
I say this out of genuine concern: That is not strong enough resistance. The next step governments will take will use the existence of these concessions as their slippery slope. They will be used as an argument that if it is possible for some projects to implement it, all could and should implement it. Defiant implementations will be held up as examples of loophole exploitation, requiring additional legislation. Any or all of these.
I can't believe I lived long enough to see OSs become subject to arbitrary regulation reminiscent of firearms. It's the OS equivalent of California's microstamp laws, which don't even have a functional technical solution. This is unconstitutional. I know it runs afoul of a multitude of amendments, but what about the 2nd amendment? As encryption has been regulated as a munition in the past, can arbitrary restrictions on the use of, say, Tails, constitute infringement? Can we get the count of bill of rights violations up to at least 4?
English




























