>>19111
>windows 10 will start automatically removing pirated content (software, music, movies) without the consent of the user, likely through windows defender as a "safety precaution"Nah. But plenty enough happens without the consent or knowledge of the user right now for this not to be THAT huge of a stretch.
>surveillance infrastructure combined with liberally interpreted law will see that infrastructure used to target more than just terrorists, at first dealers in child exploitation material and drugs, and then to target those that infringe copyrightNo. The infrastructure for enforcement just isn't there. Plus, it's easier to do what you want socioeconomically and politically with everyone blinded by the massive availability of information (specifically entertainment) at a grand scale.
Bread and Circuses.
>governments will heavily restrict strong crypto and ban anonymization technologies like onion routing for non-corporate entities, citing law enforcement concerns, making the use of such tech prima facie evidence of a crimeNo. It's better for them if we continue to think they work at all.
>some guy fawkes mask wearing kid will likely do something stupid and violent, and the fallout will be that hackers and activists will be considered terroristsNope. You already have lulzsec and the massive influx of swatting cases. People barely even know who they are and don't care. Hackers and activists are already marginalized.
>hardware (routers etc.) will be required to ship with locked proprietary firmware to appease government regulators, making open source software unusable on such devicesThere is a move toward this already on routers, smartphones have been doing this since inception, and, I hate to break it to you, but you won't be running any modern PC components that don't have some proprietary microcode or out-of-band control facilities (thanks intel).
>further advances in trusted computing will force open source software off new hardware, and dominant virtualization solutions will require signed enterprise versions of linuxI already sign my own linux kernel for use with secure boot. I'm sure some sort of self-signing workaround will be possible.
>google's native client browser technology will be increasingly invoked to run native code on your machine, and the use of this will quickly evolve to be mainly distributed computing, essentially turning every web connected computer into everyone's (read: corporations') hardwareThis has already happened really. What I see in my browser extensions terrifies me, but if you want to be even more concerned, see what librejs finds when running for a while and how much of the web breaks for you.
>legal enforcement of the internet as a public speech zone whereby hate speech and bullying is criminalized, precipitating a push for legislation whereby "real id" only logins are required on all sites that fall under EU/US jurisdictionThere are already countries that do this, and it isn't so strange. Abuse, obscenity, and hate speech are not protected speech in the EU or US, and why should they be? There are limits to what people should be allowed to say, classic examples like yelling fire in a crowded theater or inciting a pogrom come to mind. That said, speech shouldn't be regulated simply because it hurts peoples feelings or someone doesn't like it. Instead, there are obvious real-world ramifications of some types of speech like bullying (which often results in real, serious psychological trauma), hate speech (which has all-too-often been employed as a smokescreen or scapegoat by demagogues vying for power), or obscenity (which also has demonstrated clear psychological harm, especially to small children and of course depending on the severity of the obscenity). Limits on being an asshole are entirely compatible with freedom.
