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

Hardware Attestation as Monopoly Enabler

grapheneos.social

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

701–710 of 799 posts

Re: Hardware Attestation as Monopoly Enabler

#701

Post by taurath »

chermi wrote: post #692
pietrrrek wrote: post #657

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In my experience, once the issue is framed as 'Google will decide what you can do with your phone' every single person is immediately outraged. I've had a lengthy debate about this (in the context of right-to-repair) with a friend of mine who's outside tech and he genuinely held (still holds?) the opinion that the manufacturer has the "right" to decide how their products are used. I'm willing to bet that this is a…

I mean I agree with you. But also, it's not that unreasonable of an opinion. As long as it's coupled with optionality, which I think is the actual issue. Well the actual "issue" is that most people don't care or think that much at all about it. HN is a very special crowd.

For people who are just technology consumers they don’t see what could be offered, only what is. This is so frustrating when one understands how railroaded everyone is into maximizing platform ad revenue while holding the reasons people go on the platforms out as a carrot on a stick that gets further and further away. It’s 300 PHD psychologists vs someone just trying to keep up with their family.

Re: Hardware Attestation as Monopoly Enabler

#703

Post by nroets »

codethief wrote: post #499

What I've failed to understand in this whole Google reCAPTCHA discussion so far: How is this is even going to prevent bot usage and increase security? What's going to stop a bot farm in SE Asia from running a fleet of Android devices?

It will certainly make some bot farms unprofitable: Remember that they are now paying for a screen, a battery, a 5G radio, software licenses, branding, distribution and customer support for which they have no use.

Also consider this: While bot farms may be able to buy millions of Android devices, they will certainly attract a lot of scrutiny as they approach the billion mark. So bot farms will never own more Android devices than humans.

Re: Hardware Attestation as Monopoly Enabler

#704

Post by chermi »

taurath wrote: post #701
chermi wrote: post #692

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean I agree with you. But also, it's not that unreasonable of an opinion. As long as it's coupled with optionality, which I think is the actual issue. Well the actual "issue" is that most people don't care or think that much at all about it. HN is a very special crowd.

For people who are just technology consumers they don’t see what could be offered, only what is. This is so frustrating when one understands how railroaded everyone is into maximizing platform ad revenue while holding the reasons people go on the platforms out as a carrot on a stick that gets further and further away. It’s 300 PHD psychologists vs someone just trying to keep up with their family.

It's really kind of gross. Psychologists should know best about what kind of damage the social media shit does.

Re: Hardware Attestation as Monopoly Enabler

#705

Post by nroets »

mattmaroon wrote: post #10

So basically, ReCaptcha should be spun off into a not-for-profit.

The board members will be lobbied, wined and dined by billion or even trillion dollar companies. If politicians can be bought then so can non-profits.

Having said that, there may well be a room for a niche recaptcha-like service run by a non-profit. Perhaps one that uses a non-profit social graph or something.

Re: Hardware Attestation as Monopoly Enabler

#706

Post by Hackbraten »

6510 wrote: post #622
Hackbraten wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Secondly, it's a lot more convenient to use a device that's always with you than a dedicated standalone single-use computer. The price the owner pays for this is that they're locked out of their own expensive general-purpose computing device while still having to bear all the inconveniences (babysit OS updates, configure stuff, keep it charged, have the battery fail, buy a new device every five years, etc.) In the…

You could also open your front door with your smart phone. It would look high tech until your battery is empty. Sometimes I see people captured by the train station unable to check out. They usually find someone with a charger but technically the formula is to fine them for not having a ticket. Then one might still need to buy a ticket to continue the journey. (bring cash) Phones are usually empty when things [alread…

Back in my iPhone days, I once got bitten by a bug where the app developer failed to raise that flag "dear OS, I'm in the middle of presenting a ticket for optical scanning, and it would be really amazing if you could just, you know, not disturb the screen with random shit for a couple seconds."

Unfortunately for me though, the turnstile that I was about to pass to exit the train station had both an optical scanner and some NFC thing lumped into the same physical module, and every time I tried to scan my ticket, the phone would raise its NFC screen and hide the 2D matrix code.

So yes, you can have a fully charged phone and a perfectly valid ticket with the latest software and still get stuck in a train station.

Re: Hardware Attestation as Monopoly Enabler

#707

Post by erikerikson »

bigyabai wrote: post #687
erikerikson wrote: post #667

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hrrm. It seems your original comment has been heavily edited. > They aren't asking "can I install applications from outside the app store?" I agree. They don't want to. They already can't begin to evaluate app trustworthiness and don't want to have to. And they shouldn't have to. Yet they live in a world where they do. So they lean on reputation, app store filtering, the legal system, and hope.

