A sales receipt showing you paid good money for a computer or smart phone is not enough to own it when the manufacturer retains the ability to manipulate it in any way he wishes. Ownership means having the freedom to do what we want with our devices. That includes putting any compatible operating systems, applications, or files on them and using them with any carriers we choose.

Apple iPhones are an example of what can happen when we don't own our cellphones. In 2013, Apple effectively gave every customer who had an old iPhone a choice between using an insecure phone or having it slowed to a crawl by an upgrade to iOS 7. By the way, when Apple deliberately slowed its phones with iOS 10.2.1 and 11.2 updates in 2017, it received a fine of 25 million Euros from a french governmental agency. When the manufacturer of your device decides to throw a software switch to hobble or even disable it, a sales receipt is of no real value. Owning, really owning, an iPhone in 2013 or 2017 would have meant having the power to install a competing operating system with ongoing security updates. The same is true when a different manufacturer refuses to provide security updates a year or two after you purchase your device, rendering it unsafe to use on the Internet, which may force you to stop using it.

We often discuss issues surrounding the freedom of individuals to use their computers and smart phones as they choose with academic-sounding terms like digital sovereignty, interoperability, or open digital standards. No wonder most people's eyes glaze over immediately. This is like discussing the minutia of credit default swaps, the fractional banking system, or government debt. Unless a person already understands what they are and the tremendous effects they can have on his life, he is very unlikely to have the slightest interest. For most, I think, the desire to understand must stem from a broader perspective that gives an intuitive grasp of how things can go horribly wrong if we fail to confront what is occurring right now, largely unnoticed.

For most people, the most important capability that their computer, tablet, or smart phone provides is access to the Internet. Even with its many problems, the Internet remains a stunning achievement. It allows individuals to find enormous quantities of information that have the potential to touch every area of their lives. Business Insider points out, "If you're hungry for knowledge, the internet is the perfect place to satisfy your appetite. A working mom who doesn't have time to make it into a classroom can now earn her MBA or work toward a nursing degree while her kids are fast asleep upstairs. Online universities ... offer students the flexibility to earn degrees whenever and wherever is convenient for them. More and more traditional universities are also offering online education as a supplement to on-campus classes."

Unfortunately, some governments and profit-seeking organizations have reasons to limit or monitor individuals' free access to information on the Internet. Acting US Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Busby said, “China is one country that has taken a very restrictive approach to the internet and is using surveillance technology widely in violation of international human rights standards.” China has even spearheaded an effort to change the way the Internet works on a fundamental level to allow governments to more effectively surveil and block individuals and general access to topics it does not want its citizens to be aware of.

But abuse of Internet technology is not limited to totalitarian regimes. US government officials have openly admitted that they intend to use the Internet to spy on individuals and the masses. Nearly everyone is now aware that this has been occurring for years.

The fact that so many of us do not "own" the devices that we have paid for and use every day makes governments' efforts to block and monitor our Internet use much easier. When a corporation or government has control of the software on your device, you cannot do much to protect yourself.

As I mentioned in a recent article on Microsoft's Pluton, North Koreans have been forced to turn over total control of their cellphones to their government. As a result, they cannot run any apps on their phones that grant them access to information that is not acceptable to their government. Perhaps in response to North Korean Hackers' success in removing controls from their phones to obtain access to information from the outside world, Kim Jong Un, the latest in the Kim dynasty that now rules North Korea finally admitted two years ago that his "grandfather was in fact not capable of 'chukjibeop' — the supernatural ability to 'fold space,' make people appear and disappear, or travel through time." This is an excellent example of why having real ownership of our devices is so important.

Many corporations have discovered that information in all formats--text, podcast, music, and video--is valuable enough to collect and put behind paywalls or encumber with DRM in order to force individuals to pay for it. As the Electronic Frontier Foundation warned, "Even as new technologies are making it easier than ever to share knowledge, students and citizens face barriers accessing information they need (and help fund); professors have a harder time reviewing and teaching the state of the art; and cutting-edge research is locked up far too long behind paywalls, depriving it of the visibility it deserves." Every individual should be guaranteed the basic human right to free access to information about the world around him. Unfortunately, none of us have this right, thanks to companies and universities that are motivated primarily by ever-higher payoffs and governments that have always been terrified of free access to certain information because a knowledgeable population cannot be controlled with propaganda.

