I am a huge naysayer of walled gardens and think they should never exist. I think the owner of any device should the sole God of that device and should be the only decision maker that matters. BUT that means if the owner is a business or a government entity then they should set the devices up to their chosen level of security. If a regular person is owner of the device, then they should have say over whether sideloading or rooting is OK. Personally I believe if you don't have root on your own device then it is pre-loaded with malware even if that malware came from Google or Apple. But again, the owner of it is the only one that should have say over what and how anything gets loaded, what security it uses, and what the device can and can't do in general. But ALWAYS the first step should be making sure the manufacturer does not have more control over any device than the owner of it does.

The following items are true.... 1) Self driving is 100% autonomous and handled 100% in vehicle and does not give government or insurance any information about my current or historical locations. and 2) It can 100% over-ridden and driven as a regular vehicle with the human being the sole entity in control.

I see this as a good thing and needs to expand. I realize free speech laws are in relation to government and not corporations, but when social media platforms become a defacto standard, then there are really no choices for anyone to go have free speech somewhere else. When that happens, I think corporations should be held to the same free speech standards as the government. I realize that people will say some heinous things once enabled, but bad people are easily countered with facts. And here is the really important part.... even if someone is really off base, is really a horrible person and says horrible things, it is easy to counter that with facts. But by letting someone speak, even when completely off base, you decrease the liklihood of them radicalizing. Shutting people down completely as has been the norm in the last 10 years causes radicalization. People get more and more desperate to be heard and go to extreme lengths for that to happen. Let people say their piece, then shut them down with facts or choose to ignore them. But EVERYONE should get to speak no matter how bad the message.

These are by design. Companies have learned that they can say security and idiots will accept it. I argue that privacy is not separate from security and that true security and privacy means even the company you are dealing with should have no way to tie an account to a real human if the human chooses for it to not be so. Almost all 2 factor that is put in place in the last 5 years is put in place in the name of security, but it is simply these companies putting in place mechanisms that allow them to tie an account to a real human identity.

Absolutely this. No one should get to decide what is good and what is bad in free speech. That is the entire point in free speech. Everyone is always for it until it is THEIR speech getting curtailed. MOST of the time government (and even corporations that manage social networks) intervenes for good causes that benefit the people. But sometimes... sometimes they work against the people. I realize that 1st amendment rights only affects government entities regarding free speech, but I would argue that when a platform becomes as ubiquitous as facebook or X, then they also should be beholden to 1st amendment protections. Again, no one argues that people will not say very heinous things and there will be misinformation, but no one should get to decide what those are on the behalf of someone else. That is the entire point of free speech. Freedom to say what you feel needs to be said AND the freedom to hear what you want to hear. Crazies are pretty easy to defeat with facts. Shutting them up entirely just radicalizes them.

There are other reasons for banning utility scale clean power projects than just old white "not in my back yard" people. I think one of the biggest reasons is that there are a non-zero contingent of people who believe like I do that the days of utility scale electricity should be ended... and for a variety of reasons. The technology exists now to concentrate on distributed grid electricity that can now rely on local, even individual house generation and backup. This provides redundancy, security, constant price security that don't exist with utility scale electricity. Storms, state level hacking, even wars are threats to utility scale electricity generation but distributed grid will provide some protection resiliency. I firmly that believe that the majority of utility scale electricity generation should now be over, but power companies are doing everything in their power to make distributed grid as aggravating and high cost as possible.

Freedom of speech is *** INFINITELY *** more important than protecting hurt feelings or preventing idiots from believing misinformation.

As a IT security professional that has worked at multiple employers who are covered by DHS regulations of one type or another, I can say the majority of the time the issue is not stuff this stupid, but is in fact entitled executive management and the fact that DHS regulation has no teeth until something happens. Then it is too late. Things like refusing to allow the PC's to be locked down or refusing to set IT policy that works via whitelist where you can use company equipment to access things relevant to work that have been pre-vetted. IT security is not hard if you simply get rid of the fucking egos. Whitelist, fail by default, based systems solve 99% of issues before they occur. They are very very cheap compared to any other system but entitled management prioritizes happiness of themselves or users over security. Listen to music on your phone. Install that app you want on your home PC. Your work equipment should work for only the things that have been pre-authorized and then it becomes very simple and very cheap to maintain security. And DHS needs to put teeth on companies that don't live by those requirements BEFORE the bad stuff happens.

The citizens should rebel by never going outside or going anywhere without wearing a Niqab regardless of wheter you are male or female, Christian, Jew, Muslim, or Athiest.

