[Fwd: Re: sad treacherous computing day]
ben at benfinney.id.au
Thu May 10 08:01:21 UTC 2007
On 10-May-2007, Alex Hudson wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 08:51 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> > This is the important point. It's very easy to rationalise a
> > purchase of hardware containing treacherous computing technology
> > with the fallacious logic of "It's possible to conceive of a
> > non-harmful use; therefore, it's not certain that this is harmful;
> > therefore, I can dismiss any argument telling me I shouldn't buy
> > this."
> > That faulty logic has been distressingly common in this thread.
> As opposed to the logic that if the hardware comes with free
> software drivers and is entirely under your control, then it's
> pretty difficult to understand an argument which purports it to be
You've snipped the point I quoted from RMS's message. If you're
dismissing it without addressing it, that makes "difficult to
understand" a bit hollow.
Here it is again:
> Can TC be used to enhance security if it's used with free
> If you can do this without contributing to any tendency to
> legitimize treacherous computing, then it is harmless. But you must
> MAKE SURE you don't contribute to such a tendency. Don't leave it
> to chance!
The purchase of the hardware, and the legitimisation of treacherous
computing that results, is not improved by the control you speak of.
"So long as I have control of my hardware, I'm alright Jack" doesn't
reduce the tendency to produce and propagate this stuff, just like it
doesn't get rid of proprietary software.
\ "Why should I care about posterity? What's posterity ever done |
`\ for me?" -- Groucho Marx |
Ben Finney <ben at benfinney.id.au>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the Discussion