[Dylan16807]

I do not need the freedom to buy a defective lock.

Mandating basic safety and security features is not always going to protect me, but it will mostly protect me. It's not stupid to want that tradeoff. I don't care if you define "fix" as 100% so therefore it's not a fix. I want the 95%. I want defense in depth, regulation on top of personal investigation.

[fargle]

you are right. you do NOT need the freedom to buy a defective lock.

you need the right to decide for yourself if the lock is defective or not.

if you give that away, you will instantly be given the "freedom" to buy a lock that is defective-by-design. perhaps the lock designer's brother is a friend of the govt. perhaps the govt. agency does not want bad publicity, whatever.

the point is "defense-in-depth" (cliche) or not, you are ultimately responsible for you. there can be no other way.

[Dylan16807]

> you are right. you do NOT need the freedom to buy a defective lock.

> you need the right to decide for yourself if the lock is defective or not.

This sounds like you agree with me. This kind of regulation sets a minimum, not a maximum.

We don't need freedom to buy very bad locks. We do need freedom to buy the best lock we want to buy.

But the rest of your post implies that regulation will change both minimum and maximum and mandate a specific lock. I disagree with that premise.

> (cliche)

Are you trying to imply something there?

> you are ultimately responsible for you. there can be no other way.

I am "ultimately" responsible, but product makers should have responsibilities too. If I fail at something, I should not be 0% safe. The baseline should be pretty high before I apply my own efforts.