No, you're trying to elevate some flaky security feature to a debate about human rights. It's not particularly meaningful or conducive to any kind of insight because once you make that jump, you just get to fulminate endlessly about principles and oppression. It's like starting to recite the Universal Declaration of Human Rights every time you stub your toe instead of just saying 'shit!' and thinking about maybe moving that table out of the way.
The broader topic is a debate about human rights that's actively being fought in elections, parliaments, and courts. The right to privacy and the right to repair, for example, and a nascent debate about the right to run whatever software you choose.
"Your computer isn't yours" is a powerful way to express the essence of those debates. Who has the right to do what they want with a computer, the company that built it or the person who owns it?
Software signing is admittedly a relatively minor battle in that war, but it's not completely separate from the broader issues.
>you're trying to elevate some flaky security feature to a debate about human rights.
It is not a "flaky security feature" It is a main thing that defines who controls the personal computer.
Accessing and controlling Personal Computer with personal notes is the same as accessing and controlling personal notes written on paper.
There is no elevation here from my side, it is literally about human right for privacy and I am not the one who tried to elevate the issue to unrelated areas like cars and houses.
It is a main thing that defines who controls the personal computer
It's a flaky feature that people had a workaround for in minutes. Nobody lost control of their computer.
There is no elevation here from my side, it is literally about human right
My secondary school had a bigass Universal Declaration of Human Rights mounted on a wall behind plexiglass. Whenever I got detention I'd protest citing Article 9. At 12, this seemed both funny and trenchant commentary on my predicament.
