People can always disable the speaker or do illegal hacks to the device
In the example scenario I gave, the biggest threat to a person's privacy was not hacker types, but just everyday people who post photos online. I think it's pretty self-evident that the majority of people would not modify their device in this way, even if they could.
Why does that imply it's OK to dictate how I'm allowed to use my technology
Even the most freedom-loving libertarians among us generally concede that your freedom doesn't extend to harming others. In the issue at hand we probably aren't even really talking about your freedom, per se, but simply how devices are manufactured. As you mentioned, no one can really stop you from modding a device, anyway.
By the way, you might want to try flipping your own reasoning around, and thinking about what a minor inconvenience it is to hear the camera sound, so that people's privacy can be protected.
You don't need to be a hacker to download an android app that disables the sound illegally, or remove the speakers.
> Even the most freedom-loving libertarians among us generally concede that your freedom doesn't extend to harming others.
Do you really consider being able to take photos silently "harming others"?
Why don't we just make cameras on cell phones illegal? After all, your freedom to have a camera "doesn't extend to harming others."
The reason your argument is bullshit is that most people (including libertarians) don't support punishing people before they're proven guilty of a crime. You can certainly punish upskirt-shot-takers, if you want, but don't preemptively mix up literally every innocent person with a smartphone.
>no one can really stop you from modding a device, anyway
But they can and have made it illegal, so if I do modify my device in the way I like they can throw me in prison.
>thinking about what a minor inconvenience it is to hear the camera sound, so that people's privacy can be protected.
This is a completely false dichotomy. The camera sound is not protecting people's privacy to any significant degree. It has the much more significant effect of inconveniencing a huge number of people.
You also haven't addressed the fact that this sets up the precedent for the government controlling people's technology.
Do you really consider being able to take photos silently "harming others"?
In very specific circumstances it can be, for reasons I already described.
In your world where simple privacy-enhancing measures are to be vociferously opposed should they cause any inconvenience whatsoever, I hope you never have enemies that you need to keep privacy from.
In the example scenario I gave, the biggest threat to a person's privacy was not hacker types, but just everyday people who post photos online. I think it's pretty self-evident that the majority of people would not modify their device in this way, even if they could.
Why does that imply it's OK to dictate how I'm allowed to use my technology
Even the most freedom-loving libertarians among us generally concede that your freedom doesn't extend to harming others. In the issue at hand we probably aren't even really talking about your freedom, per se, but simply how devices are manufactured. As you mentioned, no one can really stop you from modding a device, anyway.
By the way, you might want to try flipping your own reasoning around, and thinking about what a minor inconvenience it is to hear the camera sound, so that people's privacy can be protected.