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

Right to root access

medhir.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 428 posts

Re: Right to root access

#221

Post by pseudocomposer »

regnull wrote: post #216
lapcat wrote: post #32

There are a ton of products on the market that are vastly more dangerous than computers: guns, cars, motorcycles, bicycles, chainsaws, table saws, cigarettes, alcohol, junk food. Yes, consumers do sometimes harm themselves by using these products. That's the price of freedom . I think it's bizarre that we treat computers as the most dangerous products in the world that for some reason demand paternalism, when none of…

Before we put all the blame on vendors, I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen, this: the public finds this tradeoff (privacy for entertainment) completely acceptable. With all the outrage, privacy-centric solutions are out there and relatively easy to find, how come they don't get more traction? Including among the HN crowd?

“The least bad option in a market oriented against users and designed to maximize profit” is not the same as “completely acceptable.”

Re: Right to root access

#222

Post by lapcat »

kees99 wrote: post #201
logicchains wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But like a gun or a knife it may give local criminals an opportunity to threaten (or worse) you into giving them money from your wallet.

You are 100% spot-on with the "local" thing here. People living in "bad neighborhoods" have to spend more energy and money on locks, fences, security cameras, self-policing as to not go out alone after dark, etc. Problem is, Internet (and international phone system, to a lesser degree) makes everything so much closer, that scammers from half-way around the globe are "local" for all intents as purposes. Thus, online,…

> Thus, online, every neighborhood is a "bad neighborhood".

This is like the exaggerated crime coverage on the local news.

I've lived in the so-called "bad internet neighborhood" for 30 years, and I'm fine. It's not so bad.

Re: Right to root access

#223

Post by dusted »

perlgeek wrote: post #135
dusted wrote: post #120

> I believe consumers, as a right, should be able to install software of their choosing to any computing device that is owned outright. While I agree, I think even legislation will not fix this, because what is a computing device, and who decides what is and what is not ? I'm sure apple will argue that nothing they sell should be considered computing devices. While the hacker will consider anything they can trick int…

> While I agree, I think even legislation will not fix this, because what is a computing device, and who decides what is and what is not ? If there is legislation, it will contain a definition of what is a computing device and what isn't. It will be imperfect, and the edge cases will be contested in courts. Courts deal with blurry boundaries all the time. That's how it always is with legal matters, and doesn't mean w…

What I mean is that I think this is the fastest way to end the era of widely-available general-purpose-computing devices that we are currently in (and that is currently ending, but at a glacial speed).

It's not that hard to imagine a version of the world where computers as we know them do not exist, but are mere appliances (like tablets and smartphones), and if companies feel threatened that they might be forced to open up their computing devices, they will be quick to make them not fall under the definition.

Instead of a smartphone, you will get a "Can telephone and access facebook and instasnap" device with whatever technical cripplement is needed to make it not a computing device and be exempt from the law. And as the general public and justice system is pretty ignorant with regard to technology, it's going to be pretty resource intensive to convince a judge why every gadget around that suddenly identifies as "not a computing device" is in fact on anyway.

Re: Right to root access

#224

Post by lapcat »

skywhopper wrote: post #183
lapcat wrote: post #32

There are a ton of products on the market that are vastly more dangerous than computers: guns, cars, motorcycles, bicycles, chainsaws, table saws, cigarettes, alcohol, junk food. Yes, consumers do sometimes harm themselves by using these products. That's the price of freedom . I think it's bizarre that we treat computers as the most dangerous products in the world that for some reason demand paternalism, when none of…

Actually, chainsaws, table saws, cars, motorcycles, and even guns all have safety mechanisms installed by the manufacturers and tampering with them voids the warranty.

Nobody is arguing that computers shouldn't have safety mechanisms. But the manufacturers of those devices don't have remote control over what I do with them. There's no equivalent of a "curated App Store" (and one that requires a 30% cut to the manufacturer, which is the real point behind it).

The equivalent would be if you could only use specific brands of replacement chains, blades, tires, or bullets that are approved by the manufacturer, for which the manufacturer gets a cut of the sales of those replacements.

Re: Right to root access

#225

Post by jshen »

lapcat wrote: post #32

There are a ton of products on the market that are vastly more dangerous than computers: guns, cars, motorcycles, bicycles, chainsaws, table saws, cigarettes, alcohol, junk food. Yes, consumers do sometimes harm themselves by using these products. That's the price of freedom . I think it's bizarre that we treat computers as the most dangerous products in the world that for some reason demand paternalism, when none of…

Only computers let bad people drain bank accounts at scale.

Re: Right to root access

#226

Post by ragnese »

regnull wrote: post #216
lapcat wrote: post #32

There are a ton of products on the market that are vastly more dangerous than computers: guns, cars, motorcycles, bicycles, chainsaws, table saws, cigarettes, alcohol, junk food. Yes, consumers do sometimes harm themselves by using these products. That's the price of freedom . I think it's bizarre that we treat computers as the most dangerous products in the world that for some reason demand paternalism, when none of…

Before we put all the blame on vendors, I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen, this: the public finds this tradeoff (privacy for entertainment) completely acceptable. With all the outrage, privacy-centric solutions are out there and relatively easy to find, how come they don't get more traction? Including among the HN crowd?

Exactly. Even the people who complain about these things immediately get defensive when you call them out on their uses: "Well, I can't switch because what about my banking app?" or "Well, games don't count as software to me." or "It won't make any difference to the big tech companies if I'm the only one who switches, so why bother?"

