181–190 of 357 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Idk, sounds better than being dead, just in my opinion.
Nobody implemented DRM with a gun pointed at their heads, and anyone capable of implementing harmful technology has the skills to work on something else for lots of money implementing other things. It was always a choice.
I sometimes wonder whether the people in the tech industry who worked on things like secure boot, attestation, and DRM saw this as the inevitability open source advocates always saw it as. Did they think, as they worked to transfer final say from users to corporations, by technical means, that politicians couldn't transfer that control to themselves by political means? Did they think they could lock things down to ex…
So, in this order: 1. You need a camera on your computer to allow a third party to verify your age before viewing adult content 2. It applies to social media too 3. It applies to your operating system too 4. Unless you age verify, the law demands your computer must be powerful enough to run an AI, or be internet-equipped and send your private photos to a third party, to detect and prohibit nudity. It must be capable…
This isn’t just your photos. This is all content displayed on the device, all content captured by the camera - everything. Full take. GCHQ must be wetting themselves.
I sometimes wonder whether the people in the tech industry who worked on things like secure boot, attestation, and DRM saw this as the inevitability open source advocates always saw it as. Did they think, as they worked to transfer final say from users to corporations, by technical means, that politicians couldn't transfer that control to themselves by political means? Did they think they could lock things down to ex…
It isn't TPMs nor attestation nor DRM making this possible. It isn't secure boot either. It's walled gardens with secure boot -yes, secure boot- that the consumer can't bypass. Secure booting isn't the problem in an enterprise setting -- of course we _want secure booting_ in the enterprise. It's consumer devices that can't be jail-broken that are the problem. Although even then, the silly age verification laws and th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It isn't TPMs nor attestation nor DRM making this possible. It isn't secure boot either. It's walled gardens with secure boot -yes, secure boot- that the consumer can't bypass. Secure booting isn't the problem in an enterprise setting -- of course we _want secure booting_ in the enterprise. It's consumer devices that can't be jail-broken that are the problem. Although even then, the silly age verification laws and th…
Corporate devices that can't be jailbroken are also a problem. It's a right-to-repair and e-waste issue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Corporate devices that can't be jailbroken are also a problem. It's a right-to-repair and e-waste issue.
But they are not walled gardens.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But they are not walled gardens.
I would posit that any device that can't be jailbroken is a walled garden. Whether the wall is made of an app store or an operating system, it's not yours if you can't do what you want with it.
Sure, they have MEs that maybe you can't disable, but you can firewall them.
Server kit is just not like consumer kit. Even laptops are [still, for now] a lot better than smartphones in this regard.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People often misuse freedom. The answer to that is not to take freedom away, but to educate people on how to use their freedom, and only restrict those who have proven to be unable to handle it. Let's say your argument, that clueless users getting infected are an externality upon everyone else and thus they need to be locked down for everyone's good, is accurate (though I don't think it is). In that case, why should…
What if the "clueless" users are 99.99% of the users?
I sometimes wonder whether the people in the tech industry who worked on things like secure boot, attestation, and DRM saw this as the inevitability open source advocates always saw it as. Did they think, as they worked to transfer final say from users to corporations, by technical means, that politicians couldn't transfer that control to themselves by political means? Did they think they could lock things down to ex…
I'm not saying we should lynch them, but a good deal of public shaming is in order. Who knows, their kids might pick a different vocation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> in some cases they even store the contents of messages I hadn't heard this before. Doesn't that kind of defeat the entire purpose of using the app?
It's an opt-in feature. https://techcrunch.com/2025/09/08/signal-introduces-free-and... A service that advertises itself as privacy focused refusing to update their privacy policy while adding features like this seems like a pretty big dead canary.
If you don't want to use the cloud version, there's a feature to store backups locally on-device.
Signal blog: https://signal.org/blog/introducing-secure-backups/