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

We should have the ability to run any code we want on hardware we own

hugotunius.se

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 1001 posts

Re: We should have the ability to run any code we want on hardware we own

#91

Post by ACCount37 »

bsder wrote: post #36
idle_zealot wrote: post #4

This makes the point that the real battle we should be fighting is not for control of Android/iOS, but the ability to run other operating systems on phones. That would be great, but as the author acknowledges, building those alternatives is basically impossible. Even assuming that building a solid alternative is feasible, though, I don't think their point stands. Generally I'm not keen on legislatively forcing a deve…

The primary problem is that we can't build a phone and run it on a cellular carrier network. This is where legislation is needed. Apple and Google are still a problem, but they are a secondary problem.

You kind of can? The carrier network has no way to verify that your cellular modem is a real modem made by a real modem company, and not 3 SDRs in a trench coat standing on the top of each other.

The sheer technical difficulty is what makes this kind of thing impractical.

The network does validate that a SIM card is a real SIM card, but you can put a "real SIM card" in anything.

Re: We should have the ability to run any code we want on hardware we own

#93

Post by paulryanrogers »

tzury wrote: post #84

We need both options to coexist: 1. Open, hackable hardware for those who want full control and for driving innovation 2. Locked-down, managed devices for vulnerable users who benefit from protection This concept of "I should run any code on hardware I own" is completely wrong as a universal principle. Yes, we absolutely should be able to run any code we want on open hardware we own - that option must exist. But we s…

I'd argue that even the 'safe' devices should at least be open enough to delegate trust to someone besides the original manufacturer. Otherwise it just becomes ewaste once the manufacturer stops support. (Too often they ship vulnerable and outdated software then never fix it.)

Re: We should have the ability to run any code we want on hardware we own

#94

Post by littlecosmic »

sesky wrote: post #70
marak830 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. Abtinf's solution changes how I can use hardware. But me being able to install what I want does not change theirs. You guys keep not installing what you don't want - that's fine and your choice - but don't remove mine for no reason.

This is not true. A walled garden only works well when it applies universally. When app developers have the ability to bypass the walled garden, they have many incentives to do so ranging from financial to wishing to circumvent scrutiny. This will include an increasing amount of popular and useful apps, decreasing the options available to those who want to stay in the walled garden. For less technical users they will…

Alternatively it just puts pressure on the walled garden to let people do what that want to do safely within the walls so they don’t have to go through the escape hatch.

Re: We should have the ability to run any code we want on hardware we own

#96

Post by Almondsetat »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #93
tzury wrote: post #84

We need both options to coexist: 1. Open, hackable hardware for those who want full control and for driving innovation 2. Locked-down, managed devices for vulnerable users who benefit from protection This concept of "I should run any code on hardware I own" is completely wrong as a universal principle. Yes, we absolutely should be able to run any code we want on open hardware we own - that option must exist. But we s…

I'd argue that even the 'safe' devices should at least be open enough to delegate trust to someone besides the original manufacturer. Otherwise it just becomes ewaste once the manufacturer stops support. (Too often they ship vulnerable and outdated software then never fix it.)

If the user cannot be trusted to maintain the hardware and software, then the only responsible thing is to rely on the manufacturer to do so. In those cases, if the support is dropped you buy the newest device.

Re: We should have the ability to run any code we want on hardware we own

#97

Post by crazygringo »

Ferret7446 wrote: post #30

I think we really need to discuss whether IP/copyright protections were a mistake. A LOT of our "modern" problems stem from IP protections. Whether that be not being able to own media, right to repair, DRM, censorship, a lot of monopolistic behavior, medicine prices, etc. And no wonder, IP protection is government sanctioned monopoly, and it is generally recognized that monopolies are bad; is it such a surprise that…

Not really sure what this has to do with running your own code, though.

If a manufacturer makes a device locked down, it's the technological protections preventing you from running your own code. Not IP/copyright. Sometimes they get jailbroken but sometimes not.

Re: We should have the ability to run any code we want on hardware we own

#98

Post by fellowmartian »

tzury wrote: post #84

We need both options to coexist: 1. Open, hackable hardware for those who want full control and for driving innovation 2. Locked-down, managed devices for vulnerable users who benefit from protection This concept of "I should run any code on hardware I own" is completely wrong as a universal principle. Yes, we absolutely should be able to run any code we want on open hardware we own - that option must exist. But we s…

I think this is a false dichotomy. Open hardware with open source software would be more protected simply by being more stress tested and vetted by more people. If you need even more protection you can employ zero-knowledge proofs and other trustless technologies. I have long been dreaming about some kind of hardware/software co-op creating non-enshittifying versions of thermostats, electric kettles, EV chargers, solar inverters, etc, etc. Hackable for people who want it, simply non-rent-seeking for everyone else.

Re: We should have the ability to run any code we want on hardware we own

#99

Post by 7373737373 »

carlosjobim wrote: post #90
mikewarot wrote: post #89

A gentle reminder to the readers here at HN that it doesn't have to be this way. Computer Security is a solved problem[1], and has been so since the 1980s [2]. It's my strong opinion that the only methods you've seen to this point[3-7] were deliberately chosen to be ones that don't work, and make things worse in the long run. There's no reason we shouldn't be able to run what we want on our hardware, without having t…

Your opinion is not "a gentle reminder", "a friendly reminder" or "a public service announcement". It's just your opinion and nothing more.

It's obvious you don't understand what is written in those links. The capability security architecture breaks the false dichotomy of either having to have a fully locked down or open operating system, it provides the technical foundation to grant individual programs, and even parts of these programs, recursively, only the (data, filesystem, network) access and resource consumption (cpu, memory) rights that they need. This is not an opinion, this is a decades old technical solution that humanity ignores at its own peril. While I wouldn't argue that it completely solves computer security, it allows programmers and users to minimize the attack surface of their systems.

Re: We should have the ability to run any code we want on hardware we own

#100

Post by jacquesm »

idle_zealot wrote: post #4

This makes the point that the real battle we should be fighting is not for control of Android/iOS, but the ability to run other operating systems on phones. That would be great, but as the author acknowledges, building those alternatives is basically impossible. Even assuming that building a solid alternative is feasible, though, I don't think their point stands. Generally I'm not keen on legislatively forcing a deve…

> Google and Apple have more power than most nations.

And that is what is wrong here. Even the smallest nation should be far more powerful than the largest corporation. But corporations are now more powerful than most nations, including some really big ones. So the only way to solve this is to for an umbrella for nations that offsets the power that these corporations have.

The first thing you notice when you arrive at Brussels airport is the absolute barrage of Google advertising that tries to convince you that Google is doing everything they can to play by the rules. When it is of course doing the exact opposite. So at least Google seems to realize that smaller nations banding together wield power. But they will never wield it as effectively as a company can, so we still have many problems.

Post reply on HN