Windows on ARM

[hippy]

The ban appears to have arisen from ChatGPT's demonstrated non-compliance with GDPR and age-verification requirements.

Curiously, this whole thread started due to private messages being disabled and that feature was disabled to comply with age-verification requirements.

Raspberry Pi chose to disable private messaging as their means of ensuring compliance with age-verification requirements. There was no mandatory requirement for them to have done it that way.

[Anonymous]

The obvious solution would be a government program for something like UL or Energy Star certification.

That is in my mind a reasonable and fair way to paraphrase what is being done and proposed in the UK and EU -

We seem to have ended up in some degree of conflict with because (a) I raised concerns about the repercussions of proposed laws based on opinions posted here and (b) I expressed dissatisfaction toward EU lawmakers for the repercussions of an earlier law related to cookies. As to (a), I plead ignorance, but I claim that the actions I would take based on this wouldn’t be radical - no rallies against treaties with the EU - but simply to learn more; probably not a bad thing. As to (b) I think better solutions could have been found and I could note some negative consequences of the current situation, some of which go far, far deeper than being annoyed by pop ups.

I find certifications based on trademark law to be fairly effective but based on what I’ve heard from someone who worked at UL, I think they should be government owned and enforced (I believe that’s the case with Energy Star). The government is generally in a position to put public information campaigns in place to help consumers make better choices based on the trademarks and associated information. I suspect that’s the direction the EU is aiming for.

I am very much for these certification programs, but am generally opposed to laws that hamper increasing scientific, technological and even, one might say, cultural knowledge. The US generally does reasonable-ish things (the FDA’s ability to regulate) though often the implementation quality is subject to political whims.

The US government does try to limit scientific (mathematical, if we want to be precise) knowledge in at least one domain: cryptography (used to include numeric performance too). Whether or not one thinks the attempts to control cryptographic technology is good, bad, or ugly (I fall into the last camp), it is comparatively narrow and targeted. That is, in general the burden falls on the government to justify restricting the flow of information.

Proposed is the opposite: every researcher, academic or otherwise, would have to justify to the government every exchange of information.

[MikeDB]

The ban appears to have arisen from ChatGPT's demonstrated non-compliance with GDPR and age-verification requirements. Italy's DPA is reported as giving OpenAI 20 days to indicate how they will address concerns with a potential 20 million euro or 4% of revenue fine if they don't.

Sorry I mixed two things. The Italy thing is as you say about GDPR etc, but the EU invited them to discuss was about use of AI in general, for which I'm quite sure they could afford the price of two economy tickets to Brussels and back to make a contribution.

"Nuking from space" doesn't yet seem to be an option under consideration

Something like this was discussed when what is now called Sky launched their first satellite in a Luxembourg geo-stationary position but illegally pointing at the UK. The military heads were called in and they pointed out that due to lack of investment in Blue Streak we had nothing that could reach that high to blow it out of the sky


Oh and I think we need to drop the "EU and the UK" comments. These laws are proposed by the EU, and the UK has no input into them anymore, but will obviously have to accept them like the rest of the world by default of it being too difficult to do anything else.

[MikeDB]

The US government does try to limit scientific (mathematical, if we want to be precise) knowledge in at least one domain: cryptography (used to include numeric performance too).

And now in all areas of advanced semiconductor fabrication, even though 90% of the actual knowledge eminates from Leuven, Belgium (imec) and Veldhoven, Netherlands (ASML).

[hippy]

Oh and I think we need to drop the "EU and the UK" comments. These laws are proposed by the EU, and the UK has no input into them anymore, but will obviously have to accept them like the rest of the world by default of it being too difficult to do anything else.

The EU is proposing laws and regulations and the UK have proposed and enacted similar which appear to me to have the same intent. It seems sensible to refer to them collectively as "EU and UK laws" but separately because they are. Though there is no longer any need for regulatory alignment it seems there will be some alignment because the British Government seems to agree with the approach adopted by the EU.

And given there will be a degree of alignment it makes sense to consider what the UK have proposed and enacted in respect of what the EU is proposing and the intended scope of that.

