The “moral entitlement” has nothing to do with this. The software is legally required to abide by its license agreement (which, by the way, you are supposed to have read, understood, and accepted prior to using said software).

I honestly can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic. A license grants the end user permission to use the software. It is not a series of obligations for how the software operates. This would be excruciatingly obvious if you read any software license.

A license agreement is, well, an agreement between the manufacturer and the consumer which may include a requirement to acknowledge certain aspects of how the software operates (e.g. the user may be required to agree to “share” some data).

Some commercial software licenses may include various disclaimers which exist to ward away litigious assholes. They only serve to protect the vendor against legal complaints, and do not impart responsibilities upon the vendor. Such disclaimers are not necessary but corporate lawyers have a raison d'être, and at a certain scale assholes become inevitable.

They might not be legally entitled to it, but that's just because of our shitty "intellectual property" laws. Morally speaking, OP is absolutely entitled to have a device that they own not spying on them.

Regardless of one's opinion of intellectual property laws, nobody is morally entitled to demand that someone else build the exact oroduct they want. In fact it is immoral to demand that of other people — and you certainly wouldn’t like it if other people could demand that of you.

Want a phone that doesn’t spy on you? Make it yourself. If you can’t, find some like-minded people and incentivise them (with money or otherwise) to make it for you. If they can’t (or won’t) perhaps contemplate the possibility that large capitalist enterprises might be the only practical way to develop some products.

This is just "might makes right" bullshit with slightly prettier framing.

This has absolutely nothing to do with "might makes right". If a fast food store decides to offer a Vietnamese Peanut Burger and Sugar Cane Juice combo, nut allergy suffers are not "morally entitled" to a nut-free option and diabetics are not "morally entitled" to a sugar-free juice option. This applies whether the fast food store is a small family run business, or McDonalds.

To suggest that customers are "morally entitled" to a Samsung phone with zero tracking and zero telemetry is similarly absurd. If you don't like Samsung's product, don't buy it.

> If a fast food store decides to offer a Vietnamese Peanut Burger and Sugar Cane Juice combo, nut allergy suffers are not "morally entitled" to a nut-free option and diabetics are not "morally entitled" to a sugar-free juice option.

Why not? What gives McD the right to make such a decision unilaterally, other than might?

In fact, this is how disability legislation (for example) already tends to work. You don't get to tell disabled people to just go somewhere else, you have to make reasonable accomodations for them.

> What gives McD the right to make such a decision unilaterally

This cannot be a serious question.

> nut allergy suffers are not "morally entitled" to a nut-free option

Restaurant have a legal obligation to warn the customers. AKA "opt-in" which is NOT what Apple is doing. And it's the whole issue with their behavior.

Apple's food scientists have verified the food safety of their new recipe, and they are sufficiently confident that nobody will suffer any allergic reaction. Nobody has disputed their assessment.

All consumers can engage in is Info Wars style paranoia, and grandstanding about the aforementioned paranoia.

That's absurd.

We can regulate these problems.

If the EU can regulate away the lightning connector they can regulate away this kind of stuff.

You're seriously arguing that it's absurd for customers to have "absolute control" over all software?

No EU regulation could regulate away all "moral" concerns over software. More specifically, they EU could regulate, but the overwhelming majority of software companies would either strip significant features out for EU customers, or exit the market altogether.

Lol, they keep threatening that but they still like the money of the europeans.

The EU hasn't threatened granting consumers "absolute control" over all software.

I'd vote for a party that said the only legal license is AGPL :D