That sounds nice but when the security administrators have total control, and the management beuracracy of different organizations realizes that they have that power, you lose the "general" part of general computer every time. It's really this beurocratic control of the machines that hackers have been rebelling against for decades and is a big part of why the computer revolution has been as egalitarian as it has. Security=control for the powerful=no room for dissent.
That just means we have a bigger problem: if people are reliant on other people's computers to do their computing, they have no computing freedom at all.
The hacker movement has been soft on this for a long time. Blind trust in university accounts is a good example. There's really no reason to believe that your university is less likely to snoop on your mail than Google is. There's in fact a lot more reason to believe that an actual human, with an interest in you specifically, may be doing so. Same with files or processes on a shared server. But hacker culture grew in a time where computing required a shared, large investment in a computer, and so there was no choice but to trust the university computer if you wanted to do any computing at all, and that became an accepted part of the culture.
We now live in an age where the personal computer is just about (but not quite) affordable for everyone. We need to shake the idea that you can achieve computing freedom on someone else's computer. Perhaps you can freely compute for them: if you're doing research for a university who's given you an account, or work for an employer who's given you a laptop, by all means, use their computer. The concept of freedom, then, applies to the university or the employer, and you are just their agent.
But if you're talking about personal computing, we need to get a personal computer in everyone's hands. We need to solve problems of affordability and accessibility, but people should no more be reliant on a company-issued laptop than on a university-issued shell account.
