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

371–380 of 1001 posts

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

#371

Post by estebarb »

vbezhenar wrote: post #267
jonahx wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is the means of enforcement requires taking away other rights they shouldn't be able to. What if I want to require (for anti-piracy reasons) that to use my software you must also give me complete access to your computer, all the data on it, and all your communications. You might say, "Well, if anyone is stupid enough to make that deal, let them." But it's easy to sugar coat what you're doing, especially wit…

> What if I want to require (for anti-piracy reasons) that to use my software you must also give me complete access to your computer, all the data on it, and all your communications. That's exactly what happens with anti-cheat kernel modules. As one might expect, ordinary people couldn't care less, as long as it works good enough.

Except that... we have history of them not working well. For instance, the Sony rootkit https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_roo...

We cannot expect those rootkits to be properly supported long term for any security issues they may cause. I would think that the solution is simple: nobody forces them to make their IP available in non hacked computers...

If they want a hardened computer to deliver their IP, then they should sell their own hardware. But forcing their blocking into the whole stack is not acceptable.

For instance: I cannot see any udemy or netflix content from my computer, because their IP protection blocks the lenovo docking station I use to connect my monitors to my MBP... each part is standard! And somehow nobody tested that scenario. So, no, that tech is barely tested, it must not be forced into any computer.

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

#372

Post by itake »

spaqin wrote: post #283
josephg wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fl…

Your parents are more likely to be a victim of a phone call scam than malware, even on PC. There is also no guarantee that malware will not slip through cracks of official stores or signatures. You can also choose to do your banking at the physical branch. We already had "best of both worlds", especially on mobile OSes - granular permissions per-app were quite good, and on Android until few years ago root was widely…

Phone scams have you install malware. Banks don’t know if you’re on the phone with the scammer, but they would like to detect if you’re using a screen sharing app on the password or transfer screens.

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

#374

Post by josephg »

DataDynamo wrote: post #305
ozgrakkurt wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are the stats here, this sounds like pure bs to be honest. Main way people around me get scammed by far like 90% is social engineering

It will need just one more additional authentication factor and blocking side loading apps on Android - We promise, total security is close! /s

I don't think we'll ever have total security. But we still put locks on our doors and send our internet traffic through TLS.

All or nothing thinking is counterproductive.

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

#375

Post by tern »

immibis wrote: post #161
tern wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to mention, it's an authoritarian attitude, talking about forcing companies to support arbitrary software stacks

Is it authoritarian to stop other people from being authoritarians?

If I make a product and I don't specifically help you do certain things with it, is that authoritarian?

Regardless, we're talking about products here—"authoritarian" is a word reserved to situations where the threat of force is involved.

In this specific example, forcing a company to do something is authoritarian (because they will be fined or jailed if they do not comply with the rules). Corporations are not, as a rule, authoritarian—they may, however, do things that are not to your benefit or liking.

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

#376

Post by lentil_soup »

josephg wrote: post #260
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 fl…

But you can choose, your parents can have a phone with the "lockdown" setting turned on and I can have it off if I want. How we expose and handle that setting is a UX problem we can solve.

What's wrong with that?

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

#377

Post by trinix912 »

hdgvhicv wrote: post #313
tonyhart7 wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

well no one to force you to do banking from smartphones You can do manually like the old days, EXPLICTLY ALLOWING NON GOOGLE/APPLE to do banking in their own mobile phone meaning THERE ARE MILLIONS OF USERS that can fall victim to scammer+cracker how cant you see all of that???? ITS JUST NOT ABOUT YOU edit: please educate first, y'all need to know differences between mobile banking and internet banking You can downvo…

My bank lets me do everything just fine on Firefox/linux.

For now, until they come up with some stupid 2FA solution that requires installing and updating their Android/iOS app. Banks where I live already have and there's literally no way around it (they don't use physical 2FA keys anymore).

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

#378

Post by cess11 »

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…

Right, so "defend" does a lot of lifting in there.

What are you prepared to do to reverse the contemporary tide of tyranny? What have you done to make those in power afraid to move forward with policy founded in loathing of humanity?

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

#379

Post by notepad0x90 »

I agree with this take, but my view is that it is one step detached from the root cause. The right to property is fundamental and inalienable. A person who can't own things isn't free, they have no claim on liberty.

That said, service providers, corporations and the like should be allowed one remedy: They can refuse future services and business to anyone if that person violates whatever b.s. rule they came up with.

However, the government (any government) has no authority to police post-ownership activity in a manner that deprives the owner of their property rights. In other words, they can say "You can't own an AK-47" or "You can't generate sound over certain dB" , but they can't say "You can't shoot your AK-47 on your property, even if it pauses no risk of harm to others, but you can own it", and they can't say "You can't use your speaker at maximum volume" (they can police the sound you generate but not the usage of your property, if the speaker passes the legal threshold then the speaker isn't relevant, the sound generated is).

This also applies to free (not commercial) sharing of property (copyright laws are fundamentally invalid).

The problem is, I am talking logic and reason which doesn't translate well into real-world scenarios. In the real world, the guys with the biggest guns make up random rules and pretend it is just and valid.

The reason I'm stating all this, is in the hopes that I can convince anyone who reads this and maybe if enough of us agree, some day democracy might work and laws can change.

The government can prevent ownership of things. It cannot however pass laws that dicate you can come into possesion of things and by all reason it is your property, but as a matter of technicality it can't be considered property and is subject to arbitrary usage laws by the government or rules by third-parties.

That said (I promise, my last one!), access to network services is special. If someone made some software where to function it requires some network service, and they came up with random rules on the network service side, then that is also their right, since that service is on their property. The remedy people have for this is to avoid that service. And if that service is the only one of its kind and using it is required, then the government has a natural obligation to protect the public against monopolies.

I had a hole other post/thread that got negative feedback and some interesting discussion about Google, Android and their sideloading policies. If you glean anything from this post of mine, please let it be that I am advocating for solving of the root causes of these problems. It is all too easy to be reactionary and fall into these rage-baiting events. Solving root causes is never easy, but good solutions are often simple. If reasonable minds can have a healthy discourse to find these solutions then many problems are solved, instead of playing whack-a-mole forever.

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

#380

Post by vrighter »

josephg wrote: post #260
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 fl…

All this will do is ensure that if malware does get through the official channels (which it can and regularly does) it will be more widely distributed
Post reply on HN