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

491–500 of 764 posts

Re: Your Computer Isn't Yours

#491

Post by ernst_klim »

forest_dweller wrote: post #220
ernst_klim wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think people have much choice these days. Well, choice is about compromise. You have to choose between freedom and convenience, but you can choose. I'm saying that as a person who used 4 linux phones as daily drivers for last 10 years (n900, n9, jolla, xperia with sailfish). > There are other choices but are they mainstream Well there are. Maybe they are not mainstream because people value convenience over…

Why should you choose between freedom and convenience? They are not mutually exclusive.

Of course they are. You need to invest a lot in your platform to make it convenient, so you have to be able to monetize it well enough.

Re: Your Computer Isn't Yours

#492

Post by ttiurani »

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…

I need XCode to build software for iOS and OSX, and there isn't to my knowledge any other feasible, performant and off-line capable way to do that beside running OSX on a Mac.

This is the only reason I had to move away from (arch) linux and it saddens me every day.

Re: Your Computer Isn't Yours

#493

Post by zepto »

pizza234 wrote: post #93
zepto wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The alternatives are still completely unusable by most people.

Not anymore. Consumer usage nowadays is very browser centered, which is something one can experience with a Linux distro on pretty much any machine. I agree that it's not as much as a polished experience, but that's the point as indicated - trading off polish for ownership. I'm excluding from the discussion professional documents editing - compatibility with Libreoffice is mediocre (at best) in my experience, but hav…

This is completely conceding the point. Nothing but the browser is up to par, and even that is not as ‘polished’.

If all people need is a browser, they should buy ChromeOS or an iPad.

Re: Your Computer Isn't Yours

#494

Post by ChuckNorris89 »

a_c_s wrote: post #471
ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does Apple really have literally all telemetry disabled by default, out of the box, on all devices? Is there an independent audit proving that? If so, I would buy all their products in an instant. Then how do they know what to fix/improve without that? I can't imagine average iOS/OSX users, who aren't devs, are writing and submitting detailed bug/crash reports on a regular basis. Or is it just bias and personal prefe…

Apple gives you the option to turn telemetry on/off as part of the machine setup & OS upgrade process. This option is explained in simple english and not buried in the legalese.

The question is, is the telemetry really off completely on mac or either?

Is there any guarantee that Apple gets zero bytes of your data or do we just take their word for it because their products are shiny and cool?

Re: Your Computer Isn't Yours

#495

Post by zepto »

sliken wrote: post #227
d3nj4l wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Consumer usage nowadays is very browser centered But it's also just as likely that you're using a browser made by Google, and using other services made by one of the big companies that don't care about your privacy. Where's the difference?

Google's not in control of the CPU, OS, or Desktop. It's not fingerprinting every binary you run, nor locking you into any of the google tools. You could easily use a different email service, different photo service, etc.

Sure since but this subthread argues that users actually don’t need binaries other than the browser that’s moot.

Re: Your Computer Isn't Yours

#496

Post by ab8 »

ajuc wrote: post #477
eznzt wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what do you expect us to do, install Linux and spend days configuring the touchpad? Computers are a tool we use to do our work. Setting up the computer cannot become a job by itself.

It's funny because almost nobody uses Apple where I live (Poland). The only people who use MacBooks are some "artsy" types and some managers (because they only need office and outlook to work :) ). Developers never use apple because it has tons of compatibility issues.

It is a luxury brand in the US. Every tech person that has made it would never buy anything but Apple. Yes, things like battery life are great. But if you are seen working at a coffee shop, there is a 100% guarantee of a that glowing apple logo on your laptop.

Re: Your Computer Isn't Yours

#497

Post by rootsudo »

elondaits wrote: post #443
slazaro wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the point is that before, if you had a computer, you had the ability to inspect, modify and program, and with curiosity you'd learn. Now, most people get computers where those things are forbidden. You still can get "programmable" computers, but you have to do it explicitly. Before, it was implicit. So there's a filter that some people won't pass and won't learn, and the pool of people shrinks.

I am a developer, I use Mac... so I don’t understand how it’s forbidden to program. Mac OS comes with Python, Ruby and PHP preinstalled, even.

The lockdown and controlling of distribution of software.

Great, you can write a script, it's checksum is then sent over the net and verified to not be malicious or if the service on the other side is experiencing lag..well... gotta wait, and wait.

To the point where, all choice is removed from an operating system. So much for root access.

Re: Your Computer Isn't Yours

#498

Post by zepto »

sliken wrote: post #224
zepto wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The alternatives are still completely unusable by most people.

Keep in mind that some of the user friendliest machines today are chromebooks. Simple, not many knobs to turn, relatively secure, and of course browser centric. ChromeOS is of course running the linux kernel and the chrome web browser. The experience is very similar to installing ubuntu, google chrome, and dragging the other icons off the launcher.

But chrome os is is just another of the locked down, centrally controlled, telemetry driven products that people are complaining about.

The fact it happens to use the Linux kernel is like saying MacOS is based on FreeBSD.

Re: Your Computer Isn't Yours

#499

Post by ab8 »

arvinsim wrote: post #426
croes wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it should be your tool. Apple just grands you the right to use it like they think it's the best for you. That leads to this https://mobile.twitter.com/lapcatsoftware/status/13269902964... How could it be that people are all about freedom when it comes to governments but have no problem if private companies censor and controll what they write and do?

Because they own shares

LOL. Right

Re: Your Computer Isn't Yours

#500

Post by angry_octet »

sneak wrote: post #275
ArchOversight wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having OCSP encrypted would cause a chicken and egg problem... OCSP is supposed to validate a certificate, but how do you check the validity of the certificate if the OCSP endpoint also requires validation?

You could ignore the validity of the TLS certificate when checking OCSP. That way, passive listeners are foiled, and only active MITM would be able to see which certificates you're checking. It's better than HTTP plaintext, which is how it works now. Most of the bulk surveillance, pattern-of-life IC stuff is passive, not active. Ultimately, though, I should be able to opt out of app/binary signing (and associated cer…

Additionally, it seems excessive to check every time. Checking once a day would be enough (if it needs to be global and immediate, Apple could push a kill hash to Gatekeeper as I understand it). The volume of queries would greatly exceed the size of getting the updates to the CRL every day (or hour!). Indeed, OCSP stapling is a cache of the signed proof of validity.

It also seems like a bloom filter could be used instead.

It really points to Apple being quietly satisfied to have this massive stream of usage data. And available every ISP and snooper along the way too.

Post reply on HN