Earlier quoted context omitted.
apple privacy is marketing but ok
If it's mostly marketing, why was Facebook so up in arms about forced opt-in for tracking in iOS?
Let that sink in.
221–230 of 500 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
apple privacy is marketing but ok
If it's mostly marketing, why was Facebook so up in arms about forced opt-in for tracking in iOS?
Let that sink in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Almost all of Iran's cell network system was originally installed by S. Korean firms. They've changed some to Chinese brands, but apparently the compromised S. Korean brands are still around.
It's a mistake to assume that a very capable country can't get into a network that uses Chinese equipment/software.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“constitutional rights” Words written on toilet paper. Only thing that exists today are “billionaire rights”.
Exactly. DRM isn’t going anywhere so long as copyrights exist.
But even the DRM that is already there often only uses copyright laws as suggestions. E.g. YouTube's takedown guidelines are defined through their TOS, not through the DMCA.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Uh? My PCs and corporate PCs I've been responsible for are networked including the internet (they always have been). Moreover, they were warranted with no conditions about what software was run on them. Where on earth did you get that notion from? Just because some vendor [your links] has conned the unfortunate client into an unacceptable contract doesn't mean it's commonplace or ever was.
> Were on earth did you get that notion from? Literally cited the source. > My PCs and corporate PCs I've been responsible for were networked including the internet These came later, in the mid 90s. If you have a source for any PC having been "warranted with no conditions about what software was run on them," I'd love to see it. Practically every warranty for PCs voided if you e.g. overclocked the CPU. And almost all…
User software is another matter altogether. Users could always install whatever they wanted.
It seems you are not old enough to remember that the PC was originally designed to be modular and flexible and that applied to both the hardware and software.
The whole raison d'être from the S-100 bus of the 1970s and the IBM PC† of the '80 was to provide users with a computer system that was flexible and that users could adjust and alter to suit their needs. This meant that users were actually required to alter the configurations of their PCs. No one would have questioned such action, it was considered completely normal.
Moreover, warranties took this into account and it was a normal procedure to add RAM, disk drives and video cards etc. without voiding the warranty. What's more, one could even upgrade the CPU (and if necessary its clock speed) and the rest of the hardware would still remain in warranty—that's why CPUs until recently were 'socketed' and not soldered into place. Of course, the third-party CPU wouldn't be warranted—not on the PC's warranty anyway.
What you are referring to is a sleight-of-hand by some sleazy ratbag manufacturers to change the PC from an open system and make it proprietary. Any system administrator or corporate buyer (at least until recently) would have objected to any clauses in the warranty that would have forbidden modifying equipment as mentioned. I know, I was head of a government IT department for years and contacts that included such punitive warranties would never have been awarded—they would never have passed my desk. Not that I ever saw any mind you. (BTW, there some were warranty claims, altering the equipment was a non issue.)
What we are seeing now (and this whole discussion) is about reclaiming the open nature of the PC—and our computing equipment in general, our phones, etc.
Fortunately, the Right to Repair movement and the Right of Ownership—people like Louis Rossmann and iFixit—are beginning to make inroads into keeping these sleazy carpetbaggers in check. As we've seen Right to Repair laws are getting enacted.
† The original IBM PCs had full service manuals that included electronic circuit diagrams and even the BIOS source code! To suggest we weren't meant to alter things is sheer nonsense. (I still have my copies of these manuals.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Almost all of Iran's cell network system was originally installed by S. Korean firms. They've changed some to Chinese brands, but apparently the compromised S. Korean brands are still around.
Changing from SK to CN is a trade from intentional vulnerability to unintentional vulnerability. I’ve yet to see a secure piece of software come out of China in my 30+ years of coding.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We need regulation which defines that any hardware device capable of running software developed by a third party different from the hardware manufacturer qualifies as a general purpose computing device, and that any such device is disallowed to put cryptographic or other restrictions on what software the user wants to execute. This pertains to all programmable components on the device, including low-level hardware co…
While I agree in theory, this is never going to happen. There's too much DRM in use for it to work out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
[flagged]
>Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data.
making it nearly impossible for regular users to uninstall it without root access, which voids warranties and poses security risks Stop parroting the corporate propaganda that put us into this stupid situation in the first place. Having root access on devices you own should be a fundamental right, as otherwise it's not ownership.
Historically, computers have not granted you access to everything. Most home computers used to have ROM cartridges, which could not be modified, at least not by an average user. Also, when using unrestricted operating systems, such as as MS-DOS, a simple virus could wipe all your hard work.
In our current time, devices are connected to other machines, and the problem of security and privacy has increased dramatically. Unfortunately, we still don't have operating systems that are secure enough to be used by untrained persons. It makes perfect sense to lock down these devices.
I basically see only two ways out:
1. Allow developers exclusive access to development systems, similar to how console development works.
2. Implement a secure operating system.
It will take an extreme amount of effort to do the latter, and it might even be impossible to gradually absorb the mess of interfaces that people and companies expect to work.
So that probably leaves us with the first option. Personally, I would love devices to be locked down more, so that the crazy threats from hackers will be less severe. But I would also love to keep developing software. Having to jump through some hoops is probably unavoidable. The situation could be compared to requiring a driver's license in order to safely drive on the shared infrastructure.
As much as I agree with your sentiment to have freedom, it still seems somewhat overly optimistic to expect this to work in our complex society.