Re: Right to root access

#227

Post by EMIRELADERO »

dusted wrote: post #223
perlgeek wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> While I agree, I think even legislation will not fix this, because what is a computing device, and who decides what is and what is not ? If there is legislation, it will contain a definition of what is a computing device and what isn't. It will be imperfect, and the edge cases will be contested in courts. Courts deal with blurry boundaries all the time. That's how it always is with legal matters, and doesn't mean w…

What I mean is that I think this is the fastest way to end the era of widely-available general-purpose-computing devices that we are currently in (and that is currently ending, but at a glacial speed). It's not that hard to imagine a version of the world where computers as we know them do not exist, but are mere appliances (like tablets and smartphones), and if companies feel threatened that they might be forced to o…

That's easily solved.

Just scope the law to any device that can run code, and have the criteria for control be "the user must never have less control over code execution as the manufacturer does after the sale".

So, for example, if someone buys a phone from Apple they will get full control of the entire device (SEP/TEE included) because Apple has the ability to exercise post-sale code execution control to that level (they hold the private keys required).

Re: Right to root access

#228

Post by lapcat »

miki123211 wrote: post #174
lapcat wrote: post #32

There are a ton of products on the market that are vastly more dangerous than computers: guns, cars, motorcycles, bicycles, chainsaws, table saws, cigarettes, alcohol, junk food. Yes, consumers do sometimes harm themselves by using these products. That's the price of freedom . I think it's bizarre that we treat computers as the most dangerous products in the world that for some reason demand paternalism, when none of…

> There are a ton of products on the market that are vastly more dangerous than computers The thing with chainsaws and motorcycles is that they look and feel dangerous, and people have an intuitive understanding of how to approach those dangers. If you ask a random person on the street about safe motorcycle riding, they'll probably tell you about respecting speed limits, wearing protective gear, only doing it when so…

> If you ask a random person on the street about safe motorcycle riding, they'll probably tell you about respecting speed limits, wearing protective gear, only doing it when sober, not pulling stunts / showing off etc. I've never been on a motorcycle, have 0 interest in them, and I know those things.

How did this matter? People may know these things, but they nonetheless ignore speed limits, don't wear helmets, drive drunk, pull stunts, etc. And the motorcycle manufacturer can't stop them. They have the freedom to harm themselves.

> Computers don't work that way. People can't distinguish between a real banking app and a fake banking app that looks real

Guess what, people can't distinguish between the real and fake apps in the crApp Store either. Let's stop pretending that it's safe, when we've seen over and over that it's not.

> That was when people still used Windows a lot, as opposed to doing everything on their phones.

People still use Windows a lot. Smartphones have not replaced desktop computers but rather added to desktop computers. Almost every desktop computer owner also has a smartphone I believe that desktop computer sales are as high now as ever; I know that's true for Apple Macs, specifically.

> I feel like that era of "total freedom" has somehow been erased from our minds, and we're looking at things through rose-tinted glasses.

It hasn't been erased. The desktop never left. It's been surpassed in volume by smartphones, of course, but let's not pretend that desktops were somehow made obsolete and removed from the Earth. The people who have enough money buy smartphones and desktops. Many even have a smartphone, a desktop/laptop, and a tablet. The choice is not about security, it's about money and form factor. When I leave home, I put a phone in my pocket. When I'm on the couch, I use a laptop. When I'm reading an ebook, I use a tablet.

Re: Right to root access

#229

Post by adolph »

What the author calls "double standard" could be reframed as "consumer choice." A vendor sells different devices. Some have provisions to make changes to the bootloader and some don't.

The phrase "have provisions to make changes" is on purpose. It has not yet been proven to me that a change to an iPad's bootloader function is impossible. It certainly isn't as easy as that of Mac, but the skill/effort required is a gradient.

This is similar to "soldered" storage. This was commonly thought of as impossible until it was demonstrated that a Mac will happily accept updated storage changed out with a hot air rework device. This method is certainly higher skill/effort/risk than remembering when to terminate 50pin SCSI, but shows that when a hacker has a will, there is a way.

Is it ironic that as computing devices become easier to use, they also require higher skill to fix and modify? No, more likely there is an iron rule that when a device's external complexity is contained, the inner workings of that thing become more complex. Complexity did not decrease but was hidden.

Does a grandfather clock and a tourbillon wristwatch encapsulate the same/similar general principles of timekeeping? Sure. If one has the skill to update parts of the grandfather clock, are those same skills sufficient for the wristwatch? Probably not. Should wristwatches be banned because people who update grandfather clocks do not have the skills to modify them? Surely not, that would be absurd.

Likewise, demanding root in a form you find acceptable is absurd. If you can't take root one a device you possess, it's a skill issue for you to address not the vendor.

Re: Right to root access

#230

Post by MetaWhirledPeas »

pseudocomposer wrote: post #221
regnull wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before we put all the blame on vendors, I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen, this: the public finds this tradeoff (privacy for entertainment) completely acceptable. With all the outrage, privacy-centric solutions are out there and relatively easy to find, how come they don't get more traction? Including among the HN crowd?

“The least bad option in a market oriented against users and designed to maximize profit” is not the same as “completely acceptable.”

I believe GP is referring to things like privacy-centric de-Googled Android phones, which definitely are an option. I would not classify those as "least bad" or even bad.

GP is correct about Apple products; even among the HN crowd they are likely the most popular devices. I think this is because most readers aren't trying to die on the hill of openness. They're more concerned with software and ubiquity, two areas where Apple is doing very well.

You do get many here enthusiastic about open access to your own hardware, but I think we're talking about a Venn diagram; we're not all the same. (I'm an Android user.)

Post reply on HN