Earlier quoted context omitted.
> taking away control from users If you don't control something, you de facto don't own it. You're advocating for a future without personal property. If you doubt this, see John Deere. > improve the overall security of the internet When someone else has remote control over your system, your system is - by definition - insecure. The recent drama involving the FBI and an iphone is a perfect example: the phone is insecu…
I'm not advocating. I am pointing out that user control is fundamentally anti-security. Bad security may very well be worth the tradeoff if you value other things like freedom, fashion, backwards compatibility, fewer restarts, price, etc.
But supposing and to the extent that they are, I'll bite that bullet. If I have to trade away security for freedom, then I'm willing to do exactly that.