Matthew GarrettPeople will complain that a technology can be used to oppress user freedom while contributing to free software that gets used in literal weapons of war
I do entirely understand the idea that functionality that can be used against users (even if it can also be used to enhance user security) is bad, I just don't understand why people will simultaneously make that argument and support the idea that a software license that says "You may not use this software to murder people" is incompatible with the ideals of free software
DRM is pretty obviously something that inherently removes user freedom without benefit, and decrying it is entirely reasonable. Hardware identity and state attestation *can* be used for DRM, but can also be used for other purposes that improve things for users (like Signal verifying that it's communicating with a genuine enclave before disclosing any sensitive data), and attacking the technology rather than the ways it's used seems short-sighted
Manoj Kasichainula@mjg59
I don't have the nuance of whomever you're replying to, so broadly:
(Approximately) no one complains about Yubikeys, datacenter HSMs, etc., because context matters. FIDO deployment wasn't going to lead to controlling what computers you can use the web with. But Google's ReCAPTCHA replacement has as a specific tactic to stop people operating outside the phone duopoly from using portions of the web.
And it probably won't even be good at their alleged goal: https://bsky.app/profile/retr0.id/post/3mljwh4k4k225
@mjg59 The thing is, I think you know all this better than I do based on what I've read from you, so I'm genuinely confused where you're coming from.