That’s one of the costs of liberty. The government will need to find another way.
No, that’s not liberty. If the average user would have any way of detecting when software is doing nefarious thighs, then sure, you’d be right, but the average user can’t possibly know that software is misbehaving just like they couldn’t have possibly known that asbestos or lead was bad for them. Software is opaque. As long as it remains opaque, consumers are unsuspecting victims and need help.
Side tangent, but your oopsie of Nefarious Things to “Nefarious Thighs” fucking FLOORED me xD Wish I could detect nefarious thighs!
average user can’t possibly know
Hence the information campaign to make people aware.
Look at cigarettes, they are harmful and therefore have a strong information campaign to inform the public. I highly doubt you’ll find anyone today who isn’t aware of the dangers of smoking, but just 100 years ago, it was considered classy and largely innocuous. The difference was a big information campaign to counter the tobacco lobby’s attempts to spin smoking as somehow healthy.
The government’s role should be to make opaque things transparent, not to bad things that could be harmful. At the same time, they can spy on other countries to get an idea of what types of control they can exert, which would help them better inform the public.
But at the end of the day, it’s up to the individual what they choose to believe. Liberty is having the freedom to make poor choices, and to live with the consequences. The government’s role should be to earn our trust, but they violate it at every opportunity in the name of “security” (NSA, TSA, etc). Yes, a lot of people will ignore it, and that’s a part of having liberty.
Hence the information campaign to make people aware.
There are still those who think the lunar landing didn’t happen so this is not a valid option for something that might pose an immediate danger to society.
But at the end of the day, it’s up to the individual what they choose to believe. Liberty is having the freedom to make poor choices, and to live with the consequences.
Government backed malicious software is not just dangerous to the user, it’s a societal level threat. And unlike smoking, which is banned wherever it poses a danger to more than just the smoker, there isn’t a way to restrict usage in a way in which it only affects the user.
immediate danger to society
But what exactly is the definition of that?
For example, which of these meet that definition:
- an antivirus that ignores viruses from the county of origin
- a social media app that collects data from a device and sends it home
- a social media app that likely promotes content with a specific political agenda the government doesn’t like
- an app that hides monetary transaction details, which is commonly used by terrorists and other criminals
- a social media app that doesn’t id users and allows criminals to use it to communicate
The first two are probably the initial targets, but a law enforcement agency could make a decent case for the rest. Where does it stop?
That’s why I think we need a hard limit on government authority here. It’s better for some bad stuff to propagate than for the scope of what’s blocked to expand and effectively limit freedoms of speech, association, press, etc.
Government have a lot of tools at their disposal, I honestly don’t think banning software needs to be one of them.
