This is in part why supporting the FSF and other bodies that seek to ensure that choice and transparency are promoted. The only real way to compel companies to comply is to support viable alternatives to the dominance of a vendor controlled market.
The 'internet of things' is sending us back to the Middle Ages
31–40 of 54 posts
Re: The 'internet of things' is sending us back to the Middle Ages
#32Authored by a law professor. It is Apple who pioneered this concept of the device that the user really does not own or control - the "smartphone". The computer that remains tethered to the manfacturer continually feeding back user data. Manufacturer makes replacing the OS difficult. Manufacturer gets root. Manufacturer gets right to modify OS remotely. And no surprise, manuacturer gets plenty of data about users. Man…
it is Apple who has pioneered this concept of the device the user really does not own or control - the "smartphone".
Users controlled the Super-NES? Users controlled the Sony Playstation? Users controlled Blackberries with their perma-connection back to RIM servers? Symbian S60 users got a choice of the OS? Internet connections come with choices of user-controlled routers? Early internet connections with AOL-Compuserve-software was user-controlled and didn't talk back to one company?
Devices where the user has any control at all are the rarity of device makes/models/types, even if they are a majority of sales due to the PC-compatible hardware.
Re: The 'internet of things' is sending us back to the Middle Ages
#33Credit where I think it's due -- Bruce Schneier was one of the first to introduce the metaphor of feudalism in this context:
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/12/feudal_sec.ht...
Re: The 'internet of things' is sending us back to the Middle Ages
#34The problem is software complexity. You can't really own anything you don't understand, and you can't be free in a world you don't understand. And we don't understand software. Imagine a naive young king who doesn't understand how to do anything for himself. He will easily be controlled by those around him that do understand the world. Of course, nobody before ever understood everything about the world. But different…
I disagree. Not understanding how my car works is not a problem for ownership, so long as I can decide where to delegate all the maintenance etc that requires it to work. When I can choose my mechanic, I own it. When I have to take it to a dealership, because of all the DRM'd electronics inside, I no longer do.
Re: The 'internet of things' is sending us back to the Middle Ages
#35I agree. Copy+pasting an old comment of mine from this old thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12683924 > A general solution to IoT security would be for all IoT devices to only communicate to your personally owned home gateway, which would run open-source drivers for each device to provide the networking/external communication functionality. The IoT device could even be assigned its own isolated network link…
This is a great solution to the ownership problem, but now each individual is responsible for patching and updating their 25 devices? Doesn't solve the security problem.
Re: The 'internet of things' is sending us back to the Middle Ages
#36Authored by a law professor. It is Apple who pioneered this concept of the device that the user really does not own or control - the "smartphone". The computer that remains tethered to the manfacturer continually feeding back user data. Manufacturer makes replacing the OS difficult. Manufacturer gets root. Manufacturer gets right to modify OS remotely. And no surprise, manuacturer gets plenty of data about users. Man…
> The solution is to choose things that are not internet connected.
A few ultra privacy-conscious people will do this, but they'll be statistically irrelevant.
I believe the more likely answer we'll see is whistleblowers. Either internal employees of tech firms or hackers. It's a lot of fun to tear down IoT devices and RE firmware. It's getting harder to get any type of reasonable coverage across the plethora of devices available, but every tech firm knows if they're up to shifty things, it's going to end up as a twitter storm at some point in the future.
Re: The 'internet of things' is sending us back to the Middle Ages
#37The problem is software complexity. You can't really own anything you don't understand, and you can't be free in a world you don't understand. And we don't understand software. Imagine a naive young king who doesn't understand how to do anything for himself. He will easily be controlled by those around him that do understand the world. Of course, nobody before ever understood everything about the world. But different…
I disagree. Not understanding how my car works is not a problem for ownership, so long as I can decide where to delegate all the maintenance etc that requires it to work. When I can choose my mechanic, I own it. When I have to take it to a dealership, because of all the DRM'd electronics inside, I no longer do.
How can you prevent your car from reporting everything you do to the manufacturer? Look at this article as an example: http://www.businessinsider.com/ford-exec-gps-2014-1
Re: The 'internet of things' is sending us back to the Middle Ages
#38The problem is software complexity. You can't really own anything you don't understand, and you can't be free in a world you don't understand. And we don't understand software. Imagine a naive young king who doesn't understand how to do anything for himself. He will easily be controlled by those around him that do understand the world. Of course, nobody before ever understood everything about the world. But different…
and much of that complexity, at least on personal computers, gets added in the name of "user friendliness"...
also in the name of saving money/time (by using large libraries/frameworks and such)
Re: The 'internet of things' is sending us back to the Middle Ages
#39Authored by a law professor. It is Apple who pioneered this concept of the device that the user really does not own or control - the "smartphone". The computer that remains tethered to the manfacturer continually feeding back user data. Manufacturer makes replacing the OS difficult. Manufacturer gets root. Manufacturer gets right to modify OS remotely. And no surprise, manuacturer gets plenty of data about users. Man…
> It is Apple who pioneered this concept of the device that the user really does not own or control - the "smartphone".
Oh bullshit! Microsoft and other companies shipped user-hostile EULAs for years before smartphones existed (let alone the iPhone). These shrink-wrap licenses used this concept for years, and there were probably others before them.
Re: The 'internet of things' is sending us back to the Middle Ages
#40The problem is software complexity. You can't really own anything you don't understand, and you can't be free in a world you don't understand. And we don't understand software. Imagine a naive young king who doesn't understand how to do anything for himself. He will easily be controlled by those around him that do understand the world. Of course, nobody before ever understood everything about the world. But different…
I disagree. Not understanding how my car works is not a problem for ownership, so long as I can decide where to delegate all the maintenance etc that requires it to work. When I can choose my mechanic, I own it. When I have to take it to a dealership, because of all the DRM'd electronics inside, I no longer do.
"I disagree...When I can choose my mechanic, I own it."
I think we are in agreement here. You don't personally need know everything about everything you own. But someone needs to know enough about it that you can use their expertise or learn from them if you care to.
The myth is that it's about who knows -- the right laws (or the right consumer pressure) will open up the right information, and freedom will supposedly follow. That's a minor factor, sure, but I believe it's more of a myth.
The real thing holding us back is that nobody understands these complex software stacks, we are just building them bigger and bigger and understanding them less and less.