1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
|
Except it does let 3rd parties OS boot, at least on X86, since the norm mandate it. <br>And for arm tablet, no one reacted when Apple, Acer, Samsung, Archos and lots of others locked down their devices, so trying to argue that we now expect them to be open would not work.<br>
<br>And regarding using consumer protection channels, no one did anything to make anything move since one year despite being widely publicized on various blogs, so how is your proposal different ? <br><br>Talk is cheap, if every people who proposed that ( for example, on slashdot or various foras where nerds are discussing ), someone would have started the work by the time. No one did, and that's because everybody that would be serious enough know this is built on wrong assumptions.<br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2012/12/30 P. Christeas <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:xrg@linux.gr" target="_blank">xrg@linux.gr</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im">On Sunday 30 December 2012, Max Quarterpleen wrote:<br>
> Hi all<br>
> It looks like the FSF is launching a campaign to stop the UEFI SecureBoot<br>
> from being adopted on a large scale basis.<br>
<br>
</div>Suggestion (in case it's not already considered) :<br>
<br>
We could also utilize the /consumer protection/ channels and demand that such<br>
hardware comes with a big _sticker_ claiming "this device cannot support any<br>
3rd party software/operating system".<br>
<br>
It is important to emphasize on a /negative/ wording. One that would put off<br>
the consumer from buying the locked-down device. Of course, in legal terms, we<br>
must be very precise in what we ask for, because companies will try to change<br>
the sticker to some positive message: "this device is /protected/ against bad<br>
software" or so..<br>
<br>
If vendors don't apply the sticker, then, under current law (in most European<br>
and US states), we have the right to *return* the device, claiming it does not<br>
fulfil the purpose we have bought it for. A return will hurt the vendors/<br>
manufacturers most, because of the extra cost of return shipment.<br>
Again, we want the FSFs backing to help us secure our refund. For example,<br>
claiming that "a computer is supposed to be a /generic/ device, on which the<br>
owner/user is able to install vendor-agnostic software" could be a legal way<br>
(with a widely-known precedent) for the consumer to react. (otoh, just going<br>
back to the shop saying "I don't want this crap" may not be allowed in some<br>
markets)<br>
<br>
I hope, such a consumer reaction would make manufacturers think twice before<br>
taking our rights away.<br>
<br>
Happy new Year!<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
--<br>
Say NO to spam and viruses. Stop using Microsoft Windows!<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br>
|
