Richard Stallman is very extreme in his position. I’m just stating the reason why the status quo is a good thing. Agreeing with the way things currently exist is not an extreme position.
>Would you be okay with me suing you personally because one of your devices got infected with malware and slowed down my home Internet connection? Would you be okay with me suing your grandmother?
That's definitely not the status quo, it's also a pretty extreme position.
Of course not, that's the bleak alternate reality. The status quo is "you don't actually own your device". Apple or Google finds malware in an app and they remove it from your device automatically. That's the status quo. The status quo is if you get malware on your PC and it negatively impacts other people on the Internet, nothing happens and you're not punished for it so others suffer from your lack of ownership. That's the status quo.
The statement you quoted is what would happen if everyone were to actually completely own their own Internet-connected devices and took full responsibility for them. It's not a comforting idea. People like to throw around words like "ownership" but shy away when related words like "responsibility" show up.
I'm personally liable for the damage my car causes, because I own my car. I'm not personally liable for the damage my computer causes. Do people actually want to be? That's what ownership means.
Cars are required to implement safety standards. You're not taking full responsibility for your car, the company you bought it from is responsible for selling a product that's safe.
If you modify your car to be unsafe, then you're responsible.
People can own their phones/computers, they can be allowed to disable safety features, while still holding companies responsible for implementing a safe product.
It should be entirely possible to completely own your car/phone/whatever while still largely holding the company responsible for the users safety.
It is super extreme, you basically say that ownership of an item is incompatible with safety. By this logic you will not really own the future Apple car because your grandma can't change her tires so nobody should change the tires then an Apple approved person. "do you want some random guy changing a tire and not screwing it correctly, there will be a PR nightmare for Apple...." <- this is what I expect as a response
No, but close. Lack of responsibility is incompatible with ownership. You can own something that's potentially unsafe (cars, guns, pets, fireworks, etc) as long as you're responsible for the damage they may cause.
Hypothetical Apple car aside, cars are a great example of ownership and personal responsibility. If I change my tire incorrectly and it causes my car to damage another person's property, yes I am 100% liable for that damage. That's why we have car insurance, to cover that liability.
If I administer my computer incorrectly and it gets infected causing damage to other Internet-connected devices, where's my liability? I have none. What damages do I pay to other Internet users? None. How do I get paid damages from the person who infected me? I can't.
The point is you can't talk about ownership without talking about responsibility. If you can't be held responsible for what your device does, you don't own it.
This is not true at all, I can own a car and my car can explode because someone put a bomb in it, I am not responsible, ownership is not equal to responsible. The guy that put the bomb is responsible , in the computer case the guys that made the botnet are responsible for the damages,
About cars, your favorite examples, if the car breaks are broken because of the manufacturer it is not my fault as an owner that I was sold a broken car, so for computers you may need some regulations when the OS and app developers are responsible and not the current state "this software can kill your cat we are not responsible thing you see in the EULAs"
You can have your computers and smartphone designed for grandmas and that is fine, many people would like this grandma proof hardware. I don't like the extremist arguments you bring to prove your points, defend Apple and ignore valid issues brought to your broken analogies.