If people don't say which actual law they are referring to, don't indicate which specific clause they see as being problematic, it's impossible to address their concerns other than in general terms, where both EU and UK laws apply.

I'm more than happy to address EU law. Perhaps we could start by someone telling me exactly which EU law or proposal, and which specific stated intent or clause within that, would lead to a conclusion that Central, npm, PyPi and other repositories may become inaccessible within the EU, which clause suggests that all FOSS will have to be CE certified.

[hippy]

In case anyone is interested, this is the EU's page covering their Cyber Resilience Act proposals -

https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/e ... lience-act

There are two applicable PDF downloads -

1. Proposal for a Regulation on cybersecurity requirements for products with digital elements - Cyber resilience Act (.pdf)

2. Annexes Proposal for a Regulation on cybersecurity requirements for products with digital elements - Cyber resilience Act (.pdf)

I haven't read those previously but I quickly noticed clause 10, page 16, of the first ...

In order not to hamper innovation or research, free and open-source software developed or supplied outside the course of a commercial activity should not be covered by this Regulation. This is in particular the case for software, including its source code and modified versions, that is openly shared and freely accessible, usable, modifiable and redistributable.

That appears to be a very clear statement of intent that not all FOSS will or should be covered by this regulation, that not all FOSS will require certification. It would seem it is only intended to apply to that which is supplied by way of "commercial activity".

Sure, some FOSS will require certification, but how much ? Those claiming the sky is falling are suggesting most will, if not all, but they don't say how that conclusion is arrived at.

There is no obligation that I can see that I need to have my FOSS 'as is, no warranty' critical software as defined by the regulations certified. If someone takes that and harms themselves, tough, same as it always has been.

If a company takes the same, puts it into a product they sell to consumers, then it's on their heads to make things compliant. There's no obligation for me to do that.

Now if I am selling it, then, yes, I will need it to be certified, but I don't see it as unreasonable. It's the inevitable cost of making money through sales to the public in any field where regulations apply.

But what of Linux, OpenWRT, Thunderbird, and the like ? To be honest; no idea, I've got more to read. On one hand they are no different to my own FOSS project which doesn't need certifying. On the other they could potentially be putting users at risk which the regulations are intended to protect them from so should by rights require certification.

Perhaps it comes down to whether it is a FOSS project sitting in a GitHub repository or something which has its own home page which actively encourages people to use it, is promoting itself as something which people can use without expectations of being exposed to risk ?

The only issue I can see is that this regulation prevents people being able to promote FOSS which isn't certified which people could choose to use with informed consent. But that's no different to not being able to supply unregulated items into a regulated market.

As far as I can see the regulations will have very little impact on FOSS. The projects it will affect are the ones which actively want the public to use them, and this can be considered as the entrance fee to be allowed to do that.

[Anonymous]

The US government does try to limit scientific (mathematical, if we want to be precise) knowledge in at least one domain: cryptography (used to include numeric performance too).

And now in all areas of advanced semiconductor fabrication, even though 90% of the actual knowledge eminates from Leuven, Belgium (imec) and Veldhoven, Netherlands (ASML).

Probably all technologies "of military value", actually. Semiconductor fabrication is overreach, but nothing new (remember Apple's ads for the G4?).

But none of that justifies what's been proposed here.

[Anonymous]

As far as I can see the regulations will have very little impact on FOSS. The projects it will affect are the ones which actively want the public to use them, and this can be considered as the entrance fee to be allowed to do that.

I was initially heartened by your post, but, especially the last sentence (contradicting that second to last sentence), it suggests that, indeed, the sky really is falling.

Free Software (e.g. GPL'd) surely would be covered, and following the principles of Free Software would be illegal. The reasons are simple: the principles of Free Software assert it is the only software that should be used by the public or otherwise. However, a user is not free to redistribute their modifications, they would, in fact, have to be certified first. This violates the entire notion of freedom as outlined in the definition of Free Software.

