That might end up to be a more workable model for the Internet, Charney said. “The user remains in control. The user can say I don’t want to pass a health certificate,” he said “There may be consequences for that decision, but you can do it.”

The false choice offered by bullies to blame the victim is so typical. Do as I say or there will be “consequences”. PJ rightly mocks this:

What? Invade my privacy just to connect to a bank? A *bank*?? I have a better idea. How about Microsoft fixes its insecure software design, or if it must enforce policies on its users, limit it to Microsoft-using people. Requiring antivirus software on Linux users is a joke, like making men wear bras. There’s no need or use for it.

The good people at Black Box Voting have more direct political concerns about software use in voting. These concerns have lead people like RMS to say that computers of any type should never be used for elections. The US is plagued by the very worst kind of voting machines, non free software (windows with secret additions by the makers) that have been implicated in several fraudulent elections. They point out that “security” is a red herring, the real issue is centralized control and lack of public verification.