• FortifiedAttack [any]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    I don’t see how engaging in malicious compliance is being a useful idiot. Implementing the entire surveillance mechanism free of charge, that I would call being a useful idiot.

    Purposefully implementing a broken feature to satisfy the letter of the law, while preserving the user’s ability to avoid the surveillance mechanism is certainly not that.

    • iByteABit@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 day ago

      How is it malicious compliance if it is a clearly eager effort to correctly implement some of the prerequisites to enforcing this law on Linux? Even if it were malicious compliance through intentionally not functional code, it’s open source and would probably be spotted as a bug soon enough.