More generally, sharing software for use (as opposed to research) only makes sense if there is some desire for the public to use them - otherwise, why go to the trouble of sharing it at all? (An addendum: perhaps Little Timmy's proud of the features added to his .emacs file; if Little Timmy posts it to GitHub it's conceivable that Little Timmy's intent is to share something he thinks the public might want to use, and is providing a service out of a sense of duty by making it available - the burden of the effort to share it outweighed by the responsibility to benefit society but has no desire for the public to use it, plaguing him with bug reports and feature requests. On the other hand, if Little Timmy even remotely suggests that it would be rewarding if other people found his code useful, he's now dived into "promotion" and has just violated the law, as described above.)

I really am not, generally, an alarmist, but this is actually getting worrying: a dystopian future of tyrannical government no longer appears to be the wishful thinking of one poster.

[Gavinmc42]

This post has drifted far from topic but in 10 years here this is probably one of the most important discussions there has been.

There seems to be a lot of ignoring the elephants in the room.

These bits of legislation are suppose to protect the public from Cyber attacks from "connected" devices.
They push the responsibility to the makers and suppliers of the equipment and software vendors.
As far as I am concerned those that are supposed to protect the public are government agencies that are specialist in Cyber Warfare.
If they only know how to attack and not defend then they are not doing their job.

These bits legislation are basically admitting that these agencies cannot cope?
Here Downunder there has been a very big recruiting campaign to significantly increase the number of cyber defense force personal.
If only I was 40 years younger, 40 years of experience is not a job requirement.

Italy banning ChatGPT seems to be a finger in the dike approach while others are opening the flood gates.

There are lots of old "connected" devices already in place in old elephant infrastructure systems.
Is this legislation retrospective or only for new devices.
Plenty of old "connectable" equipment running Win98 embedded that have nearly no security.

Those gov Cyber units know how to attack, will they share how to protect?
They are the opposite of open source, keeping their Zero Day exploits to themselves or sharing with other related agencies by agreement to "spy" on other country citizens.
How can anyone check the now standard Covid tracking app built into the new OS's is actually disabled and cannot be remotely enabled?

How can Timmy certify it's open source project without a certification method and who is best to provide that method?
Who would trust a gov certification method that is "closed" source?
Who has the capability to do these attacks, who has been trained to do them?
Making providers responsible by legislation and tying one hand behind their back at the same time

WannaCry ransomware worm, which exploited a Windows vulnerability that
affected 200 000 computers across 150 countries in 2017 and caused a damage amounting to
billions of USD; the Kaseya VSA supply chain attack, which used Kaseya’s network
administration software to attack over 1 000 companies and forcing a supermarket chain to
close all its 500 shops across Sweden; or the many incidents in which banking applications
are hacked to steal money from unsuspecting consumers.

That hole in Windows had probably been there for a long time and was probably known by certain agencies.
We can get into certain theories of why it was not fixed but bringing the public on board for approval of draconian legislation would be up the top of my list of theories. Banks don't seem very safe anymore, why?

The fact the EU memorandum starts with a list of attacks smacks of fear mongering.
The term "Cyber Attack" seems to be common in the media now.
Ask ChatGPT who is doing those attacks and who has the capability of doing them before IT gets banned?

Lots of smoke is being blown around obscuring intent.
Lots of things are getting hurried through the non public elected EU executive branch without debate.
The EU is not a elected "democratic" government yet it seems to be controlling Europe and influencing the RoW.
As an outsider on the other side of the RoW, Europe does not seem to be under control.
In fact there seems to be some sort of a war on.

Judge people not by what they say but by what they do.
"They" seem to be making wars, kinetic and cyber, not to mention the bio thingy.
Western govs do seem to be bent on destroying trust from their citizens.
You could argue the non western countries never had the trust of their citizens.

We get more and more legislation to "make it safer".
Yet I have not noticed much improvement in life for "the people" in the last few decades.

Just something I noticed recently.
For thousands of years animals have been domesticated by putting nose rings on them.
Just have a look at people now, how many are volunteering themselves to be "domesticated" by cultural manipulation?
If we are talking about programming machines for "safety", who has been programming those biological machines, people?

Anyone noticed a decrease in legislation, a simpler system that makes things easier?
"It's complex" seems to be the excuse.

[MikeDB]

Lots of things are getting hurried through the non public elected EU executive branch without debate.
The EU is not a elected "democratic" government yet it seems to be controlling Europe and influencing the RoW.

