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

Neofeudalism and the Digital Manor

locusmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 255 posts

Re: Neofeudalism and the Digital Manor

#131

Post by chordalkeyboard »

backing wrote: post #118
chordalkeyboard wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> weather the pandemic overall in incredible comfort due to technology and content created under our IP regime strike "under" insert "in spite of" > demonstrate that we'd have these things without the IP environment of past 100 years. IP are laws that prohibit who is allowed to manufacture and profit by certain types of goods. The burden of proof rests on those who think that those goods would not exist if more peopl…

And how would it change the world to be more equal?

More people would have the opportunity to produce live-saving drugs, fewer people would be subject to state violence as a consequence of performing acts that had no victim.

Re: Neofeudalism and the Digital Manor

#132

Post by plasticchris »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #102
gen220 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could run your system completely in RAM, to at least limit the duration of exposure. Persistence is overrated! :)

To go one step further, have three, or more, identical fire walled systems running and have them vote on every calculation with the votes sent to a hardwired switch, that prevents the system from advancing if there’s a disagreement, and shuts off power to the RAM if there’s too many in a row. The chances of any compromise happening to all the systems within the same nanosecond would be infinitesimal.

They shouldn't be identical systems, common mode failures will get you.

Re: Neofeudalism and the Digital Manor

#133

Post by bboylen »

gen220 wrote: post #9
SoSoRoCoCo wrote: post #7

"There is no way for us to defend ourselves: even skilled technologists who administer their own networked services are no match for the bandits. To keep bandits out, you have to be perfect and perfectly vigilant, and never make a single mistake. For the bandits to get you, they need merely find a single mistake that you’ve made." Ooof. What a boot-to-the-face reminder. Despite my use of a Tor Router, three ubikeys a…

You could run your system completely in RAM, to at least limit the duration of exposure. Persistence is overrated! :)

For anyone unfamiliar and curious, this is how the Tails OS works.

https://tails.boum.org/

Re: Neofeudalism and the Digital Manor

#134

Post by jorblumesea »

SoSoRoCoCo wrote: post #47
f430 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If what you are communicating needs to be guaranteed to never be crackable, you only need to use the oldest and most secure way of communicating before the days of internet and computers: short wave transmitted one time pad codes. The reason that number stations continue to operate is that it really is the best way to communicate/order under surveillance which almost certainly is happening in every embassy in non-fri…

It's not that I'm a spy. It's that I want to protect myself digitally as much as possible, despite being forced to interface with the internet by large institutions. We can go back and time and argue about the lack of security just four decades ago (George Hayduke[1] had a series of books on how to exfiltrate info in the 60's & 70's through social engineering). However, here we are: in a virtual world that is simulta…

> protect myself digitally as much as possible

From whom? Understanding the threat model is incredibly important to understanding how and what to defend against. It sounds like you're just chucking "security ideas" over the fence in the hopes that one might protect you.

Protection against cyber criminals and other net denizens? You're probably overkill and also not helpful in some circumstances. Tor is generally for anonymizing internet traffic, but using a financial institution is the exact opposite of anonymity.

ISP? Maybe? Depends on what you're doing and why. With DPI and other tools it's not clear cut.

Nation state? Not much you can do. Very little can protect you if Russia decides you're a person of interest.

Re: Neofeudalism and the Digital Manor

#135

Post by cageface »

zepto wrote: post #38
saghm wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Consider that this blog post frames the issue as one of surveillance, instead of an anti-malware effort. It does address the idea of this system being intended to combat malware in the fourth and fifth paragraphs. The point it makes is that there's nothing stopping it from being used against legitimate software too, other than the benevolence of the "warlord" who controls it, so you're still just trusting them to p…

“you're still just trusting them to protect you and hoping they don't take advantage of it” That is exactly what Apple’s customers are doing. It actually a pretty normal feature of modern society to trust institutions or businesses not to take advantage of particular powers they have. It’s really bizarre to call a business a ‘warlord’. The converse, where we can’t trust any institution or business and we must all be…

It actually a pretty normal feature of modern society to trust institutions or businesses not to take advantage of particular powers they have.

The problem here is that Apple disallows user override, as the article explains. It's like asking that you trust your government but also allow yourself to be physically constrained from rising up and rebelling against it. And you're not only trusting Apple you're trusting whatever goverment Apple is accountable to where you live.

I'm ok with trusting Apple or Google for vetting most of the apps I have on my phone but I'm absolutely not ok with them restraining me from overriding their decisions when necessary.

Re: Neofeudalism and the Digital Manor

#136

Post by sologoub »

andreilys wrote: post #120
losteric wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Recipes do not have patent protection, yet there is plenty of innovation in restaurants. There are many paths to an innovation. I don't think the first person deserves such a monopoly. American IP law, in combination with the generally letigious society, has always seemed like a net source of innovation friction...