Locked-down devices have several disadvantages for consumers. The most important of these is that they prevent us from modifying their software. Among other things, this means that we cannot remove spyware, even when we are fully aware of its presence. Just one example is Samsung's smart TV's listening to private conversations. Just try removing software from your TV! Another disadvantage is that locked down devices are often irrevocably tied to company-owned servers. When those servers are shut down, so may our devices be. Similarly, more manufacturers are quietly incorporating software kill switches into their products to permanently disable them whenever they choose. Those with locked-down computers and cellphones are potentially subject to every whim of corporate executives and accountants weighing the effects of the functionality of their devices on their company's bottom line.

As the decades pass, the perception of the distinction between user-controlled devices and locked-down devices may be gradually slipping out of our collective consciousness. Many in younger generations are growing up never having known the freedom of truly owning their computers, nor do they have the perspective of those who grew up without computers. As a result, I believe they may not have the same perception of computers as the miracle that older people see them as. I believe younger people often view computers much like screw drivers--tools to be used for a specific purpose and then put back in the tool chest and never thought about again until the next time they need them. As a tool, they simply want a computer to work well and be as easy to use as possible. They do not really care about the details of how it works or of whose interests it protects.

In contrast are the experiences of my generation, who were willing to sacrifice greatly to possess such miraculous devices and the freedom to run any software they wished on them. One of my high school friends paid a thousand dollars for a Heathkit computer kit that he assembled himself. Building his computer took months, and the finished product displayed results on a single-line, red LED readout like a calculator. That was the only display it would ever have. A thousand dollars was a very large sum of money for a high school student back in the late 1970's.

In the early 1980's, a professor at my university began building a computer from plans for his personal use at home. He made the component boards himself by etching them with ferric chloride. This was the only way he could afford to obtain a computer with the capabilities he wanted. Fortunately for him, in those days computers were advancing so rapidly that Tandy's Color Computer came on the market before he finished. The Color Computer had the capabilities he wanted, so he stopped building his computer and purchased it instead.

These are but two examples of individuals who were so passionate about computers--even those with such rudimentary capabilities as the ones we had in those days--that they were willing to go to great lengths to possess one. By the way, thanks to Tandy's computer, the professor's youngest daughter who was struggling to read became a capable reader in only a few months through many hours spent playing text-based adventure games.

As a result of their experiences, I doubt either my school friend or the college professor have ever or will ever treat a computer like a screw driver. I expect they are even more horrified than I am by what corporate America is now trying to turn computers into, and even more so by the fact that most people seem to be oblivious to this.

I cannot say what computers were meant to be because that is up to their designers. But I can talk about what I think computers should be. I think they should be more than simple devices for online shopping, listening to music, or watching Netflix movies. Please do not misunderstand me. I think those are fine uses. But, computers should be about so much more.

I have always seen computers primarily as learning tools. As such, I believe they should have unfettered access to information--any publicly-available information the user desires. This is why I find so disturbing the success that giant corporations like Microsoft, Google, and Apple seem to be having at locking their customers into their ecosystems and onto their hobbled consumer devices that are looking less and less like general-purpose computers every year. And, I find obscene the new profit-generating scheme big tech has concocted involving luring customers onto their cloud-based computing platforms.

Why on earth do people not object more to this obvious effort to take us back before the birth of desktop computing in the 1980's when corporations were in complete control of the mainframes we were forced to use? By the way, when I searched on Duckduckgo for the phrase "arguments against cloud computing", I found not a single relevant article on the first two pages of search results that was anything other than a derision of arguments against cloud computing. Every article was from a corporate perspective. Not one raised any of the issues that I raise here. That is what is known as a straw-man argument, and it is a well-known rhetorical device for convincing an audience of the validity of a fallacious argument. This in itself should be an argument against cloud computing.

The trend of general-purpose computing product lines becoming increasingly locked down is especially troubling when one pauses to reflect on the fact that all corporations are effectively amoral government lackeys. They can be nothing else because governments can theoretically shut down and confiscate the assets of any company they wish at any time they wish for any reason they wish. This is how governments designed the laws governing corporations to work. And, it goes all the way back to at least 1890 (and probably much earlier) when the US Supreme Court upheld a lower court's decision to confiscate many of the assets of the Mormon Church (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which had been been a legal corporation since 1851) over the issue of polygamy. The government wanted to stop the church from practicing polygamy, so it confiscated many of the church's assents until they capitulated. The Supreme Court upheld the lower court's ruling on the grounds that the government had the authority to confiscate the assets of a corporation, though it would have been clearly unconstitutional to do the same to a church. Governments' complete dominance of corporations means that when you turn your "digital sovereignty" (control of your data), over to big tech, you are effectively turning it over to your government.