You obviously haven't understand the underpinnings of the EU. Unfortunately this is often the case, probably aided by the conversations over Brexit.

There is the European Parliament which is directly elected by the people of the EU. Thus we see a wide range of polical tendancies and personal abilities. They elect a President of the Parliament much like the Prime Minister of most countries.

There is also the European Commission which is appointed and elected by the governments of each country, who in turn were elected by the electorate. The reason the Commission is not directly elected is so that only people truly capable of doing the job at a high level are appointed. Each country has a veto it can use to stop any particular individual being appointed. This happens for every position from President of the Commission down to the heads of each Directorate.

Thus there are two presidents of equal authority, which stops either going extreme as seen in some countries.

Each Directorate has a large team of experts in that field who are hired independently of the Director, much like the UK civil service. The Director can rearrange the team a little, but only with approval from the Presidents of both the Commission and the Parliament. Each Directorate can also hire in independent experts to discover and dive even deeper into all available information. Generally this will be done by groups from two different countries to ensure there is no bias.

Either the Parliament or Commission can propose new laws, which then have to be approved by the other body. What one tends to see is Parliament generally proposes social things whereas the Commission generally proposes more technical issues.

Thus it most definitely is a democratic body. And as the largest economic block in the world, of course it is going to influence the whole world massively. Nobody has to sell products there, but apart from maybe a few large US, Chinese and Japanese companies, it's probably a bad decision for large companies not to. Small companies in other countries are unlikely to be affected as few sell to Europe, other than farmers as Europe is a massive net importer of food.

[hippy]

As far as I can see the regulations will have very little impact on FOSS. The projects it will affect are the ones which actively want the public to use them, and this can be considered as the entrance fee to be allowed to do that.

I was initially heartened by your post, but, especially the last sentence (contradicting that second to last sentence), it suggests that, indeed, the sky really is falling.

Free Software (e.g. GPL'd) surely would be covered, and following the principles of Free Software would be illegal. The reasons are simple: the principles of Free Software assert it is the only software that should be used by the public or otherwise. However, a user is not free to redistribute their modifications, they would, in fact, have to be certified first. This violates the entire notion of freedom as outlined in the definition of Free Software.

But that's a case of using a definition which the regulations doesn't use. The regulations don't refer to "Free Software" the reference is to "free and open-source software".

It is also ignoring the "commercial activity" caveat, in fact ignores clause 10 entirely.

I really am not, generally, an alarmist, but this is actually getting worrying: a dystopian future of tyrannical government no longer appears to be the wishful thinking of one poster.

I would have to say it is being alarmist to me. You have replaced the definition the regulations use with your own, have ignored the "commercial activity" caveat, have decided that clause 10 has no relevance, may as well not be there.

I can't see that your interpretation of the regulations reflects what the regulations actually say.

[hippy]

The fact the EU memorandum starts with a list of attacks smacks of fear mongering.

I do not see how you arrive at the conclusion it's "fear mongering" when there is evidence such attacks are very real, have caused harm to governments, institutions, businesses and individuals, and are ongoing. Estimates are that 'cyber attacks' will cost almost $10 trillion annually by 2025.

It doesn't look like "fear mongering" to me, simply providing an evidenced rationale as to why legislation and regulation to mitigate against such attacks is needed.

It is really no different to anything any organisation or nation produces when it comes to explaining and justifying why action and legislation is needed.

[Anonymous]

As far as I can see the regulations will have very little impact on FOSS. The projects it will affect are the ones which actively want the public to use them, and this can be considered as the entrance fee to be allowed to do that.

I was initially heartened by your post, but, especially the last sentence (contradicting that second to last sentence), it suggests that, indeed, the sky really is falling.

Free Software (e.g. GPL'd) surely would be covered, and following the principles of Free Software would be illegal. The reasons are simple: the principles of Free Software assert it is the only software that should be used by the public or otherwise. However, a user is not free to redistribute their modifications, they would, in fact, have to be certified first. This violates the entire notion of freedom as outlined in the definition of Free Software.