Creating a new recipe doesn’t involve billions of dollars in research as is the case in pharma. A company that spends billions of dollars in research assumes they will be able to recoup the cost by having a monopoly on the drug they developed. If however competitors can flood the market with the same drug, they cannot recoup the cost and will subsequently go bankrupt. Without the proper incentives you can’t expect co…

For pharma specifically, trade secrets could be a decent alternative. Coke comes to mind as a success story in that regard - if it was protected by a patent, we’d be awash in cokes made by someone other than Coca-Cola company because patents expire. Instead, it’s a trade secret that can be kept indefinitely.

You of course get a lot of imitation cokes and that’s great! More consumer choice. With Pharma, the idea is that you get generics after the patent expires. However, an interesting “what if” to ponder - what if the resources that go into generics went instead into the coke-wannabes of the pharma and actually resulted in more innovation? We’ll never know.

Re: Neofeudalism and the Digital Manor

#137

Post by est31 »

ramphastidae wrote: post #82
f430 wrote: post #3

What really puzzles me about Apple fans and it's userbase is that they do not care . They simply do not care at all what's being done to them. It's the strongest example of consumer cultism. Absolute in their exceptionalism and ignorance. Similar problems discussed in the article are found in Tesla. The lowest common denominator of consumer cultism is surveillance and it's no surprise that both Apple and Tesla do exc…

And yet you can identify no real alternative. Last I checked Apple is the only company with a consumer-grade operating system that (1) has refused to turn over user data even after legal challenges from the federal government and (2) doesn’t generate revenues from advertising and selling user data.

> has refused to turn over user data

You don't need to turn over any data if you transmit which programs people start in the clear, unencrypted, easily observable, to one of your servers.

And they do turn it over. They tried to make icloud end to end encrypted but then didn't do it at the behest of the US government. They employ the same tactics as zoom by claiming that icloud is encrypted, trying to make people believe that it's end to end encrypted. The encryption key still sits with them though.

Yes, there are some high profile cases where they very publicly refused the feds. Got a lot of publicity. That was their main goal, to paint an image of them not turning over user data.

Maybe apple indeed collects less user data than Google. But they still collect many things, and it's way harder to escape apple's collection than to escape Google's collection as their OSs are so locked down.

Re: Neofeudalism and the Digital Manor

#138

Post by cageface »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #91
thombles wrote: post #34

Unfortunately the way he describes the "Ulysses Pact" is fantasy. He makes it sound like it would be just like today, except a savvy user could sideload Signal for example if Apple was compelled to remove it. What would _actually_ happen is a long list of companies would say "brilliant, we don't have to conform to the app store guidelines any more" and go sideload-exclusive. Within a matter of months it would be comm…

"What would _actually_ happen is a long list of companies would say "brilliant, we don't have to conform to the app store guidelines any more" and go sideload-exclusive" This hasn't happened in Android, why do you think it would happen with Apple?

It hasn't happened on the Mac app store either. If anything it's put pressure on Apple to make the Mac app store a better experience for developers and users. It's only where users have no option as on iOS that Apple has been able to really abuse its power.

Re: Neofeudalism and the Digital Manor

#139

Post by cageface »

coldtea wrote: post #96
type0 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I still enjoy macOS I would enjoy macOS if it subscribed to open source ideals, but then it wouldn't be Apple right > You are free to buy something else. That's exactly the advice I give to everyone who asks me about appel

> I would enjoy macOS if it subscribed to open source ideals, but then it wouldn't be Apple right Yes, and what's more troubling, I think it also wouldn't be macOS. macOS can be more open, but it can't "subscribe to open source ideals" (and even less so the "bazaar model") without stopping being macOS. It offers something else, and some of it could be replicated in FOSS (e.g. Gnome has copied tons of those, as have c…

Aside from this recent fiasco with their verification server shutting down local apps I'm pretty happy with macOS. It's fairly secure by default and treats me like an adult when I want to make my own decisions and install software outside of their distribution channels.

I'm very much not ok with the iOS model where Apple and my government have veto-proof power over what software I can run on my hardware.

Re: Neofeudalism and the Digital Manor

#140

Post by zepto »

f430 wrote: post #129
zepto wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“I never asked for a Windows license when buying PC, and yet I had no choice.” I have owned countless computers since the mid 80’s, and I have never been forced to purchase a windows license or used windows on a computer I bought for myself. There have always been options.

Consider the kid who wants to play Doom or Quake like all the other kids are doing in his class. Can't do it on a linux or mac, I guess I'll ask mum to buy me Windows 95

Sure - but what has that to do with warlords?

Do you have to go to a ‘Warlord’ to buy a My Little Pony too?

Post reply on HN