I think the difference is in controlling the brand and by doing so allowing the end-user to discern a visible difference. "This is real Chrome and when I'm in this, it's not cooperating with the boss spying." "This is the work browser that I have to use so that they see."
You're dropping the DRM argument, and now you're only arguing for the legal thing? To make sure we're on the same page, you believe that owning a computer does not give you the right to alter the software on it?
-
-
Yes I actually believe that MITM (like other forms of surveillance) is unethical and non-consensual regardless of what contract they signed. To have any chance of being ethical it needs constant visual indication that it's taking place.
- 9 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
I never made the DRM argument; that was someone else. I noted that having obfuscations in each new binary version to make it a pain to keep up with patching might raise the cost of MITM crapware, but didn't go so far as advocate it because my preferred approach is legal.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.