This is how the democrats lose the next election.
GJ snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Again
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
This is how the democrats lose the next election.
GJ snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Again
still have no idea how they will implement this, with phones that can be rooted or running something like lineageOS or others.
But in any case, I am glad I am not from the US.
The EU is pushing very similar things...
Literally Meta has been caught paying people through shell orgs all around the world to pass this kind of legislation.
But in any case, I am glad I am not from the US. Windows is made in the US. I wouldn't be surprised if they push this crap to the rest of the world too. Same with Android and IOS.
The app "5 calls" is free, free of ads, and free of tracking. It will provide you with the phone numbers and emails of your representatives and senators. It will also provide you scripts so that you can speak directly on each potential topic. You can also set up daily, weekly, or monthly notifications to remind you.
They can’t even arrest the pedophiles in government but they want to mass surveil us for everything.
Yea so you quit taking badly about the pedophiles in government.
Those are not contrary, but complementary things.

I see how this is bad from a privacy standpoint, but how does it affect device ownership?
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.
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
That's not a given, it could easily be implemented as a normal application with normal permissions, that the OS starts when needed.
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.
If you don't control it, you don't really own it. Modern cars can be remotely disabled on the whim of the car maker. Is it really YOUR car if someone else can cripple it or completely disable it without your permission?
It's already the case with your phone if you use OEM OS: manufacturers can do pretty much whatever they want remotely.
Now it's the turn of the computers: either it has a "compliant OS" (remotely controllable by 3rd party), or you will be cut off a growing part of basic use.
I'm not sure, but it could erode it when someone else decides if you're old enough, or maybe later have no convictions, or maybe you're a reporter the government doesn't like, and you can't even verify into the devices you own.
I've seen a lot of people saying how this will be unenforceable and so isn't something we need to worry about.
Except this could be enforced. Google came out with a proposal a few years ago for a method of validating the a request came from a "trusted" (aka, signed and with secure boot enabled OS), ostensibly to combat bot traffic. They dropped it after push back, but it still provides a blueprint for how this could be enforced.
https://github.com/explainers-by-googlers/Web-Environment-Integrity
If web platforms are mandated by law to enforce something like this then the web could be effectively restricted to only approved operating systems. There could still be a dark web, but with the weight of the law behind it, once anything gained momentum access to it could be shut down at the service provider layer.
This shouldn't be dismissed as a threat because it's "unenforceable", because it is.
It’s worth writing your reps!! There’s usually an easy way to contact them via their website
Speaking and educating does not work anymore. And that really only works in democracy.