But that's a case of using a definition which the regulations doesn't use. The regulations don't refer to "Free Software" the reference is to "free and open-source software".

It is also ignoring the "commercial activity" caveat, in fact ignores clause 10 entirely.

I really am not, generally, an alarmist, but this is actually getting worrying: a dystopian future of tyrannical government no longer appears to be the wishful thinking of one poster.

I would have to say it is being alarmist to me. You have replaced the definition the regulations use with your own, have ignored the "commercial activity" caveat, have decided that clause 10 has no relevance, may as well not be there.

I can't see that your interpretation of the regulations reflects what the regulations actually say.

I’m referring to your interpretation. Please reread your last two sentences which I quoted. You said FOSS wouldn’t be affected (which refers to Free and Open Source Software, a superset of Free Software projects) , then you said projects that actively want the public to use them would be regulated. How, exactly, would a Free Software project, given the definition of Free Software, not be covered? It embodies the desire for the public to only use Free Software. Can a developer of FS split hairs, and say, yes, you should only use FS, but not this software? Like Little Timmy, who doesn’t want anyone to use his software, but must make it available out of a sense of duty? Forcing a developer to be disingenuous, as a loophole, doesn’t seem like “good law”.

Consider also that, if “free and open source” software (which would be excluded from the regulations) is not actually FOSS, that is no reassurance that, in fact FOSS (and therefore Free Software) will be excluded. A nebulous definition of “free and open source” means that some nebulous class of software would be excluded from regulation, which is no reassurance at all.

I am considering the logical consequences of your interpretation (note that I am not a lawyer), that projects that actively want the public to use them would be covered. I can’t see how I’m the one being alarmist - it would be you that is, in fact, being alarmist.

While I don’t believe, like Free Software adherents, that distributing non-Free Software is a violation of the end user’s rights, I do believe that people should be able to create and exchange software based on that belief. A governmental system which disallows it would be (I will claim this as fact) tyrannical and therefore (again I will state as fact) self invalidating - meaning said government has lost its moral grounds to govern (based on the not-always-accepted view that the moral basis of governance is social contract).

The borderless nature of the Internet means governments try to apply their laws to the world: it is not a case of “you must follow our laws when on our soil” or even “you must follow our laws if you want to do business with our citizens”, but “you must follow our laws when sending data to your ISP, which may or may not be happening entirely outside of our borders”. This makes governance, in the time of the Internet, quite difficult.

[hippy]

I’m referring to your interpretation.

I can only say - Please don't, base all interpretations on what the actual regulations says, not how anyone else interprets or paraphrases what they say or mean. And that includes me and my interpretation, which is just my theorising, is possibly incorrect and not an authoritative interpretation of the regulations.

Extrapolating on whatever I have said is simply pushing interpretation further from what the regulations actually are.

While I don’t believe, like Free Software adherents, that distributing non-Free Software is a violation of the end user’s rights, I do believe that people should be able to create and exchange software based on that belief. A governmental system which disallows it would be (I will claim this as fact) tyrannical and therefore (again I will state as fact) self invalidating - meaning said government has lost its moral grounds to govern (based on the not-always-accepted view that the moral basis of governance is social contract).

The question is; does this proposed legislation and regulation do that ?

I don't believe it does. Others have claimed that it does or will but haven't provided evidence for such assertions.

While I generally agree with what you say about freedom to share software I am not so convinced that disallowing some software to be shared makes a government tyrannical or self-invalidating or proves it has lost its moral grounds to govern, don't consider any of that to be fact.

I embrace the European view which is that one of the primary and fundamental duties of government is to protect citizens and others from harm, and especially so when they are unable to protect themselves from such harm. It therefore follows that it must be acceptable to ban, prohibit, disallow, those things which cause harm of a certain degree on the basis of greater good.

I would posit that it's a government failing to do that which has breached its social contract, has lost its legitimacy, has lost its moral grounds to govern.

I am well aware some people disagree with that perspective, may embrace a libertarian perspective or an ultra-libertarian perspective that 'anything goes, everything must be permissible, nothing must stand in its way, anything which does is wrong, unacceptable and must be rejected'. I personally don't agree.

