The interesting case is: if I am the sole legitimate user of the device, should my device resist my attempts to run cat_pictures_infected_with_cryptolocker.jpg.exe?
> if I am the sole legitimate user of the device...
On the flip side, if your device resists your attempts to run cat_pictures_infected_with_cryptolocker.jpg.exe, it is clear that somebody else has some degree of control over the behavior of your device, and this somebody does not consider you to be the sole legitimate controller of your device.
Who is this somebody, and what right does he/she/they have to retain partial control of your property? That sounds like a more interesting question to me. Because unless you're like RMS and only use free software on open-source hardware, you're never the sole legitimate controller of any device these days.
If you wrote a program to restrain your own careless self, or installed someone else's program with the expectation that it will restrain you, then I suppose everything's kosher. We're all consenting adults, right?
Things get more complicated when a stranger decides to tell you what you can or can't do, without your consent, against your expectations, and sometimes even in spite of your loud complaints.
On the flip side, if your device resists your attempts to run cat_pictures_infected_with_cryptolocker.jpg.exe, it is clear that somebody else has some degree of control over the behavior of your device, and this somebody does not consider you to be the sole legitimate controller of your device.
Who is this somebody, and what right does he/she/they have to retain partial control of your property? That sounds like a more interesting question to me. Because unless you're like RMS and only use free software on open-source hardware, you're never the sole legitimate controller of any device these days.