Start with buying the right hardware. Fairphone offers more control over the hardware:
https://support.fairphone.com/hc/en-us/articles/104924762388...
We should have the ability to run any code we want on hardware we own
201–210 of 1001 posts
Re: We should have the ability to run any code we want on hardware we own
#202Earlier quoted context omitted.
Once you decide to trade your liberty for security, it becomes the norm and then no one has liberty.
Apple is a company, not a government. I haven't traded my liberty for anything. Again, you can buy a different phone – that is where liberty comes into this equation. If the USG decides to pass a law saying you can only buy iPhones, then we will have more to talk about w.r.t. liberty. Nothing actually prevents you from modifying your iPhone however you see fit, btw. If you are incapable of breaking Apple's security w…
> If the USG decides to pass a law saying you can only buy iPhones, then we will have more to talk about w.r.t. liberty.
Is what the US government does the only concern to you? This feels like a very semantic argument that tries to define the government as the sole arbiter of what's expected in our society. Majority consensus has an equal if not greater reach in telling us what we can and can't do. Case in point: the only two types of smartphones you can reasonably use nowadays are iOS devices and Android devices (and that is Google-sanctioned Android devices, custom ROMs are being rooted out as we speak). Sure, you can technically buy a random dumbphone, and just accept losing access to most of society, including services where using specific apps on specific platforms is mandatory. Is that liberty to you? Everyone telling you that you must pick from one of these options, but you're not forced to at gunpoint, so it's fine?
> Nothing actually prevents you from modifying your iPhone however you see fit, btw. If you are incapable of breaking Apple's security without bricking the phone, that's a "you" problem.
I would agree if we were still in the 2000s, when people could actually plug their phones in and flash whatever firmware they desired on them. Current-day phones, iPhones especially, are black boxes that are designed to be impenetrable by anyone by Apple, under the guise of 'security'. Everything is cross-checked to ensure that you can't as much as screw your phone open without consequences. The threat vectors they're supposedly addressing are utterly ludicrous. It's gotta be stuff like "Oh, what if a malicious actor steals grandma's iPhone, opens it, installs a battery that wasn't blessed by Apple, and explodes it after giving it back to her?".
Everyone knows they're doing this because they want every facet their devices to be in their tight grip, so that you just obtain temporary permission to do some things with it under their watchful eye, as long as you stay in your lane. Best of all, they can just incessantly scream something about "safety", "security" or "integrity" and that will be good enough justification.
And 99% of people don't even have the capacity to care about any of this, they'll just pick "security" and cheer on for any new "secure" update that tightens corporate control over you and what you can do. The 1% is too small of a market to care about, they will just reluctantly use the socially acceptable option because what choice do they have?
Re: We should have the ability to run any code we want on hardware we own
#203The first thing that came to mind when I heard hardware we own was vehicles like a Rivian where they do run a lot of software. I can understand why they'd not want people to run software in order to avoid bad press. If someone writes something and things go wrong, it will look bad for the manufacturer, even if they're not at fault.
Re: We should have the ability to run any code we want on hardware we own
#204We as tech enthusiasts killed a viable 3rd option. For all its warts Microsoft created a great mobile os, but we killed it. If we could convince them to bring it back to be the true alternative to the existing duopoly in might fix these issues.
I wouldn't expect Microsoft, of all people, to be a "viable third option". They weren't exactly keen on user freedom either - they aren't now, and they weren't in Windows Phone 7 days.
Re: We should have the ability to run any code we want on hardware we own
#205There’s something weird about it. My phone needs to be hyper secure, and a lot of companies went to monetize that and introduce insecurities with their software. That’s why I love my iPhone, but I’m not super happy about what happens with my Mac. There’s something in the reality that it’s the app developers not the user that are being restricted by Apple. Apple keeps the app developers from doing things I don’t like…
What does this have to do with the article?
Flexibility is usually inverse of security
Re: We should have the ability to run any code we want on hardware we own
#206As for the new Android restrictions I assume my Galaxy S20 will be immune to them because it's not getting (major) updates anymore. I'll continue using it as long as I can to avoid this. Does anyone know the most recent Galaxy phone that will be safe from this? I want to get a backup.
It likely won't be safe - they're probably going to enforce it through a Google Play Services update rather than an Android update, which means all previous Android OS versions after 5.0 (Lollipop, released in 2014) will be hit with the changes. In order to bypass that you'd need to install a Custom ROM or stop using and uninstall the Google Play Store entirely (since it's not possible to selectively disable just this).
Android uses Google Play Services updates to update some features or security without relying on manufacturers to update the OS and drivers.
Re: We should have the ability to run any code we want on hardware we own
#207> In this context this would mean having the ability and documentation to build or install alternative operating systems on this hardware It doesn't work. Everything from banks to Netflix and others are slowly edging out anything where they can't fully verify the chain of control to an entity they can have a legal or contractual relationship with. To be clear, this is fundamental, not incidental. You can't run your o…
Really not a libertarian, but why shouldn’t Netflix have the right to choose who they distribute content to? They negotiated conditions with the creators, why shouldn’t they be able to specify the DRM? No one is forcing you to subscribe to Netflix. Or even to buy an iPad.
Re: We should have the ability to run any code we want on hardware we own
#208> In this context this would mean having the ability and documentation to build or install alternative operating systems on this hardware It doesn't work. Everything from banks to Netflix and others are slowly edging out anything where they can't fully verify the chain of control to an entity they can have a legal or contractual relationship with. To be clear, this is fundamental, not incidental. You can't run your o…
Really not a libertarian, but why shouldn’t Netflix have the right to choose who they distribute content to? They negotiated conditions with the creators, why shouldn’t they be able to specify the DRM? No one is forcing you to subscribe to Netflix. Or even to buy an iPad.
>why shouldn’t Netflix have the right to choose who they distribute content to?
power asymmetry
Re: We should have the ability to run any code we want on hardware we own
#209Earlier quoted context omitted.
Incorrect. Choice 2. Empowered user. The end user is free to CHOOSE to delegate the hardware's approved signing solutions to a third party. Possibly even a third party that is already included in the base firmware such as Microsoft, Apple, OEM, 'Open Source' (sub menu: List of several reputable distros and a choice which might have a big scary message and involved confirmation process to trust the inserted boot media…
Consider the possibility of an evil maid type attack before a device is setup for the first time, e.g. running near identical iOS or macOS but with spyware preloaded, or even just adware.
This can be fixed by adding some user-controlled "fuse". For example, with a TPM you will lose access to stored keys if the boot sequence is modified.
Re: We should have the ability to run any code we want on hardware we own
#210This 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…
Remember, the law provides patent, copyright, trade mark, and NDA protection. While it would be a burden to require a degree of openness, it's not like companies are all rugged individualists who would never want to see legal restrictions in the field. It's just a question of what is overall best and fairest. Restrictions can both help and hinder innovation, and it's innovation that in the ling run makes things impro…
>Restrictions can both help and hinder innovation
I'm not sure innovation is really impacted when restricting the private sector. Traditionally, innovation happens in public (e.g, universities) or military spaces.