[alpaca128]

> driving cars or flying airplanes started as just a hobby

Those still are hobbies, you just need a license for it now. Which makes sense since crashing an airplane is a bit more devastating than crashing a computer. But most hobbies don't need a license and aren't a danger to others.

[shadowgovt]

I think we've reached a point where we're really turning our heads and squinting away from reality if we think that computing is a hobby that no longer poses danger to others.

A person using their own machine can hack all manner of other people's machines without their consent. On the flipside, a person who is not even malicious, but negligent, can configure a machine on the open internet with open ports and become part of a botnet in a half-hour. Perhaps these behaviors imply a level of responsibility that suggests licensing to use the shared resource that is "The internet" is appropriate.

[alpaca128]

And a person using their pen can hack other people's brains, yet free speech is more important.

I think manufacturers being required to provide longer security update support against hacks etc would be more helpful than violating privacy and restricting access to "protect" people. The amazing protective walled garden of mobile devices has mostly caused people to even forget what filesystems are and normalized subscriptions for the most basic things. A license for internet access or whatever would be an incredibly bad idea for anyone but abusive governments and corporations.

[shadowgovt]

We do, in practice, impose all manner of limitation on free speech while still maintaining the sanctity of that right. Lying in a professional capacity is fraud and punishable even though it's "just words." Being wrong as an engineer or lawyer can cost you your license to practice (as an engineer, even if you never turned a wrench but your directions to build the thing were flawed beyond the reason of the standards of the profession). "Wire fraud" is an aggravation atop regular fraud.

These protections could go further, but they haven't. Why is it just "okay" that someone can call you up on the phone and convince you that your loved one is in mortal peril and you have to wire money to them right now? Why is the party transiting that fraud or providing the wires connecting entire fraud offices to the global telephonic network not responsible for enabling that attack?

[alpaca128]

> Why is it just "okay" that someone can call you up on the phone and convince you that your loved one is in mortal peril and you have to wire money to them right now?

It is not okay and is in fact a crime. Making it more illegal by forbidding access mainly hurts normal users of the network.

> Why is the party transiting that fraud or providing the wires connecting entire fraud offices to the global telephonic network not responsible for enabling that attack?

Same reason the electric grid is not responsible because it powered the phones, and water is not responsible for generating its electricity in a power plant. The phone network is a medium for communication, and so is the internet. And they can be abused just like air as a verbal communication medium between a scammer and a victim can.

> We do, in practice, impose all manner of limitation on free speech while still maintaining the sanctity of that right.

And we do impose legal limitations on online scams while still maintaining access to the internet. What more do you want?

[shadowgovt]

> What more do you want?

A solution that works, honestly. Because phone scams are so abundant now that people are ceasing to use phones.