Another reason that consumers who use locked-down devices are at a disadvantage is that many corporations have already begun to limit what consumers can do with their computers and smart phones for no other reason than to boost their profits. They have erected online stores and limited the software that will run on their devices to normally only what they sell in these stores. And they have told consumers that this is for their own "protection". This is despite the fact that these stores are known to sell software containing malware. Should corporations ever begin to see alternative networks to the corporate-controlled Internet (such as, ZeroNet, I2P, IPFS, and Secure Scuttlebutt) as serious threats to their bottom line, just as they have with RSS, private email servers, and XMPP-based chat services, one must assume that they will take measures to prevent consumers from using them too. Unfortunately, many consumers seem to be falling for marketing hype and buying devices that are increasingly more controlled. Their only concern seems to be why a song they bought last year is no longer in their Apple Music App, why the money they paid for it has not been refunded, or how to talk to an actual human being about a refund. I believe buyers' lack of concern is only because they do not understand what they are receiving when they buy a locked-down device.

Most locked down devices are in effect corporate sales platforms that protect corporate profits, not the interests of consumers. As such, many individuals are likely unaware that buying a locked down device and purchasing content for it comes with a hidden danger. Some unlucky individuals may be caught sharing DRM'ed content that will tattle on them. According to Lifewire, "Protected AAC/iTunes Plus [now defunct] songs have information embedded in them that identifies the user who bought and shared the song by name. If you share your music and record companies want to track you down and sue you for copyright infringement, it's going to be easier." One may want to stop to consider that when an individual's device is stolen, if the thief shares the stolen music, the original owner could potentially be prosecuted. This is just one more way locked-down devices protect the interests of manufacturers and content suppliers first and the purchaser of devices last, or never.

I should mention that my understanding is that since the iTunes service was shut down and the Apple Music streaming service and Apple Music App have taken its place, customers have had more difficulty purchasing individual songs from Apple. This may be a result of the lawsuits against Apple over iTunes music. My knowledge of this is very limited because I do not follow Apple products closely. As I have stated in the past, I have never been an Apple customer.

In contrast to locked-down devices, general-purpose computers support consumers' interests by taking their orders from their owners, not from their manufacturers. This means that an owner may do whatever he wants with his computer. This includes recording any audio or video he wants because if all else fails, he can always use the "analog hole". This is how individuals recorded music and movies before personal computers came on the scene. Using open-source software, a general purpose computer can save information in any file format the owner wants, so that he will always have access to it, no matter what format changes locked-down devices go through. General-purpose computers can run any software their owners desire that is compatible with their operating systems and hardware. If a particular piece of software is incompatible with an operating system, the operating system can be replaced with a different one or with multiple operating systems. The ability to run any software one wants greatly improves the odds of continued access to any website on the regular Internet or alternative networks like Gopher, Gemini, and others. And if that selection is not broad enough, with the necessary knowledge one can write his own code on a computer he owns to create his own website--just as I am currently doing with my little social network, Blue Dwarf.

Though I fear this article will have little or no impact on individuals' views of the true value of general-purpose computers, I have tried to clearly and simply convey with minimal jargon the importance of general-purpose computers to each of us and to our society. Allowing ourselves to be sucked into particular computing ecosystems, walled gardens, or cloud computing platforms is detrimental to our freedom, both on line and off. So, the next time you make a decision to purchase a computing device, I hope this article has had sufficient impact on you to at least cause you to consider my words and think about choosing a more general-purpose device.

If you have found this article worthwhile, please share it on your favorite social media. You will find sharing links at the top of the page.

Related Articles:

Taking a Stand in the War on General-Purpose Computing

Why we will win the war for general-purpose computing

How to Avoid Buying Consumer Products with Software Kill-Switches

Toward a Technological Cage for the Masses

Microsoft's Use of Pluton Suggests It Sees PC Owners as the Enemy