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

Your computer should say what you tell it to say

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 263 posts

Re: Your computer should say what you tell it to say

#31

Post by SkyMarshal »

cortesoft wrote: post #11

I agree with most of this, but one nit pick: > Originally, secure computing relied on a second processor - a "Technical Protection Module" or TPM - to monitor the parts of your computer you directly interact with. TPM stands for Trusted Platform Module, not Technical Protection Module

Quite an odd mistake, did AI ghostwrite this and just hallucinate that?

Re: Your computer should say what you tell it to say

#32

Post by hvis »

benatkin wrote: post #30
cortesoft wrote: post #11

I agree with most of this, but one nit pick: > Originally, secure computing relied on a second processor - a "Technical Protection Module" or TPM - to monitor the parts of your computer you directly interact with. TPM stands for Trusted Platform Module, not Technical Protection Module

That's wild. It seems these blog posts are outsourced. Edit: I'm wrong about this one. It's an actual article, and a pretty good one at that. But it is either a mistake or they are introducing an alternate expansion for TPM (other acronyms have been given different sets of words).

They don't have to be outsourced to this to happen. To put out lengthy press-releases, you hire a copywriter. You don't ask an engineer to write them.

People make mistakes sometimes. And this one is not a huge one -- the meaning is conveyed fine.

Re: Your computer should say what you tell it to say

#33

Post by coldpie »

minerva23 wrote: post #22
barbariangrunge wrote: post #7

Remember: upvoting the EFF's articles is good, but you (yes, you!) can also donate to them to help with these campaigns!

I had donated to the EFF in the past, but their stance[1] that CDNs/hosted services shouldn't be allowed to choose the customers they are willing work with is not only wrong, it's causes harm[2]. [1] https://www.eff.org/press/releases/international-coalition-r... [2] https://blog.cloudflare.com/kiwifarms-blocked/

I agree with you in disagreeing with EFF's stance on that issue. However, I think the good work they do in other areas makes them still a worthy place to put money, so I continue to donate to them. I definitely understand if others feel more strongly about that issue, though.

Re: Your computer should say what you tell it to say

#34

Post by oaktrout »

benatkin wrote: post #30
cortesoft wrote: post #11

I agree with most of this, but one nit pick: > Originally, secure computing relied on a second processor - a "Technical Protection Module" or TPM - to monitor the parts of your computer you directly interact with. TPM stands for Trusted Platform Module, not Technical Protection Module

That's wild. It seems these blog posts are outsourced. Edit: I'm wrong about this one. It's an actual article, and a pretty good one at that. But it is either a mistake or they are introducing an alternate expansion for TPM (other acronyms have been given different sets of words).

Or written with help from chat gtp, I've seen it hallucinate similar mistakes before.

Re: Your computer should say what you tell it to say

#36

Post by zb3 »

tapoxi wrote: post #10

I mean, devil's advocate here, this tech already exists and the question is do we do client attestation in a browser or pretend remote attestation doesn't exist. If this gets rejected, would that mean that services that need a "trusted client" simply deprecate their web apps and rely on a iOS/Android app? I'm not trying to argue in favor of WEI, I just think this doesn't magically disappear if Google doesn't implemen…

> services that need a "trusted client"

Should be outlawed, with the exception of dedicated hardware. Stop invading my devices.

Re: Your computer should say what you tell it to say

#38

Post by hot_gril »

tapoxi wrote: post #10

I mean, devil's advocate here, this tech already exists and the question is do we do client attestation in a browser or pretend remote attestation doesn't exist. If this gets rejected, would that mean that services that need a "trusted client" simply deprecate their web apps and rely on a iOS/Android app? I'm not trying to argue in favor of WEI, I just think this doesn't magically disappear if Google doesn't implemen…

> If this gets rejected, would that mean that services that need a "trusted client" simply deprecate their web apps and rely on a iOS/Android app?

Yes, and this has already been happening. For example, Venmo used to have a fully-functional web app, but now you can't send/receive money on it. Many Chase features are also phone-only.

Edit: And a lot of these apps block jailbroken iPhones or rooted Androids if they can detect that.

Post reply on HN