> I agree. They don't want to. That's not what the parent was saying. Most people don't have any opinion whatsoever on sideloading. You can go confirm this for yourself by asking a Mac or PC owner how scary it is. Most of them will respond that they genuinely never thought about it, not that they're afraid to consider it. To these people, it's a normal feature of their device that you could never remove. The parent i…

I do talk to computer users and they do fear making installations. Many of them have installed something that was adware or a virus, often without meaning to and regretted the results. I have been helping my family and extended family members fix their errors for a long time. This pushes them to big names with names to spoil.

I suspect that the GP is, as you write, lamenting the lack of attention to the topic.

> This is fearmongering logic that doesn't really defend the App Store

I agree it doesn't defend the app store. It wasn't about the app store at all. It is about the social problem of the persistent existence of people who choose to purposely do others harm. The problem for most people isn't the app store but those who attempt to get exploits and quasi-exploits into the app stores.

I also agree that you still have to be cautious when using the app stores. Are you claiming that the app store controls do nothing to reduce the presence of malicious apps in their stores? The article you link starts by noting that the app was removed the day after that post was made. That is exactly why people feel more comfortable using the app store.

Re: Hardware Attestation as Monopoly Enabler

#708

Post by ls612 »

userbinator wrote: post #409
ls612 wrote: post #3

Asymmetric cryptography and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. I’m not even joking all of the centralization of power and the rise of totalitarianism tech is driving is downstream from asymmetric cryptography.

This is an extreme opinion and is not surprisingly unpopular and downvoted but one must realise that it is exactly how the governments were thinking when they wanted to ban encryption, and how the export restrictions and classification as a munition came about. Now companies are wielding it against us.

I think you misunderstand the point I'm making. Governments love having this centralized ability to attest hardware and control what software can be run. This is why for instance the EU has really slow-walked and watered down side loading requirements for Apple.

Re: Hardware Attestation as Monopoly Enabler

#709

Post by blmarket »

pietrrrek wrote: post #657
khriss wrote: post #528

The superhuman efforts that folks on HN make to find technical workarounds and solutions is wonderful to see, but we must realize that this is not a technical problem. It's a social and legislative one. It can't be fought on technical grounds. The push back has to be via putting pressure on politicians by making regular people more aware. Right now, the vast majority of users are being bombarded with a one sided narr…

> In my experience, once the issue is framed as 'Google will decide what you can do with your phone' every single person is immediately outraged. I've had a lengthy debate about this (in the context of right-to-repair) with a friend of mine who's outside tech and he genuinely held (still holds?) the opinion that the manufacturer has the "right" to decide how their products are used. I'm willing to bet that this is a…

Did you ask whether your friend have a car? I think it's much easier to get the point if the story comes to someone's 10 year old but still okay cars.

e.g. Without proper regulations, your maintenance can become nearly impossible.

Re: Hardware Attestation as Monopoly Enabler

#710

Post by iamnothere »

thomastjeffery wrote: post #681
iamnothere wrote: post #651

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you, but many people have yet to understand that content they disagree with will continue to exist, no matter what, and central gatekeepers are not helpful in eliminating that content. The fucking “nazi bar” analogy has ruined an entire generation. You would think after centuries of trying to stamp out competing ideas, humans would finally come to terms with the fact that it cannot be done . Small curate…

I don't think we have to argue against the "nazi bar" analogy, though. In that analogy, nazis are allowed to exist in the world, just not in the bar. The difference is how we implement the concept of "in". The same analogy works if you are out on the street: everyone is allowed to be there, but that doesn't give nazis the right to your attention. Until we have a real way to meaningfully process natural language (I ha…

I think we agree, the problem is people defining global platforms as “the bar”. We overemphasize the importance of global reach; it is important, but not everything needs to be global, least of all personal communication between small groups of friends. I don’t really want everyone herded into these public platforms where central authorities can determine who is blessed with the ability to speak to other people. I also don’t want people with political grievances to be cut off from places where they can air those grievances publicly, as this leads to bad outcomes. We need both kinds of spaces.

The web of trust idea is good, I have thought about it before as well, and I think there’s a couple of people who tried building a platform around it (I don’t think they got very far into the process though). I should be able to filter based on trusted people with similar taste. I shouldn’t have to accept a central authority’s notion of what is acceptable, excepting content that violates US law. That’s all I care about in terms of moderation.

Post reply on HN