[bayindirh]

Slackware always brings out the inner teen in me. I feel giddy like in the old days. I need to install and maintain it somewhere some time, just for kicks.

I support FOSS wholeheartedly, and believe that it's possible to have a device which is completely Free (not Open but, Free) from hardware design to firmware and software.

On the other hand, there are some nasty realities which bring hard questions.

For example, radios. Radio firmware is something nasty. Give people freedom and you can't believe what you can do with it (Flipper Zero is revolutionary, but even that's a tongue in cheek device). Muck with your airspace and you create a lot of problems. The problem is not technology, but physics. So, unless you prevent things from happening, you can't keep that airspace fair to everybody.

Similar problems are present in pipelines where you need to carry information in a trusted way. In some cases open technology can guarantee this upto a certain point. To cross that point, you need to give your back to hardware. I don't believe there are many hardware security devices with open firmware.

I use MacBooks and iPhones mostly because of the hardware they bring in to the table. I got in these ecosystems knowing what I'm buying into, but I have my personal fleet of Linux desktops and servers, and all the things I develop and publish are Free Software.

I also use Apple devices because I don't want to manage another server esp. in my pocket (because I also manage lots of servers at work, so I want some piece of mind), yet using these devices doesn't change my mind into not supporting Free Software.

At the end, as I commented down there the problem is not the technology itself, but the mindset behind these. We need to change the minds and requirements. The technical changes will follow.

[state_less]

For radios, the general idea of building radios to a spec and having them certified to be sold in country works pretty well most of the time. It might be nice to have a phone with plenty of flexibility on the radio, but I think most folks would be happy just to connect and send work-a-day packets OTA unencumbered by additional restrictions.

It seems like a hardware security device could act similarly to the radio in that the general OS can ask for service (e.g. a signature), but not have access to the internals of the MCU. I don't see why these systems need to be opaque either, in fact it'd be nice to know what is running on the security enclave or LTE radio, even if folks aren't generally meant to access/modify the internals.

It'll be interesting to see how things develop. In my case, I am looking for more experimentation with the smartphone form factor. I'd like to see better options in the market.

[upboundspiral]

I don't think open source and not allowing people to break laws with impunity are at odds. Because there are laws governing airwaves. I think there would need to be some sort of legal entity (foundation?) that would need to steward open firmware + enable it to be locked down so regulations can be followed, but I don't think the two are somehow irreconcilable. The first example that comes to mind is how all the linuxes work with "secure boot" (all of its ridiculousness aside). I think it would be a more effort than that but I truly believe that it is possible to have trust and openness and following regulation. The idea that only a proprietary company can follow the law and comply with regulations is in my opinion strictly false.

[TeMPOraL]

That's a big part of the problem: enforcement doesn't scale. It's cheaper to restrict people by legal and technological means, than to let them use judgement and prosecute occasional abusers.

[immibis]

Luckily not everyone agrees with Richard Stallman's hard-line take on proprietary chips.

IMO, if the radio chip just acts as a radio, and passes packets as requested, and any needed firmware blobs are freely distributable, it's fine. It's not ideal, but it's good enough to make a libre-phone.

We all know the network is spying on us anyway, and the radio should be treated as being part of the network, on the other side of the security boundary from the main processor - and since we don't trust it, we don't have to demand that it helps us verify our trust in it!