Maybe these grandiose plans on "How to Save the Internet"
will make typically more-leftish-than-libertarian open source proponents realize why strict gun control is a dangerous precedent to set:
[Ed Amoroso, CISO of AT&T] thinks AT&T can make a ton of money off this idea: Return control to the network providers (like his own company's phone system in the 1970s, he says, a time when Ma Bell controlled everything, including the technology's interface), and let the providers charge you for doing all of the filtering, traffic analytics, worm detection and incident response. "That's my solution," Amoroso says. "Create a service. Make money." [...]
Guns are dangerous; therefore, we license them. We give them unique serial numbers and control their distribution. James Whittaker says programmable PCs are dangerous, so why not treat them like guns?
"Let's make all end user devices nonprogrammable," he says. "No one can connect to the Internet on a machine that creates code. If you want a computer to do programming, you would have to be licensed. We could license software companies to purchase programmable machines, which would be completely traceable along with the code created on them."
Guns, computers, deregulated telephony hardware, anything that gives the average person some measure of control at the expense of a central bureaucracy; it's all part of the same continuum. If you don't like the idea of crippled 'media appliances' (cf. featureless, hardwired rotary phones) being the only computers available to the consumer without a specially restricted license, set a precedent for private ownership and responsibility in similar areas pre-emptively. If government isn't given the ability to suppress the ownership of a value-neutral piece of technology, it's less likely to listen to the frankly terrifying, power-consolidating, monopoly-building schemes of these CIOs, merely out of a practical inability to act.