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

251–260 of 1001 posts

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

#251

Post by zeroCalories »

MangoToupe wrote: post #218
zeroCalories wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TBH I don't care if Netflix wants to abuse such an asymmetry. I don't need Netflix in my life, so I'll just cancel my subscription(already have). I honestly don't want my lawmakers to spend even a second thinking about Netflix when we have so many large issues in the world right now. If we were talking about something like financial services where I have to engage I would be more sympathetic.

Capital doesn't really care what you want, it will exert control regardless. So in this case Netflix will continue to be part of capital that normalizes the need for DRM to access videos, write IP law, and generally force you into either accepting the world they want or forcing you to become a hermit. Edit: i mean to say this is true whether or not you've even heard of the company.

Well then I will get mad when that actually happens. Until then don't care.

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

#252

Post by pishpash »

divan wrote: post #31

> It should be possible to run Android on an iPhone and manufacturers should be required by law to provide enough technical support and documentation to make the development of new operating systems possible As someone who enjoyed Linux phones like the Nokia N900/950 and would love to see those hacker-spirited devices again, statements like this sound more than naïve to me. I can acknowledge my own interests here (ha…

That argues for opening up the hardware more, not closing down the software.

In fact it further argues that the degree of vertical integration is monopolistic. Why should a Sony CMOS camera be tied to some Apple computational photography code only available in Apple firmware or iOS? What if I do not like that it makes up images that don't exist? What if someone has a better method but now cannot bring it to market?

Break it up and open it up. I assure you it can be done.

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

#253

Post by johncolanduoni »

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…

Open and hackable products have a niche user base, so these users get a niche set of options. The only way to get mainstream products to play to this tiny user base is to demand that all products be open and hackable by fiat. Otherwise, there’s no incentive from anybody involved (manufacturers, app developers, etc.) to give them something that can run both their banking app and some open source app they compiled themselves. There’s a lot of dancing around the security effects this will have on “normies”, and although there are plenty of armchair proposals I haven’t heard one that doesn’t obviously degrade into some sort of alarm fatigue as both legitimate apps and malware tell you to click though a dialog or flip a setting.

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

#254

Post by abtinf »

sverhagen wrote: post #11
abtinf wrote: post #5

[flagged]

Do you want locked down hardware, or are you accepting the locked down hardware because you don't care about it either way, but are otherwise happy (very happy perhaps even) with what those platforms offer? But why can't we have both?

We have both.

But the other side insists we only have open platforms.

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

#255

Post by echelon »

flomo wrote: post #185
echelon wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Freedom > Privacy > Security Never give up your freedom. If you have to give up your privacy to ensure your freedom, so be it. If you have to give up your security to ensure your privacy, so be it. This goes for governments and phones.

Always fun to interact with some internet Thomas Jefferson giving freedom speeches from his mother's basement. Reality is that people pay a lot of money because they 'trust' Apple (and to a lesser extent Google), but Meta is the sleaziest one of them all. (And I don't use their shit either.) But people want Whatapp and Instagram, and so you are telling them now they have sell-out and go to the "Meta App Store" to tal…

And yet you're apparently not losing your mind over Mark Zuckerberg having his products on the web? He's doing everything you claim on the open web - third party trackers embedded on other websites, etc. Do you want to lock down the web?

I think you have a reason for defending Apple. Maybe you love the company, maybe you've got their stock, maybe you've worked for them.

Apple is a trillion dollar behemoth that has distorted the market and removed freedom and choice. They're a menace that needs to be regulated. Period.

I also think Zuckerberg's tracking needs to be regulated, but that's a battle for another day. It's one we haven't so egregiously lost yet.

People don't need Meta. People need smartphones. And smartphones are draconian dictatorships that the government has been too asleep and too lax to regulate.

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

#256

Post by cyphar »

lukan wrote: post #112
jacquesm wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 a…

"And that is what is wrong here. Even the smallest nation should be far more powerful than the largest corporation" Since nations can be really small, I don't agree.

Even the smallest nations have the legal right to permanently incarcerate, strip you of your assets or even murder you if you are in their sphere of influence. I would hope you'd agree those are not powers that we should grant to large corporations...

I think it's shocking how many people Google can affect through its search algorithms (more than any nation on Earth) and yet there is no democratic system to hold them accountable.

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

#257

Post by GeekyBear »

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 real battle is over Google selling the public on the notion that Android would be the "open" platform that allowed people to run anything they liked on their device, and then deciding to use anticompetitive means to take that freedom away.

Without that fraudulent marketing, Android never would have crowded out other options so quickly in the marketplace.

The solution is to either have Google back down on breaking its promise that Android would be open or to have an antitrust lawsuit strip Android from Google's control.

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

#258

Post by pishpash »

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…

The protection period simply needs to be adjusted downward to reflect the faster pace of change. Rewarding 1700's technology pace today is asinine.

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

#259

Post by abtinf »

junon wrote: post #17
abtinf wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

That's a reductio ad absurdum conclusion. Both lobby for and are in major political cahoots with many governmental bodies worldwide. They lobby like crazy, and can defend just about any lawsuit that comes their way - including dodging congressional hearings, selectively adhering to laws other companies cannot afford to skip, etc. But I think you knew that. Being argumentative with the general point OP was making does…

Every point you raised is in fact evidence for how they are weaker than governments.

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

#260

Post by josephg »

zmmmmm wrote: post #165

> 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…

My parents are getting old and they aren't tech savvy. The missing piece here is that I want my parents to have a computer they can safely do their banking on, without leaving them vulnerable to scams and viruses and the like. I like that they have iphones. Doing internet banking on their phone is safer than doing it on their desktop computer. Why is that?

The reason is that the desktop PC security model is deeply flawed. In modern desktop operating systems, we protect user A from user B. But any program running on my computer is - for some reason - completely trusted with my data. Any program I run is allowed to silently edit, delete or steal anything I own. Unless you install special software, you can't even tell if any of this is happening. This makes every transitive dependency of every program on your computer a potential attack vector.

I want computers to be hackable. But I don't also want my computer to be able to be hacked so easily. Right now, I have to choose between doing banking on my (maybe - hopefully - safe) computer. Or doing banking on my definitely safe iphone. What a horrible choice.

Personally I think we need to start making computers that provide the best of both worlds. I want much more control over what code can do on my computer. I also want programs to be able to run in a safe, sandboxed way. But I should be the one in charge of that sandbox. Not Google. Definitely not Apple. But there's currently no desktop environment that provides that ability.

I think the argument against locked down computers (like iphones and androids) would be a lot stronger if linux & friends provided a real alternative that was both safe and secure. If big companies are the only ones which provide a safe computing experience, we're asking for trouble.

Post reply on HN