Please read deeper, my statement is not restricted to imessage and bubbles and is much more broad, but still to tackle your Apple fanboyism, let me state that you really don't get it. Apple is not secure for you, they are secure for them. Take for instance the case a few years back with the suspected terrorist when California was trying to get Apple to give them access to the phone. It is ridiculous because apple should not even be ABLE to give up your security to any government entity. If devices and protocols are configured securely, then only the endpoints define and control both the encryption and how it is implemented. If a company dictates what encryption is used and controls it, then you are NOT secure no matter what you believe. Message apps, by definition can not truly be secure from the end user perspective unless the encryption algorithm and mechanism is controlled by the user. i.e. add ons at the control of the user or even better, PRE-encryption with peer reviewed, open source, verifiable encryption before it ever even sees any messaging app. Apple pulled off a marketing coverup by somehow manipulating it so that no one ever asked the question, "why is it even possible for you to give up my security in the first place?"

To broaden it back up again, let look at a similar marketing miracle that happened during hurricane Katrina with Tesla. Tesla remotely enabled extended driving range as a "favor" to help people get out of the path of hurricane Katrina and turned into a marketing win. The correct question was never asked "why the fuck do you have access to something that someone else owns in the first place". The answer is that they shouldn't or at the VERY least, there should be government enforced controls that you do not have to allow them access to your equipment (car) after you have purchased it. They should not be able to change anything remotely or in person without the approval of the owner of the device and technically the owner should have that control directly even if they get pissy about it and threaten to void warranties if you cause battery damage.

Security is not security unless it is in the hands of the 2 endpoints and ONLY those endpoints, otherwise it is just fancy, pre-loaded malware that they suckered you into paying for.

I work in the IT security industry. This is absolutely untrue and is FUD of epic proportions. Hardware keys and tokens are typically coded with open source encryption that has been peer reviewed and the ability to swap out that software by the people on either end of the software or hardware (the only 2 parties that matter) is completely up to them.

Let me give an example using one of the biggest shitshows in IT, pinned certificates. It should never be an option for a company to hide communications from the owner of a given device. If an owner of the device decides they need to view or authorize any data coming out of their device going back to the company they should ALWAYS have that option. They are the owner of the device and they have EVERY right to know and authorize every bit of data that comes out of that device that may be reporting back to home base. Pinned certificates make this difficult to impossible. If regulations were in place that enforced that the companies could not prevent users from loading their own self signed certs and proxying traffic in a way that the owner of the device can see and take action on the traffic content. This does not make the system any less secure from an internet perspective. People in the middle without direct access to the hardware are still just as locked out.

So basically if a company is bitching about not being able to secure their product or service against the owner of the device, then they are in fact malware themselves. Owners should God of the items they own. If they misconfigure and allow access that is on them, not the company or the protocols or hardware being used. But it should be their right to configure it any way they want and they should have the right to say yes or no to every single thing that device does, from network connected wall plugs to automobiles.

Because this goes way deeper than just one service on one platform from one company. And the way things are done now, it hinders and slows technological progress. In addition, enforcing interoperability would give us all a much better level of interoperability WITHOUT enabling any company to become a monopoly and even if one company did create a product or service good enough that even, despite the above protections, somehow would up being a defacto monopoly in their chosen space... if they then used that monopoly to go off the rails and start artificially crippling features so they can be sold back to their consumers, it simply opens the door for another company to step right in and fill the void. It will ENFORCE competition much more than any other method currently and will force focus on new features and technology advancements to gain and retain customers instead of much slower advancement that uses crippling technologies to grind every cent out of their users at every opportunity.

In all of the digital space, there really needs to be government intervention to guarantee that artificial blocks to interoperability should be illegal. There is a term for it.... adversarial interoperability. But the thing is, if this were in place and couple with protections that hardware and software MUST be considered separate for all devices, technology would advance WAY faster, and competition would be much stronger if this were enforced by law. Anti competitive and anti consumer practices like artificially crippling hardware so that the functionality could be sold back to you would go away literally overnight. It would force actual innovation to get ahead rather than beating on consumers with these shit practices. Even in items like cars with subscriptions for heated seats. If you could swap out software or use software of your choice if one company decided to do stupid shit like this.

I guarantee you this is about accessing and controlling your data to a higher degree. I don't mind who does my system as long as it is usable and doesn't spew my data everywhere. At least with android auto its very easy to just keep an old phone paired to the car that isn't tied to a normal user account. Hiding in plain site. I guarantee you they are going to tell you you have buy yet another data connection also.

I got into a huge argument years back on the Homeassistant forums when homeassistant started banning plugins that did not use official API's. The biggest majority of homeassistant users are using homeassistant exactly because it allows controlling your home devices without having to authenticate to servers that you don't control and ask permission of someone else to control equipment behind your firewall. In my opinion everyone that went with change is getting what they deserve. Cloud controlled devices are a security joke. Connected devices are wonderful, but they should expose a local web interface or some other local API.