this post was submitted on 16 Apr 2026
672 points (97.5% liked)
Technology
83831 readers
3656 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I would argue it does not directly or obviously impact device ownership. However, to the best of my knowledge, it would be the first time that the US Government has publicly required a specific set of features for consumer software.
To make matters worse, this is an Operating System level requirement, which means it has more permissions than any other piece of software you run. Every device you run today has an Operating System of some kind, so this bill could impact all devices.
So, I think the conclusion that you no longer own the device stems from the fact that it has software on it doing things and collecting information you did not approve. For normal people, there will be no way to avoid it. Tech savvy users will of course find ways to dodge it unless there are enforcement mechanisms and penalties that are sufficiently punitive.
Definitely not a path we should be going down if we actually cared about freedom, much less privacy. Not to mention, this opens up the whole “slippery slope” argument for more direct government control over software.
Not all devices.
God bless these chucklefucks for targeting the tools of the 1st instead of the tools of the 2nd. Why use words when you can use lead?
That's not a given, it could easily be implemented as a normal application with normal permissions, that the OS starts when needed.
You say that like they ever do things the right way, even a fair chunk of the proposals I see for Linux take it out of the user's hands.
I already nuked my hard drive and went to Debian when Microslop kept trying to force me to "update" my local account and turned their creepy AI stuff back on again and again no matter how many times I dug in with PowerShell to shut it off.
We're going to be running a fork not licensed for use in the US or Europe soon enough, or bowing to surveillance and de-anonymization. Or maybe go back to legacy systems, like dumping systemd and wayland for init and x11, just to have things actually work for us again rather than embrace the ever-present creep of the "Framework of Fuckery" (TM) that is being pushed by the corpo scum and their pet "Representatives."
It could be a dangerous path indeed, giving the government full access to your phone. I'm not sure the bill says that though.
But I think most people already do... A huge bunch of apps collect everything they can on you; tiktok used to be the worst. I wouldn't trust a government less than a private company.
I dunno, maybe forcing companies to put (or remove) specific features on their software could set an interesting legal precedent: it could be used to stop companies from pushing features people don't want or designing apps with dark patterns.
Yeah, you are right that we already have huge attack surfaces from apps on phones and the phones themselves.
I also agree some regulations and/or laws that prevent companies from engaging in their shady practices and dark patterns would be great if they were enforced and were not simply used to prevent competition by the large companies. I won’t hold my breath though.