Of course one would have to trust Jolla. But then again, isn’t that always the case for everything that isn’t 100% open source? And even then, there could be compromised code somewhere. SFOS is in use for many years, there is an active community around it but the closed source parts of the OS, including hardware vendor drivers, are, well, closed source.
But then that’s just it. Whom do we want to trust? There is no 100% open source phone and SFOS seems the only persistent Linux-based OS for phones around.
If European laws mandate this then this “european” phone will of course do it. That’s what you get when asking for “digital sovereignty” - instead of tech corporations serving interests of US government you have tech corporations serving interests of European governments.
Well a stronger version of digital sovereignty that requires open source with appropriate governance and appropriate licensing could also mean serving every user’s interests.
Of course interests of the European governments also probably align much better overall with the interests of European citizens than the US government interests and they can be influenced much more by European citizens democratically.
Open source? One that’s developed by people all over the world, including US, China and Russia? And Linux, whose lead maintainer is an American citizen, and which is developed in the large part by US and Chinese corporations? Doesn’t sound very sovereign to me.
I mean I did not even specify any particular open source project that you could infer any particular nationalities developing from so it’s pretty bad faith trying to straw man me like this. Furthermore you seem to have completely misunderstood what I was saying.
Convince me this won’t have a built in backdoor and/or automatically scan your photos looking for “suspicious” content (for the children, of course).
Of course one would have to trust Jolla. But then again, isn’t that always the case for everything that isn’t 100% open source? And even then, there could be compromised code somewhere. SFOS is in use for many years, there is an active community around it but the closed source parts of the OS, including hardware vendor drivers, are, well, closed source.
But then that’s just it. Whom do we want to trust? There is no 100% open source phone and SFOS seems the only persistent Linux-based OS for phones around.
If European laws mandate this then this “european” phone will of course do it. That’s what you get when asking for “digital sovereignty” - instead of tech corporations serving interests of US government you have tech corporations serving interests of European governments.
Well a stronger version of digital sovereignty that requires open source with appropriate governance and appropriate licensing could also mean serving every user’s interests.
Of course interests of the European governments also probably align much better overall with the interests of European citizens than the US government interests and they can be influenced much more by European citizens democratically.
Open source? One that’s developed by people all over the world, including US, China and Russia? And Linux, whose lead maintainer is an American citizen, and which is developed in the large part by US and Chinese corporations? Doesn’t sound very sovereign to me.
I mean I did not even specify any particular open source project that you could infer any particular nationalities developing from so it’s pretty bad faith trying to straw man me like this. Furthermore you seem to have completely misunderstood what I was saying.