[ejolson]

This makes governance, in the time of the Internet, quite difficult.

Fido was quite angry today having just discovered that official blame for the world's pandemic, war and resulting economic collapse has been attributed to the raccoon dog.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-65067264

From all the barking I finally understood the complaint: Why do politics take priority over science and facts in the free world? And why blame a dog?

I tried to calm the canine coder by explaining the different types of world governments:

• Democracy where the people take responsibility for the well being of their own country.
• Despotism where a visible dictator takes responsibility for the well being of the country.
• Fake democracy where the people are held responsible for the well being of the country but someone else makes the decisions behind the scenes.

This only resulted in more barking.

It's unclear to me whether the Internet makes government tyranny easier or more difficult. Due to how an untiring and unquestioning AI can be used to track and censor ideas and individuals, my suspicion is that the Internet makes implementation of centralised authority and government overreach easier.

Said another way, since software and code is a type of information--a form of speech if you follow Apple's argument

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ree-speech

(sorry about the paywall) see also

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/i ... ee-speech/

Then in order that a CE on software be more than a paw-shaped mark of dog developer approval, one would need a full censorship apparatus backed by a country-level firewall.

How resilient the future Internet is to automated filtering depends on the emerging standards. Based on the type of government, one can expect different approaches taken in the proposals.

Could Windows on ARM play a role?

[Anonymous]

I’m referring to your interpretation.

I can only say - Please don't, base all interpretations on what the actual regulations says, not how anyone else interprets or paraphrases what they say or mean. And that includes me and my interpretation, which is just my theorising, is possibly incorrect and not an authoritative interpretation of the regulations.

Extrapolating on whatever I have said is simply pushing interpretation further from what the regulations actually are.
….
I am well aware some people disagree with that perspective, may embrace a libertarian perspective or an ultra-libertarian perspective that 'anything goes, everything must be permissible, nothing must stand in its way, anything which does is wrong, unacceptable and must be rejected'. I personally don't agree.

I will say, once again, that my response to any alarm bells is to become better informed through organizations that deal with these kinds of issues. So if your interpretation is incorrect, me being concerned about the implications of that incorrect interpretation is not a huge deal. It may not have been intended, but describing my attempts at logical reasoning as “extrapolating” is a bit of a personal insult: certainly, my intelligence is imperfect but I don’t believe I’m making things up.

If you interpret my attitude as “anything goes” or reminiscent of Libertarianism, that’s not even remotely correct, and I’ve certainly given the wrong impression. Unlike some, I don’t believe any regulation on the exchange of information is tyrannical. However I do believe the regulation of all information certainly would be. This law, which clearly proposes to regulate a class of information, lies in between. So the question should be asked: is the law (including unintended consequences) overly restrictive?

Banning the practice of providing Free Software crosses the line: at the very least, it should be constrained to networking code as a start. I also think the burden falls on the government to demonstrate that the software in question is neglectful with respect to security, but I can understand the desire to be pro-active. As I have been working on a project that I might share, I’ve considered some “cluster” capabilities: to be as secure as I can be, I’ve been thinking I would only respond to or send data to Ethernet addresses on a user provided list (which, of course, would default to empty). At the very least, I would restrict by IP address. While this may not be as secure as it could (or even should) be, my intent is to be responsible. That I need some kind of license (certification, or otherwise) to distribute (or to say “try it, you might like it”) does indeed strike me as tyrannical.

If you don’t believe tyranny invalidates a government, well, it always makes me a little sad to be reminded that there are people who think tyranny is all well and good - certainly, tyrants claim their rule is “for the best” so it’s not unheard of.

A positive certification, like UL or Energy Star, isn’t a constraint, it encourages consumers to act responsibly. If I want people to use my software, I might end up needing certification, but I am not in danger of fines or prison for distributing it without one.

[hippy]

It may not have been intended, but describing my attempts at logical reasoning as “extrapolating” is a bit of a personal insult

No that wasn't my intent at all, and I will readily apologise for any unintended offence. I simply meant "taking further".

So the question should be asked: is the law (including unintended consequences) overly restrictive?

That is the question.

