(DBus-based?)
Yeah. iwd even has this issue where it needs you to run a system dbus (presumably so regular users can configure network and the admin can apply dbus polices) even if you do everything as root. No dbus, no function.
Not good.
Really Linux distros just didn’t work with it right out of the box…
From what I’ve read, this is misleading. Default secureboot within Windows will only boot a bootloader signed with Microsoft’s key. Although Microsoft does seem to provide a signing service for signing with their keys, this is at their mercy. Windows made a change that broke booting alternative operating systems unless they use a service that Windows provides to fix it, or disable secureboot.
The “I hate change.” Mindset.
Or maybe it’s extra complexity that often leads to the first recommendation to fixing Linux not booting being “disable secureboot” and how this is an extra hurdle to jump through for new users. As well as increased likelihood of problems, due to secureboot.
…if someone nefarious gets to the point they can read this stuff then they’ll already be able to record your screen, log keystrokes, etc.
No screenshots -> less data. Less data -> lower breach severity.
(Unless you have an unusual threat model)
All this can be gutted by an advanced user.
…the government is absolutely a threat to you.
I don’t see how this supports your previous claim of: “If you don’t have privacy from the government, you don’t have privacy.”
If you don’t have privacy from the government, you don’t have privacy.
Privacy refers to more than just privacy regarding the government.
Your threat model and situation might mean that if the government knows something, its as bad as if every single person knows it.
But this isn’t for everyone.
The censorship being referred to here is a legally defined term…
There is no such mention by OP about the legal definition.
Censorship in all the dictionaries I see don’t require it to be a government that is censoring for it to be called “censorship”.
Someone attempting to hinder someone else’s ability to reach certain information is engaging in censorship.
Many people have the power to make certain privacy attacks impossible right now. I consider making that change better for those people than adding a law which can’t stop the behavior, but just adds a negative incentive.
I wouldn’t wait around for the law to prosecute MITM attacks, I would use end to end encryption.
If this is referencing using a barely-used system as a privacy or security protection, then I would regard that as bad protection.
Everyone using GrapheneOS would be a net security upgrade. All the protections in place wouldn’t just fade away now that Facebook wants to spy on that OS. They’re still in place; Facebook’s job is still harder than it otherwise would be.