51–60 of 63 posts
My fear for the future is that any computing device must have a government provided co-processor, and it will not be able to connect to a network without it. Any citizen found with an illegal device would be punished.
I like the essay but it fails to realize the goal posts are not fixed on the field. General purpose computing is alive and well and cheaper than ever, you can build the equivalent of a PC/AT for about $50 in parts. What Cory misses is that when we were building CP/M machines and IBM PC clones, there already was a big pile of computers that were locked down so that somebody else could make money off of you using them.…
It is still possible that large companies apply vertical integration to the extent that general purpose components become difficult to obtain.
My fear for the future is that any computing device must have a government provided co-processor, and it will not be able to connect to a network without it. Any citizen found with an illegal device would be punished.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All it takes to disable Gatekeeper is a single Terminal command. All it takes to disable System Integrity Protection is a single Terminal command run from recovery mode. By my count, that is ten minutes of work at most to allow not just unsigned software but unsigned drivers that run at a super low level. Add in a few more Terminal commands and you can even disable really arcane things like amfi [1]. I don't know why…
>Microsoft, by contrast, does not let you permanently disable driver signing on 64 bit Windows Have you tried the next? (I haven't tried it because I don't have access to a Windows box on which I have admin privs.) https://windowsreport.com/driver-signature-enforcement-windo...
I like the essay but it fails to realize the goal posts are not fixed on the field. General purpose computing is alive and well and cheaper than ever, you can build the equivalent of a PC/AT for about $50 in parts. What Cory misses is that when we were building CP/M machines and IBM PC clones, there already was a big pile of computers that were locked down so that somebody else could make money off of you using them.…
It seems to me the article does not really hit the point with those who are not already on-board with "all software must be free" (in the FSF sense).
If you don't believe you should have the right to modify software running on your paid-for general purpose computer called a TV (and it is a general purpose computer, some even run mostly general purpose operating systems like Android or WebOS on ARM SoCs), the article is trying to warn you that you'll be soon the victim of software on those TVs: like the webcam and microphone issues with Samsung TVs recently.
Only when anyone can explore and run software they wish on their general purpose computers masquerading as specialized devices (that's what the article aims for, imho) will everyone, including your mom, brother or yoga teacher, be safe from the risks hacker community is all too well aware of.
I don't think the article is very clear in what it tries to convey, because general purpose computers will always remain, but public at large is being steered away from them, and that's where the risk is.
My fear for the future is that any computing device must have a government provided co-processor, and it will not be able to connect to a network without it. Any citizen found with an illegal device would be punished.
You fear the government doing something like this but the corporation already has. What difference is there? Please don't claim that the government has a monopoly on violence, that is certainly not the case.
Can you please give an example from recent history (past twenty years) of corporations forming a duopoly on violence?
My fear for the future is that any computing device must have a government provided co-processor, and it will not be able to connect to a network without it. Any citizen found with an illegal device would be punished.
This is already the case for mobile networks. Open source basebands are illegal. The best you can do is sequester your proprietary government-aproved co-processor as far as possible from your main processor, but most computers with such network adapters built-in aren't designed this way - they're designed to promiscuously share memory.
I don't think open source basebands are illegal per se. I thought the legal encumbrance was due to the NDAs under which documents related to wireless chipsets are released. Can you explain a bit more?
My fear for the future is that any computing device must have a government provided co-processor, and it will not be able to connect to a network without it. Any citizen found with an illegal device would be punished.
You fear the government doing something like this but the corporation already has. What difference is there? Please don't claim that the government has a monopoly on violence, that is certainly not the case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You fear the government doing something like this but the corporation already has. What difference is there? Please don't claim that the government has a monopoly on violence, that is certainly not the case.
> You fear the government doing something like this but the corporation already has. What difference is there? Please don't claim that the government has a monopoly on violence, that is certainly not the case. Can you please give an example from recent history (past twenty years) of corporations forming a duopoly on violence?
Also Blackwater, and the breakup of Occupy, which was a public/private partnership between law enforcement and the banks.
My fear for the future is that any computing device must have a government provided co-processor, and it will not be able to connect to a network without it. Any citizen found with an illegal device would be punished.
This is already the case for mobile networks. Open source basebands are illegal. The best you can do is sequester your proprietary government-aproved co-processor as far as possible from your main processor, but most computers with such network adapters built-in aren't designed this way - they're designed to promiscuously share memory.