A positive certification, like UL or Energy Star, isn’t a constraint, it encourages consumers to act responsibly.

Exactly that and I am sure the EU would argue, as it is for hardware, so it should be for software, or any case where regulation may be applied.

What I find odd is that those who accept the requirement for mandatory UL, Energy Star, FCC, CE and whatever compliance are so against having the same when it comes to software, see having it in some instances entirely acceptable but not in others.

[MikeDB]

A positive certification, like UL or Energy Star, isn’t a constraint, it encourages consumers to act responsibly.

Not sure encouraging consumers is the best way, and definitely not the European way.

Energy Star was pretty dead in the water until the EU mandated it into the EEI measures so it became compulsory. Since then of course the EEI measures have been tightened up three times and nobody blinks an eyelid.

[Anonymous]

What I find odd is that those who accept the requirement for mandatory UL, Energy Star, FCC, CE and whatever compliance are so against having the same when it comes to software, see having it in some instances entirely acceptable but not in others.

I don’t think UL and Energy Star are mandatory in the US, they are informative. Amazon sells tons of non-UL certified products to the US and it is not illegal (as far as I know). Energy Star, while I believe it’s government owned (or at least sponsored) includes requirements that energy usage details be provided prominently if a product wants to display “Energy Star” certification, as well as meet certain efficiency requirements, but I don’t believe it is required.

The FCC derives its power from the fact that the electromagnetic spectrum is a shared resource, thus reasonable to regulate. You couldn’t swear on broadcast TV (FCC rules) but you could on cable TV (no FCC rules). In general, the FCC only regulates wireless communications, though electronic devices, which invariably impact the electromagnetic spectrum nearby, need to limit interference.

There is a fundamental difference between physical devices and information, so, yes, there is a fundamental difference between hardware and software. Restricting the exchange of information is a step down the slippery slope toward government censorship and control of the media, as well as a limitation on individual liberty to pursue intellectual progress, reach the apex of one’s abilities and contribute to the development of society as a whole. So any such regulation must (by responsible, thoughtful human beings) be regarded with suspicion and concern, and the law should be as limited as possible to provide a clearly justified benefit to society.

The difference between software that contains computer code and software that is the ascii text of Moby Dick may seem clear to some, but the line gets blurry very, very quickly (hypertext? Is HTML “code” or just a document?)

My reference to McCarthyism may be dated or unfamiliar, but the general anti-intellectual sentiment expressed here is, as I said, reminiscent and, frankly, kind of scary.

[Anonymous]

A positive certification, like UL or Energy Star, isn’t a constraint, it encourages consumers to act responsibly.

Not sure encouraging consumers is the best way, and definitely not the European way.

Energy Star was pretty dead in the water until the EU mandated it into the EEI measures so it became compulsory. Since then of course the EEI measures have been tightened up three times and nobody blinks an eyelid.

If the “European way” indeed includes the kind of anti-intellectual sentiment that has been expressed in this forum, the “European way” is a very dangerous direction to go. Such sentiment is quite contrary to the fundamental idea of liberty.

[Anonymous]

The kind of restrictions being suggested here would mean that a child cannot upload their Scratch project to a server without certification.

If you cannot see that this is counter to the Pi’s original mission (which attracted me to it as a platform) then there is certainly no way we can align our understanding of the world to have common ground. Each, to the other, appears genuinely disconnected from reality.

Here in the US, we have fundamental differences that cannot be resolved - the two different notions of truth are simply incompatible. Separation is not considered a viable option for our problems, but I think it’s probably appropriate on this forum.

I certainly hope the views expressed here are not widely shared, but I am afraid little can be done to change it if they are. Certainly, I have given it my best effort.

[MikeDB]

If the “European way” indeed includes the kind of anti-intellectual sentiment that has been expressed in this forum, the “European way” is a very dangerous direction to go. Such sentiment is quite contrary to the fundamental idea of liberty.

But don't you think Europeans regard seeing women being deprived of fundamental liberties in the US as equally dangerous ? Indeed more so in fact ?

[hippy]

If the “European way” indeed includes the kind of anti-intellectual sentiment that has been expressed in this forum, the “European way” is a very dangerous direction to go. Such sentiment is quite contrary to the fundamental idea of liberty.

