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

The boiling frog of digital freedom

gazoche.xyz

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 467 posts

Re: The boiling frog of digital freedom

#221

Post by Frost1x »

LegitShady wrote: post #185
amelius wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There should be a law that says that if you buy something and still don't fully own it, then it is a service, not a product. Owning something should include that you can cut all ties with the original vendor, and still be able to use the device as advertised.

Then companies will make everything a service. You need to make a downside for dearing that.

In theory, markets should regulate and competitors should be able to rise and provide products over never ending services and be successful. That doesn't seem to happen though. Is it because service designs expose real business costs of continued investment in R&D sort of deal, is it because such reliable products are bad for business (you provide something so good, reliable, and cheap you kill your own revenue stream) or what?

Similar to the concept in medicine that it's bad for business to cure vs good for business to treat something. From the consumer side, clearly you want cures but markets don't seem to function that way. Treating kidney disease is far less lucrative than providing a cure (if possible). Your only option as a business to find this appealing is to somehow look at the treatment option, roll all expected profit and revenue up, and tuck that into a "cure" option. If altruism in medicine isn't there, I don't know why we'd hope for it in something as artificial as electronics and software. I don't know what the solution is here if we want to continue to pretend markets self regulate in a healthy way for the general population and not for businesses.

Re: The boiling frog of digital freedom

#222

Post by noam_compsci »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #105

While I share the author's fear, the timeline they created doesn't really work. 1. Windows 10 S has mostly been a failure. 2. Web Environment Integrity, while horrifying, has not been rolled into Chrome! It's an early proposal. We should work to ensure it goes nowhere. 3. The above greatly pushes out the plausible timeline for events currently listed next to 2024, 2027, 2028, 2029, 2031, and 2032. An aside, I don't f…

> Apple hides option to allow unsigned apps from the Mac GUI

How so? Isn’t this still an option in settings? Or are you referring to something else?

Re: The boiling frog of digital freedom

#224

Post by RobotToaster »

drewcoo wrote: post #182
perihelions wrote: post #55

The other day I read an HN comment that thought that when you buy consumer PC hardware, it comes with a ToS that limits your property rights as the owner. It's the kind of uncanny experience I run into more and more often lately: talking with people so immersed in our new normal of cyberpunk dystopia, they seem not to remember how things were in the before-times. So accustomed to exploitative corporate gaslighting, w…

In the before times there were phones owned by AT&T attached to landlines in every home and business. Attaching your own phone and repairing the phone company's were not allowed. This seems a lot like the same business model you're saying didn't exist before. In fact, AT&T was more draconian. People can pay off their cell phones today. The old wall-tethered units had a monthly rental fee in perpituity.

At least they were up front about the fact you were renting it. If it broke they replaced/repaired it.

Re: The boiling frog of digital freedom

#225

Post by ben_w »

passion__desire wrote: post #155
notsurenymore wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had an old IBM luggable at one point that had the BIOS source listed in manual.

Well things are so complex now that if they provide you with source code, it would be so easy to make 0days.

The relative security of open and closed source operating systems implies not much of a difference in that regard.

Re: The boiling frog of digital freedom

#226

Post by washadjeffmad »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #188
0xEF wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This blew my mind as a younger person who took an interest in repairing tube radios from the 30's & 40's. One of the first things I realized was how generally easy it was to find schematics of popular brands and models. Some were even pasted right inside the radio shell! I also hack and repair modern stuff, and it is so common to open up a product just to end up staring at an epoxy blob. User manuals hold no mention…

I wouldn't say they are intentionally spiteful, just that modern electronics are complex enough, especially highly integrated stuff like smartphones, that the OEM's suppliers would be unhappy if detailed schematics were released. Since they would not be willing to guarantee on the record that they are correct, nor would they want stuff impinging on actual trade secrets to be revealed.

That wasn't less true for any other appliance that's ever existed, largely because of the availability of the schematics.

People have a right to know what they're buying. Companies are testing legal and cultural boundaries, silently changing functionality and usability by altering software or access to required services after sale.

It's not "too complex", it'd just be a hassle if people knew.

Re: The boiling frog of digital freedom

#228

Post by Vinnl »

Zetobal wrote: post #54
Vinnl wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously everything that's in the future is not a fact - or "wildly speculative and hypothetical" as the article itself puts it. See it as a call to action to ensure that it remains fiction.

Call to action? The author did nothing to encourage engagement on the topics only on his article. No information about how you could get active yourself or how you could approach the topic politically just FUD.

They were calling attention to the problem, not proposing a solution. But calling out a problem is a call to action for people to try to come up with a (or multiple) solution.

Just because there isn't certainty that it would happen like this, doesn't mean there's not a possible future that looks somewhat like this. Nothing that was listed here seems particularly far-fetched to me, I don't think.

Re: The boiling frog of digital freedom

#229

Post by jongjong »

dools wrote: post #24
max_ wrote: post #21

We need a new philosophical movement for computer technology. The Stallman movement failed because it was not practical for business applications. At the end of the day, coders & hardware manufacturers need to eat just like accountants, plumbers and doctors. Technology can't rely 100% on altruism. What we need is something close to the Ethical standards of the Stallman movement, but also compatable with business owne…

> The Stallman movement failed Citation needed

As a Kubuntu user, I have to disagree. From my perspective as a developer, the Linux PC experience has surpassed both Windows and Mac. I really couldn't care less what the other 95% of people are using. In that case, it's even more remarkable that even with just 5% market share, Linux can deliver such a cohesive, compatible experience.

10 years ago, I couldn't have done my job without Windows. Now I can do absolutely everything using Linux. IMO, people who are still on Windows or Mac don't know what they're doing. They've probably just been drifting through life, not really thinking.

Re: The boiling frog of digital freedom

#230

Post by verisimi »

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #101
verisimi wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We don't mean anonymity. Acting in secret is not freedom - acting openly and not being persecuted or prosecuted is freedom. So, if I openly state that I do not acquiesce to any government (all external force is immoral imo) - does that mean I am now free, and no longer subject to its laws, pay taxes, etc? So, I don't think your definition of freedom cuts it. Any answer that assumes 'government' as part of the answe…

I'm sorry but I maybe feeling "off" today, but we should all be beyond kindergarten political philosophy. Anarchy is what it sounds like - awful and not some middle class libertarian utopia. Yes we need government. And these days we need government to roll up its sleeves and be government. We know you cannot arrange the bread delivery for London through one department but you can force privatised water companies to i…

You're not feeling off. You simply don't understand that basic morality means that you cannot force others to do what you think is right for them to do. You want to find a way to get others to do what you want. This is immoral - you do not want others to have or exercise their freewill. And you want to use other people to force your opinions via police, legal system, etc on others.

Put simply you think anarchy is a political philosophy. Whereas anarchy is a moral position - it advocates for free association with others - ie no force.

The fact is that it is not morally acceptable to force others to do what you would like them to do, if they are not harming you. You wouldn't force your neighbour/friends/family to do what you say, if they are not harming you. But you consent to government using immoral force to get others to do what you want (steal money, enforce certain behaviour, etc, etc). In fact you think we need something like a dictatorship to wield even more force even more overtly. I think you will get your desire, unfortunately, as most people agree with you.

Post reply on HN