On 10-May-2007, Alex Hudson wrote: > On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 08:51 +1000, Ben Finney wrote: > > This is the important point. It's very easy to rationalise a > > purchase of hardware containing treacherous computing technology > > with the fallacious logic of "It's possible to conceive of a > > non-harmful use; therefore, it's not certain that this is harmful; > > therefore, I can dismiss any argument telling me I shouldn't buy > > this." > > > > That faulty logic has been distressingly common in this thread. > > As opposed to the logic that if the hardware comes with free > software drivers and is entirely under your control, then it's > pretty difficult to understand an argument which purports it to be > harmful?
You've snipped the point I quoted from RMS's message. If you're dismissing it without addressing it, that makes "difficult to understand" a bit hollow. Here it is again: RMS wrote: > Can TC be used to enhance security if it's used with free > software? > > If you can do this without contributing to any tendency to > legitimize treacherous computing, then it is harmless. But you must > MAKE SURE you don't contribute to such a tendency. Don't leave it > to chance! The purchase of the hardware, and the legitimisation of treacherous computing that results, is not improved by the control you speak of. "So long as I have control of my hardware, I'm alright Jack" doesn't reduce the tendency to produce and propagate this stuff, just like it doesn't get rid of proprietary software. -- \ "Why should I care about posterity? What's posterity ever done | `\ for me?" -- Groucho Marx | _o__) | Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