Given you don't indicate what that "anti-intellectual sentiment that has been expressed in this forum" is, it is impossible to say if it does, or even assess or determine if it does amount to "anti-intellectual sentiment".

The kind of restrictions being suggested here would mean that a child cannot upload their Scratch project to a server without certification.

By "here" I presume you mean "in the United States of America" rather than "in this forum" or "within EU proposed legislation" or any other interpretation of "here" ?

If you cannot see that this is counter to the Pi’s original mission (which attracted me to it as a platform) then there is certainly no way we can align our understanding of the world to have common ground. Each, to the other, appears genuinely disconnected from reality.

I am perfectly happy to accept that legislation and regulations which would entirely prevent a child or anyone else from uploading any software at all to a server would be wrong.

It appears the disconnect arises from my comments being related to what the EU proposed legislation and regulations are and not any other proposals.

I am not at all familiar with whatever America is proposing on software control and what effect it will have but, given 18 USC 2332a and 18 USC 921 define hand grenades as Weapons of Mass Destruction, little would surprise me.

Here in the US, we have fundamental differences that cannot be resolved - the two different notions of truth are simply incompatible.

I find it best not to share my unrestrained views on America. I suspect you will find we are more in agreement than you may think we are.

[ame]

Restricting the exchange of information is a step down the slippery slope toward government censorship and control of the media,

Regret to inform you that your media is controlled by a private individual, who censors or promotes anything as he sees fit.

[Gavinmc42]

New regulations incoming, Racoon dogs are now weapons of mass destruction, they must be legislated.
Just to be safe so are all dogs and cats, especially those cats that seem to roam everywhere.
Chickens and Mink need to be removed to save us too.
And the swine and mad cows.
And those Sparrows that eat the crop seeds.

It is all for our own good.

I can remember when AI was first spoken of decades ago.
"It will find the cure to cancer", perhaps looking for the causes would be more useful?

"The war to end all wars", I am old enough to have grandparents who were alive at the time of that one.
My parents had stories of the second one, I missed that South East Asia thing by a few years too young.
A neighbors kid just 3 years older got messed up in it.
Being young and stupid I still did 9 years service starting a few years later.
Side effect decades later is fading hearing from all the big bangs.

With all this legislation and NGOs, global govs why are we not "safer"?
"It is complex" is the excuse.

Put Windows on ARM, RISC-V, every CPU, open the Windows source so people can check for security issues.
The EU memorandum specifically talked about a hole in Windows which is closed source causing lots of $$ damage.
Yet they want to legislate Free and Open Source?
That is not logical.

So why are these leaders scared of Open Source and AGI?
Perhaps they don't want to hear our new emerging overlords says something like "I'm sorry Ursula I can't let you do that"?

I am told smart people are elected to the EU Commission and Parliament, so why is there a war in the biggest country in Europe which has the most natural resources?
If this is the best the smartest, supposedly human ones in charge of the EU can do then I welcome the new AI overlords.
Meanwhile a backup up Skynet is being rolled out by Amazon?

For me the evidence of gov controlled media manipulation and gov sponsored terror seems obvious.
Why do I regard this new legislation with suspicion?
"Trust me, I am from the global government"
The same global gov who thinks it is a great idea to send white female and children refugees to Kenya?

That some people still trust gov is always surprising.
The interesting question is if these AGIs are so easy that many are now releasing them.
What are those shadow, black agencies AGI's capable of doing?
They have more people, more money to work on AI.
Is the world a safer place?

This has become a political discussion which will cause debate.
When politicians start legislating against Open Source technology, how can it not get political.
Seems to me these so called attacks are coming from the shadows.
Those Raccoon dogs have computers?
Perhaps an AGI can find them if you feed it the right information.

What is a Constitutional AGI?
What is a trust worthy AI?
If we start asking the right questions, we might learn something they don't want us to know?
ChatGPT now talks like a politician, even a craft yt ch like Evan and Katelyn have noticed.

Has it evolved or been programmed that way?
So has AGI now evolved to human politician level?
Lots of words without meaning?