Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Your Computer Isn't Yours

sneak.berlin

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 764 posts

Re: Your Computer Isn't Yours

#131

Post by ur-whale »

szc wrote: post #127

I'm not going to comment on the linked article, other than say I think it contains serious mistakes in describing what OCSP is for and errors in other statements. In the background there is a war going on, but it isn't what you think. It is a war between malware creators and OS creators. From my perspective it goes like this: To "identify" malware you need signatures. Signatures need valid certificates. Signing keys…

>For me, Apple products really are designed to protect my personal information.

Which unfortunately isn't mutually exclusive with granting full access to your stuff to state-level actors.

But I guess there's always a category of people who actually like the idea of big brother.

Re: Your Computer Isn't Yours

#133

Post by einpoklum »

arcticbull wrote: post #124
est31 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are totally right that Linux is only a single digit percentage in user share if you look at all computers deployed world-wide. However, in the developer sphere, GNU/Linux is way more represented. In the Stack Overflow 2020 survey, 26% of people said they were using a Linux based OS [0]. This number has been gradually increasing over the years so further growth is expectable. It's less than one percent less than t…

Every company I've worked at for the last 10 years has developed exclusively on macOS. Linux is fine, but it doesn't just work, and it needs to in order to gain a foothold not just in the developer community but with the general public -- that's the lesson Android has taught us. Until it does it will not budge the numbers. It just won't. The real apologism here comes from the Linux community, who believes that by vir…

No company (or academic institution) I've ever worked for developed _anything_ on MacOS. That's a US-only phenomenon, I think.

The thing about Android, it was essentially foisted on people, not chosen because it just works. Also, many Linux distributions today "just work" on typical hardware - almost as well as Android on your phone. And if you were using a hardware config chosen by someone else, and a Linux-based distribution pre-installed and pre-configured for that hardware - then Linux very much "just works".

It is true, though, that this is not enough to expand the user base far enough. That needs a lot of coordinated, collective, public activity.

Re: Your Computer Isn't Yours

#134

Post by dasKrokodil »

rsanheim wrote: post #103
deadbunny wrote: post #16

Yet despite all the wailing and gnashing of teeth - both in the article and in the comments here in the various threads - people are still making excuses for continuing to use Apple/Google/Microsoft/et al products because the alternatives are a bit rough round the edges. These companies have repeatedly shown that they don't respect people's privacy and people have resoundingly responded that neither do they. I would…

You pointed out a core problem here, and a common blindspot with the HN crowd: > continuing to use Apple/Google/Microsoft That is probably 98%+ of devices that most typical people use for everyday computing, across phone, laptop, and desktop. Whether it is an android device, an iPhone, a Dell laptop or a new M1 macbook you are beholden to a corporation that doesn't care about privacy. I would argue that Apple cares a…

> I would argue that Apple cares a bit more

Have you read the article?

Spoiler: They don't.

Re: Your Computer Isn't Yours

#135

Post by samatman »

lostmsu wrote: post #91
alphabettsy wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about efficient? A Mac Mini is extremely efficient.

That whole thing is temporary until 2021 when other companies will get a chance to use 5nm fabs.

Don't count on it.

Apple's mobile chips have been consistently the best in the business. When the A14 was released, the second fastest mobile chip you can buy became... the A13.

Is this unsurmountable? Obviously not, it's excellent engineering, not a pact with the Devil. But you can't just hand-wave it away either, Apple's silicon is the one to beat, and they have a head start.

Re: Your Computer Isn't Yours

#137

Post by Shared404 »

novok wrote: post #7

Thanks for summarizing a bunch of changes that make me depressed about modern computing. Now Android, 'privacy apple' macOS, iOS & Windows all act in similar way. The only thing left is bad user experience linux.

> The only thing left is bad user experience linux.

And the BSD's plus a couple others.

There are more options, the question is just are you willing to make the tradeoffs to take them.

Re: Your Computer Isn't Yours

#138

Post by marcus_holmes »

zakki wrote: post #130
rsanheim wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You pointed out a core problem here, and a common blindspot with the HN crowd: > continuing to use Apple/Google/Microsoft That is probably 98%+ of devices that most typical people use for everyday computing, across phone, laptop, and desktop. Whether it is an android device, an iPhone, a Dell laptop or a new M1 macbook you are beholden to a corporation that doesn't care about privacy. I would argue that Apple cares a…

>>> And before "have you tried this *nix distro??" comments appear, they are still too hard to setup I think why Apple, Android, Windows has the advantage is none of those 3 OSes require installation by most people. Why treat Linux differently? >>> and nowhere near as user-friendly for most people on an everyday basis User-Friendliness, I think, is more on day to day interaction. It will be interesting if there is a…

I bought a Purism laptop with Linux installed, and it was definitely as simple to get going on that as it was a Macbook.

Actually even easier because there's no "You must have an AppleID to use this machine - if you don't have one go and register now" step, and no associated problems with that.

Re: Your Computer Isn't Yours

#139

Post by ilovefood »

Well reading the terms and conditions (example: Catalina) it's not so far fetched that this is being done and it didn't happen suddenly but it was rather a long way coming. The outrage wouldn't have any legal ground. It seems that the issue is rather that the oscp service was down and thus was an annoyance (putting it mildly) instead of functionning as intended. Nothing is ever going to be yours if you don't put enough effort for it to be: in this case it would be an informed decision about what you want and need compared to what's available.

Re: Your Computer Isn't Yours

#140

Post by sneak »

szc wrote: post #127

I'm not going to comment on the linked article, other than say I think it contains serious mistakes in describing what OCSP is for and errors in other statements. In the background there is a war going on, but it isn't what you think. It is a war between malware creators and OS creators. From my perspective it goes like this: To "identify" malware you need signatures. Signatures need valid certificates. Signing keys…

You're absolutely right, and I use a Pixelbook and an iPad Pro for much the same reason. The cryptographic protections are great. (They'd be even more great if I could blow my own bootrom CA into the fuses.)

The phone-home is the issue, however. I've long understood the issue with certificate validity periods and the tradeoffs between short notAfter/frequent reissue and revocation check intervals.

The side effect is that it functions as telemetry, regardless of what the original intent of OCSP is or was. Additionally, even though the OCSP responses are signed, it's borderline negligent that the OCSP requests themselves aren't encrypted, allowing anyone on the network to see what apps you're launching and when.

Many things function as telemetry, even when not originally intended as so. The intelligence services that spy on everyone they can take advantage of this when and where it occurs, regardless of intent.

It's not worth putting everyone in a society under surveillance to defeat, for example, violent terrorism, and it's not worth putting everyone on a platform under the same surveillance to defeat malware. You throw out the baby with the bathwater when, in your effort to produce a secure platform, you produce a platform that is inherently insecure due to a lack of privacy.

PS: The platforms, even with all of their cryptography, aren't nearly as secure as you'd like them to be: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2020/10/new-report-on...

Post reply on HN