I suspect that the secret laws passed after 911, which Ron Paul among others have alluded to, make this a pipe dream.
where does ron paul allude to that?
also, wouldn't secrecy defeat the idea behind laws, i.e. them being obeyed? (genuinely curious)
I want a computer that I own
11–20 of 668 posts
Re: I want a computer that I own
#12I suspect that the secret laws passed after 911, which Ron Paul among others have alluded to, make this a pipe dream.
Hmm secret laws? Do you have a source for this. I feel like a secret law defeats the purpose of a law lol.
I assume they're referring to Rand Paul (and also Ron Wyden) who have both made assertions that the executive branch has it's own secret interpretations of the laws that were passed post-9/11. The laws themselves are not secret, but what the government thinks they authorize is.
Re: I want a computer that I own
#13There are approaches that can deliver large portions of this; run an open source linux distribution, running open source browser with open source tracker blocking software. You can run this on an inexpensive system and wipe out all external communication except what you specifically want. This is obviously unrealistic for most people. You can toggle off automatic feedback & updates in a modern OS and you can install…
If anyone is interested in an extremely secure linux distro: https://tails.boum.org/
Re: I want a computer that I own
#14> Except for a handful of very over-priced models that I can't afford to buy, our computers are increasingly designed to be little more than advertising platforms and vehicles for maximizing the cloud revenues of their true owners
Huh? You can buy a very cheap used ThinkPad for <$200 and run GNU/Linux on it. In fact, I don’t see any mention of Linux in this article.
Re: I want a computer that I own
#15I have a similar feeling, but with modern smartphones.
Owning my computer is still relatively possible. I can build a computer from parts which I can choose, and have a choice in which operating system to install on them. Laptops are slightly more closed, but even on those I can choose the OS myself.
Modern smartphones however, seem like walled gardens in which I have no control at all. I cannot choose any of the parts, and even doing simple reparation tasks like replacing a battery is a nightmare these days. I am locked into a single OS on my smartphone, which either spies on you or is locked down even more. Every iteration a bit more control is taken away from the user. And its increasingly hard to step away from them, since a lot of normal interactions such as banking almost requires you to have such a phone.
Both Android and iOS suck. I've made my own Android phone tolerable with F-Droid and trying to ungoogle it as much as possible. But unfortunately I find myself locked into using google play services since solutions like MicroG just don't cut it. They lock me out of slightly too much of my daily smartphone usage (note that this is definitely not the MicroG's developers fault, they have done amazing work).
Re: I want a computer that I own
#16I suspect that the secret laws passed after 911, which Ron Paul among others have alluded to, make this a pipe dream.
Hmm secret laws? Do you have a source for this. I feel like a secret law defeats the purpose of a law lol.
Of course there is no source, they are secret! Are you even listening?!
Re: I want a computer that I own
#17Build a PC and install Linux on it and be done with it.
Re: I want a computer that I own
#18Isn't this essentially what Richard Stallman talks about?
Re: I want a computer that I own
#19What does it mean to own something? In the extreme, do you own anything that you don’t understand? In the extreme does owning something become a kind of performance art? https://www.ted.com/talks/thomas_thwaites_how_i_built_a_toas...
Reminds me of the saying about how "if you want to make an apple pie from scratch, first you have to make the universe."
Re: I want a computer that I own
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hmm secret laws? Do you have a source for this. I feel like a secret law defeats the purpose of a law lol.
I assume they're referring to Rand Paul (and also Ron Wyden) who have both made assertions that the executive branch has it's own secret interpretations of the laws that were passed post-9/11. The laws themselves are not secret, but what the government thinks they authorize is.
on the chance that I might sound naive, how does this supposedly work in regard to judicial review?