Excluding parental controlls from 'security' feels like more of an idealogical stance than a practical one.
I can see the argument based on Free Software principles. But I don't see anything else.
There are so many cases of devices that are facing a user but not owned by the user which very much do fall under 'security'. Public terminals are a big one, devices handed out to employees in certain cases are another, and esoterica cases like prisoners also exist.
Those should very much count as security, if only because 'when something breaks dangerous things can happen'. Then excluding parental controls because 'censorship bad' doesn't make much sense, since parental controls and other device lockdowns are often implemented with the exact same methods.
There are plenty of eviler things like a locked-down secure-boot and TPM grounded DRM that definitely fall under security, that I don't think it makes sense to gatekeep the term.
Heck, security as a term is so often used oppresively, that it makes little sense to gatekeep it anyway.
I can see the argument based on Free Software principles. But I don't see anything else. There are so many cases of devices that are facing a user but not owned by the user which very much do fall under 'security'. Public terminals are a big one, devices handed out to employees in certain cases are another, and esoterica cases like prisoners also exist. Those should very much count as security, if only because 'when something breaks dangerous things can happen'. Then excluding parental controls because 'censorship bad' doesn't make much sense, since parental controls and other device lockdowns are often implemented with the exact same methods.
There are plenty of eviler things like a locked-down secure-boot and TPM grounded DRM that definitely fall under security, that I don't think it makes sense to gatekeep the term.
Heck, security as a term is so often used oppresively, that it makes little sense to gatekeep it anyway.