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

Neofeudalism and the Digital Manor

locusmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 255 posts

Re: Neofeudalism and the Digital Manor

#81

Post by itsoktocry »

thombles wrote: post #34

Unfortunately the way he describes the "Ulysses Pact" is fantasy. He makes it sound like it would be just like today, except a savvy user could sideload Signal for example if Apple was compelled to remove it. What would _actually_ happen is a long list of companies would say "brilliant, we don't have to conform to the app store guidelines any more" and go sideload-exclusive. Within a matter of months it would be comm…

So what you're saying is you are willing sacrifice personal privacy and security so that technically illiterate people can have a good user experience?

I understand that from Apple's perspective, but I, personally, couldn't care less about the battery life on someone else's phone. I feel like the market would sort it out, probably with optional walled gardens. That's better, no?

Re: Neofeudalism and the Digital Manor

#82

Post by ramphastidae »

f430 wrote: post #3

What really puzzles me about Apple fans and it's userbase is that they do not care . They simply do not care at all what's being done to them. It's the strongest example of consumer cultism. Absolute in their exceptionalism and ignorance. Similar problems discussed in the article are found in Tesla. The lowest common denominator of consumer cultism is surveillance and it's no surprise that both Apple and Tesla do exc…

And yet you can identify no real alternative. Last I checked Apple is the only company with a consumer-grade operating system that (1) has refused to turn over user data even after legal challenges from the federal government and (2) doesn’t generate revenues from advertising and selling user data.

Re: Neofeudalism and the Digital Manor

#83

Post by goodpoint »

nine_k wrote: post #69
cosmojg wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the concern is more about man-in-the-middle attacks. Even then, though, doesn't apt verify the hashes of downloaded packages?

How does apt get said hashes? That's the key problem.

By checking a signature from a trusted key. MitM is handled.

Re: Neofeudalism and the Digital Manor

#84

Post by theamk »

bigiain wrote: post #44
prutschman wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have reason to believe there's a problem with the gpg signatures in their repo?

The GPG sigs that are also published over MITMable unencrypted http? http://archive.canonical.com/dists/xenial/Release.gpg Yeah, I believe I see a problem there...

Which problem do you see? It's just a signature, they cannot be forged without a corresponding private key.

Re: Neofeudalism and the Digital Manor

#85

Post by type0 »

zepto wrote: post #78
type0 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s really bizarre to call a business a ‘warlord’. It's not more bizarre than calling someone else's servers "the cloud". I'd call GAFAM warlords because they are monopolistic, force their unwanted preferences upon users and buy up competition so there is none to migrate to.

The big difference between warlords and these companies is that a warlord uses force and often violence to gain power. These companies have gained power by selling things people are choosing to buy.

> warlord uses force and often violence to gain power.

not necessary if they gain it after the power vacuum

The behaviors these companies engage in are anti competitive. MS even saved Apple at one point so that in antitrust suit they could point out that other operating systems existed. GAFAM are not on the side of the people. For decades I never asked for a Windows license when buying PC, and yet I had no choice, most of the computers weren't available without giving MS a cut, that's a mob methods, take it leave it.

Re: Neofeudalism and the Digital Manor

#86

Post by goodpoint »

nyolfen wrote: post #11
SoSoRoCoCo wrote: post #7

"There is no way for us to defend ourselves: even skilled technologists who administer their own networked services are no match for the bandits. To keep bandits out, you have to be perfect and perfectly vigilant, and never make a single mistake. For the bandits to get you, they need merely find a single mistake that you’ve made." Ooof. What a boot-to-the-face reminder. Despite my use of a Tor Router, three ubikeys a…

fun reminder that canonical refuses to use tls on their repos

Yes because it allows caching and encrypting the traffic would provide no benefit.

APT supports downloading over Tor if you want to hide which distribution you are using.

Re: Neofeudalism and the Digital Manor

#87

Post by walterbell »

amelius wrote: post #68
walterbell wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or a VM with snapshots / non-persistent storage.

How do you apply security updates?

Immediately after a clean boot, apply security update, reboot to test, then immediately shutdown and allow that snapshot to persist.

Re: Neofeudalism and the Digital Manor

#88

Post by coldtea »

julianmarq wrote: post #77
coldtea wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What really puzzles me about Apple fans and it's userbase is that they do not care. They simply do not care at all what's being done to them. Or, you know, we're as informed (or more) than you, but have different priorities and opinions. Other people that are not merely mindless sheep, where you and those agreeing with you are the only smart people? What a wild concept! I've used anything, from 4 major unices of yo…

>> What really puzzles me about Apple fans and it's userbase is that they do not care. They simply do not care at all what's being done to them. > we have different priorities That's a different way of saying "we don't care". You aren't really contradicting the other person's point.

>That's a different way of saying "we don't care". You aren't really contradicting the other person's point.

And yet, I am. The weasel phrasing "we don't care" implies:

(a) we should care

(b) everybody should care

(c) we're doing the wrong thing by not caring

In other words, it takes the parent's prioritization as some absolute correct one everybody should agree on (this is also evident from the rest of the comment).

As opposed to merely "we have different priorities, and we don't believe yours are important".

If the parent changed the "they don't care" accusation to a neutral "they don't care about the things I care", I'd undersign it.

Re: Neofeudalism and the Digital Manor

#89

Post by losteric »

wait_a_minute wrote: post #53
breck wrote: post #36

We need to abolish IP Laws (aka "Imaginary Property" aka "Illogical Property" aka "Incongruent Property" aka "Invalidates Property Laws"—the other term is a big lie, don't repeat it). Not "reform". Not "compromise". Abolish. If 2020 taught me anything, it's that society can come close to the brink pretty quickly. I thought there was an inevitable trend toward freedom, but recently think it's perilous. We need ideas t…

I am genuinely interested in understanding how we could have innovation in a world where a creator is not entitled to benefits from their invention. Including any monetary benefits if they so choose.

Recipes do not have patent protection, yet there is plenty of innovation in restaurants.

There are many paths to an innovation. I don't think the first person deserves such a monopoly. American IP law, in combination with the generally letigious society, has always seemed like a net source of innovation friction...

Re: Neofeudalism and the Digital Manor

#90

Post by Avicebron »

wait_a_minute wrote: post #53
breck wrote: post #36

We need to abolish IP Laws (aka "Imaginary Property" aka "Illogical Property" aka "Incongruent Property" aka "Invalidates Property Laws"—the other term is a big lie, don't repeat it). Not "reform". Not "compromise". Abolish. If 2020 taught me anything, it's that society can come close to the brink pretty quickly. I thought there was an inevitable trend toward freedom, but recently think it's perilous. We need ideas t…

I am genuinely interested in understanding how we could have innovation in a world where a creator is not entitled to benefits from their invention. Including any monetary benefits if they so choose.

Because if financial reciprocation is your first incentive to be creative you've already lost the mind game. If you are a creative, you will understand that sometimes we just like to do things...
Post reply on HN