this post was submitted on 16 Apr 2026
1100 points (97.3% liked)
Technology
84025 readers
8229 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 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.
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."