|
|
|
|
|
|
by userbinator
1754 days ago
|
|
|
That problem can be solved with other means That's what they always say --- so how about solving that problem first, before thrusting ourselves head-first into advocating for full authoritarianism? But I am now at the mercy of every single criminal or oppressive state that wants to use that exploit to harm me. Good. That means power is not centralised. You can defend yourself instead. Besides, do you really want to be "at the mercy of the company that made the device" ? As we have seen multiple times, they do not really act in your interest. There's also plenty of dystopian sci-fi to show us what attempts at making a "perfect" society in any way will turn out. This applies to making software "perfectly secure" too. |
|
|
Expecting more secure applications is "advocating for full authoritarianism"? If anything, security vulnerabilities place individuals at far greater risk to authoritarianism since it exposes them to the people who have guns and can throw them in prison.
And software written in memory-safe languages is very very far from "perfectly secure". It just closes a very common class of vulnerability.
If you really want, you can use FLOSS for everything. Your use case of "I really want the ability to change any piece of code running on my device" is supported. Not well, since few people actually want this, but it is supported.