>>11Boycotts don't work. Everyone will just ignore you like they do RMS with his "100% freedom" philosophy. You have to actively crack these systems to get the best of both worlds; at least someone with a jailbroken iPhone can still act like a hipster and interact with the sheeple while maintaining his/her freedom.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
>>15I'm not arguing that it's 100%, just that it will make things
very much harder, even to the point of being impossible.
Not like it can prevent a program from accepting a key you've bruteforced.
All encryption is theoretically bruteforceable (and the point of strong encryption is to make it so bruteforce is the only way to break it), but in practice it takes so long that it's impossible.
just that it will be easier to construct correctly working machinery.
...which includes things like DRM and adware working "correctly" from the point of view of its designers and the programmers who implement these things.
Formal verification is like putting a super-precise mini-factory capable of manufacturing car parts into everyone's garage
I've heard plenty of this "FV is for everyone" bullshit already, but the reality is that most software is written by corporates and big organisations that want to extract profits from users and will use these technologies against them. It's very much in the users' interests that software remain "malleable" - that it can be cracked and modified by other than its original creators.
Governments are scared of the population using encryption against them, so why isn't the population scared of encryption used against them? It makes no sense.