their freedom for some security. I obviously don't agree with this at all (I refer you to Cory Doctorow's War on General Purpose Computing: ▶ this video ) but it is a position I can understand.

> How does the arbitrariness of those technological restrictions differ from the arbitrariness of the legal restrictions which I'm sure the author would insist upon, should you decide to republish their work? One of those is decided by a democratic process, the other is dictated by one party. > but that is a problem of execution, not one of concept. Actually, it is a problem of the concept. It is asking for computers to be robbed of their defining characteristic, and to be put under dictatorial control. See also Cory Doctorow's talks on the topic, like maybe this one: ▶ this video (he gave this and similar talks in many places, you can find quite a few of them on youtube, I have no clue whether this particular one is good)

> are you okay with me being able to spend two weeks on the dark-web researching how to make and detonate a bomb using totally innocent chemical purchases, and then your spouse, parents, relatives, or you, being an innocent victim of my exploding the results, or would you want me to be stopped at some point after I started doing that? Yes, of course. Just as I am okay with people being able to spend ten minutes to take a knife from the kitchen and kill me. People are able to do all kinds of bad stuff, doesn't mean they actually do. The only alternative to a world where people are able to do bad stuff is totalitarianism, which is itself bad stuff (if only because I don't get to say what is considered good and what is considered bad), so not actually a solution either. Also, what you seem to think is just a logical impossibility. Either your communication can be read by third parties or it can not. You cannot build crypto that only leaks nuclear bomb plans, but keeps your medical information uncrackable. And you might be interested in some of Cory Doctorow's talks (or blog articles or maybe even books) on the general topic of "the war against general-purpose computing", like maybe one of these: ▶ this video link

The book, "Little Brother," is available in multiple formats under Creative Commons licensing (free): link Also, you might enjoy Cory Doctorow's talk: "The Coming Civil War over General-purpose Computing" ▶ this video

14 years ago, Cory Doctorow warned us about that: ▶ this video The modern societies run via those devices and the enforcement will move to the mostly free Internet that was "a long time ago, when it didn't matter as much".

14 years ago, Cory Doctorow warned us about that: ▶ this video The modern societies run via those devices and the enforcement will move to the mostly free Internet that was "a long time ago, when it didn't matter as much".

13 years ago, Cory Doctorow warned us: ▶ this video So basically market forces and profit optimization is at work here as always. However, if we can still unlock the boot loader and install Lineage OS or something like that and have a way to pay for developers to release their apps on stores like f-droid we can use the hardware. The biggest problem with having freedom to use our devices is that the model is broken for the developers who support them. You "can donate", but from the numbers I've seen it's like 1 in 1000 donate. No pay == developers can't invest their time to improve the software. So if there is "really" a substantial number of enthusiasts that are ready to pay for the freedom they crave, then companies like Librem will have enough customers to create decent and usable products for this audience. Want digital freedom - prepare to support the people who provide it. Yes, that might mean that we'll need to have 2 devices, 1 for "banking/government services" that is "certified" and one for our own usage. Shitty but we'll be forced to do that sooner on later. The efficiencies for the government to enforce the policies is so strong that they can't helps themselves. And corporations like to have more data to squeeze every cent from the customer. So if there is a working business model for "freedom" we might have a partial freedom. If there isn't we'd be just a digital farm animals to be optimized for max profits and max compliance.

> 13 years ago, Cory Doctorow warned us: > ▶ this video Wow, that's in Talks at Google . Listening to the Q&A is just so weird. The audience (I assume Google employees) are openly advocating for digital freedoms and the classic hacker ethos. Crazy how much the Overton window has shifted. I wonder where those people are now.

Tech giant briar patch. You want the gov to decide what can be remembered a-la GDPR? Maybe some Article13 after? link link link link link The Coming Civil War over General-purpose Computing: ▶ this video

You are arguing for two classes of people; those with access to general purpose computing, and those without. ▶ this video