Irenes (many)2d ago

when Intel introduced a cpuid instruction, around 1998 or so

there was a debate on the Linux kernel mailing list as to whether Linux should provide a way to call that instruction

you know, because of its potential uses for surveillance and how that was sharply at odds with the idea of computers being owned by their users

Show threadIrenes (many)2d ago
the resolution, at least for a while, was that Linux would implement an interface for programs to invoke the instruction, but would also add an interface that allows the user to instruct the kernel to lie and return a user-specified identifier instead
Show threadIrenes (many)2d ago
that was a reasonable approach, though it was only possible because cpuid did not have the force of law. that's how you resist surveillance through technology, when you have to.
Show threadIrenes (many)2d ago
we haven't followed up on it since then. we kind of suspect everyone forgot about cpui and some DRM patch in the 2010s quietly made it a "real" surveillance feature and nobody noticed, but ... who knows, you know?
Show threadIrenes (many)2d ago

at any rate, it's really startling to us to see people complying in advance with this current wave of surveillance stuff

many of them are people we have ideological differences with, but we would have at least hoped that libertarians (in the modern, US-centric sense, not the historical one) would understand when someone is seeking to control them, and resist it

Show threadVile Lasagna
@ireneista honestly, libertarians seem to only understand control and oppression when it's taxes or the age of consent. They're extremely eager to lick every single actual boot that comes their way
Mar 19 at 10:25pmWeb
Show threadIrenes (many)2d ago
@VileLasagna yes, that does seem true. it's unfortunate.