I can't tell if your argument is a slipper-slope fallacy or a straw-man argument, has to be one or both.
When you sell physical goods, you have to have a business license right? To a small group of people you know, nobody cares. But to mass market goods or services, you need to give the government your id, and they need to be able to hold you accountable, in the event you decide to break the law and/or harm the public.
I think this is something governments should have enforced long ago. Even linux distros with > N number of users should be required by law to id-verify package publishers. Although, they sort of already verify identify, just not using a formal/official way.
You have the right to free speech, anonymity and privacy. But being able to reach and impact the public is not a right, it is a privilege.
You can speak with a loud microrphone in public anonymously, but if you want to arrange a protest, you must give your id for the approval. If you want to start a radio or tv station, you must give up your id for the FCC license,etc... software isn't special.
Right, we have an online community where we share some cool software that we wrote for each other, and then suddenly we need to show our IDs because of "safety".
You are falling for the trap that all these wannabe dictators are setting up for us: that they are protecting us with all these regulations. Oh sure it protects some people in some ways, but you're not seeing how you're giving away your freedom and put them in control of your life.
I think it's just that certified Google devices are no longer usable for your much smaller use case, because Google prioritized their much larger customers who suffer from harm. Freedom vs security is not the argument here, because there is no expectation of Freedom when it comes to a private business. If you ask me, software licensing and copyrights should entirely be torn down. If google is a monopoly and they are forcing this measure, it might qualify for an anti-trust suit by governments. But if they aren't a monopoly (cooperhead,lineage,etc..) then you should use other options and ditch certified google devices.
I say all of you should give up and use iphones like me! :)
So I assume then you would also be completely obedient when the government or companies wants instant access to all your data all the time, because of safety you know. Just because there are a few of these stupid rebels, the whole world shouldn't be an unsafer place right? And of course they are not gonna misuse this power, why so suspicious? It's all silly conspiracy theories. Big tech and the government are here to protect us!
Not all software is sold as part of a business. Free software is one such example. So this comparison is inappropriate.
>I think this is something governments should have enforced long ago. Even linux distros with > N number of users should be required by law to id-verify package publishers.
There should be massive burdens and surveillance on linux and free software maintainers, because ???. I guess it's just too easy for them, so they should be shoeboxed into a business model for developing software whether they like it or not.
>You have the right to free speech, anonymity and privacy. But being able to reach and impact the public is not a right, it is a privilege.
This is just some nonsense platitude, not unlike the canadian idea of "freedom of expression". "You have the right to a completely weak and useless form of speech because I say so"
>but if you want to arrange a protest, you must give your id for the approval.
What are you yapping about old man? We have the right to assemble. There is limited radio and TV is regulated only because there is limited bandwidth.
Software is special because it is just information and Information Wants To Be Free.
You are making the argument here that because some old forms of information distribution are regulated due to technical restraints, that all forms of information should be highly regulated.
Software is just information, as I stated earlier. It could be encoded into any information medium, for example a book. So why not regulate software in the same way that books are regulated, which provides strong free speech protections?
When you sell physical goods, you have to have a business license right? To a small group of people you know, nobody cares. But to mass market goods or services, you need to give the government your id, and they need to be able to hold you accountable, in the event you decide to break the law and/or harm the public.
I think this is something governments should have enforced long ago. Even linux distros with > N number of users should be required by law to id-verify package publishers. Although, they sort of already verify identify, just not using a formal/official way.
You have the right to free speech, anonymity and privacy. But being able to reach and impact the public is not a right, it is a privilege.
You can speak with a loud microrphone in public anonymously, but if you want to arrange a protest, you must give your id for the approval. If you want to start a radio or tv station, you must give up your id for the FCC license,etc... software isn't special.