does it support my freedom to use proprietary drivers with my video card

You are free to do whatever you want with it, including changing the repositories to Ubuntu.com and installing proprietary drivers.

Not sure if it's worth replying, because I doubt I'll convince you. But I shall try.

The GPL gives you Freedom 0, to run the software as you wish. In fact, the GPL states in section 9:

You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program. [...]

Freedom 1: freedom to read understand the source code. Again, there are no restrictions on this, AFAIK.

Freedom 2: freedom to modify the software. No restrictions on this, AFAIK (as long as you don't distribute).

Freedom 3: freedom to distribute and create derivative works. There are some restrictions on how you do this. For example, you must clearly state the license and derivative works must be licensed under the GPL.

If you like permissive licensing, I won't blame you. There are a lot of free software licenses that are free software licenses as well. But a lot of them have restrictions as well, e.g. acknowledgement in sources. Only software in the public domain has no restrictions, and provides "true" freedom according to your definition.

Going back to the subject, you might be interested to know that NetBSD cofounder and OpenBSD project leader Theo de Raadt was awarded the Advancement For Free Software in 2004. The advancement of free software has nothing to do with the GPL.

According to Apple:

If the user has limited ad tracking, use the advertising identifier only for the following purposes: frequency capping, conversion events, estimating the number of unique users, security and fraud detection, and debugging.

In other words, disabling targeted/personalised ads doesn't disable tracking at all.

When does Sony go to jail, for developing rookits? I bet that affected people on a much larger scale. What about the false advertising regarding the OtherOS feature, which was removed via an updater/backdoor?

Sony screws its customers with DRM and anti-features and attacks software developers. I find it hard to feel sorry for them.

My main fear with this type of law is that it could be extended to protect businesses.

Just imagine how many people Microsoft would be able to sue, for causing offence?

Of course, the other concern is the exact interpretation of "causing offense" is not clear. This is bad for Free Speech, as other posters have mentioned.

I had a company spokeperson at my university lecturing about the benefits of Bluetooth tracking. They stated it was used for improving traffic, but at what cost?

Many countries also have electronic tolling booths that require RFID devices in cars (it's called eToll/GoVia in Australia). So it's not only license plate readers that people have to watch out for.

Don't like it? Go into your BIOS and turn it off.

Most computer users don't know what a BIOS even is, let alone how to get into it.

It's not that simple. Many users don't know what UEFI or Restricted Boot are. If they see a Certified for Windows 8 logo on a computer when they're buying it, they don't know that means extra restrictions for them.

Not everybody cares about computers, which is why Restricted Boot is so bad.

Richard's story, The Right To Read, has already sort of predicted this move.

But not only were [free operating systems] illegal, like debuggers—you could not install one if you had one, without knowing your computer's root password. And neither the FBI nor Microsoft Support would tell you that.

Despite what people say about Restricted Boot, it opens up the world of computers to a whole new set of attacks... by megacorporations like Microsoft.

Some of those things mentioned in TFA aren't software, so I'm not sure the term "open source" even applies. H.264 is not software, but there is Free software that supports it. The issue regarding H.264 is freedom, because it is encumbered by software patents.

Perhaps relevant:
http://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html

... However, if I am visiting somewhere and the machines available nearby happen to contain non-free software, through no doing of mine, I don't refuse to touch them.
...
Likewise, I don't need to worry about what software is in a kiosk, pay phone, or ATM that I am using. I hope their owners migrate them to free software, for their sake, but there's no need for me to refuse to touch them until then.

On a side note, will this person be using Free BIOS and Free firmware? RMS uses a Lemote computer (MIPS) in order to achieve this. Also, his website linked to Vimeo, which requires non-free JavaScript in order to run.

(replace "Free" with "open source" if you prefer that term)

How can you expect to have control of your computing, if your company uses proprietary operating systems and doesn't let you control it? SSL/TLS snooping is the least of your problems; if they own the computer and they're in control, they can spy on you anyway.

As a rule I avoid computers I don't own whenever possible. I only use such computers for trivial tasks, or perhaps work if I can't use my own. If I don't own the computer or if it has proprietary software on it, I immediately assume I'm being spied on.

Yes, because we all know Microsoft invented the smartphone... wait, what?

Because we can all see how important Microsoft's smartphone inventions have been to the public, by the success of their phones. </sarcasm>