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

We should have the ability to run any code we want on hardware we own

hugotunius.se

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

831–840 of 1001 posts

Re: We should have the ability to run any code we want on hardware we own

#831

Post by throwaway31131 »

ddingus wrote: post #799
throwaway31131 wrote: post #775

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main issue is we’re not there today and it’s not obvious what that world looks like. We all had junk drawers of useless charging cables, everyone agreed it was stupid, hence a universal charging connector standard along with the promise that the charger junk drawers will be freed. Even if we mandate the “POSIX of smart phones”, for lack of a better term, what problem today, for everyday users, does it solve? It m…

Give Google and Apple anything they want, in exchange for a reasonable life.

When the majority of people want what you want, democracy is great.

When the majority of people don’t want what you want, democracy sucks.

Re: We should have the ability to run any code we want on hardware we own

#832

Post by const_cast »

ozim wrote: post #497

Going to be contrarian. Why not build your own hardware and run your own software on it, instead of screaming at clouds of big tech. There is Fairphone as an example so it is possible to build/buy hardware directly.

Yes, let me just invest 100 billion dollars into creating my own device so that I'm not censored by one of the biggest companies on Earth.

Jesus fucking Christ. We're asking for a drop here from a mega corporation, and still there will be people bending over backwards and spreading their cheeks and actually begging for it. Its not enough to get fucked, we actually have to want to get fucked, and not wanting it is weird or something.

Re: We should have the ability to run any code we want on hardware we own

#833

Post by thaeli »

rhines wrote: post #743
mothballed wrote: post #710

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't own a phone, but the most shocking revelation came when my child's school required us to use an app to specify how our children will be picked up or ride the bus. So far I've been able to avoid using apps for pretty much anything, but when the school says "use an app or you won't get your kids" and then also say they will call CPS and have your kids seized if you don't get them in time, that puts you in a rea…

We've reached the point where people without devices or common online services are so rare that society no longer accommodates them. It's similar to how we need legislation to ensure that disabled people have accessible infrastructure, except I doubt there will ever be legislation mandating offline/off-app accessibility.

Well, many areas have banned app-only payment requirements (along with card-only) so it’s possible we’ll get some mandated alternatives.

Re: We should have the ability to run any code we want on hardware we own

#834

Post by rsync »

divan wrote: post #431
Aerroon wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>“Hardware I own” sounds like you bought a pan and demand the right to cook any food you want. Because I did. How come I can do what I want with my computer, but not my phone? Why are phones so inferior in this area? My phone is more powerful than many of the computers I've had in the past, yet I need to jump through a million hoops to use it as a software development platform. Why?

Your smartwatch is probably more powerful than some of your past computers too. Same with your DSLR camera. Even your smart fridge. These are specialized hardware+software gadgets designed to a particular purpose, which is very different from being a development platform. Same with a phone.

Just a nit …

As this is HN - a very thoughtful and technically astute demographic - it’s very unlikely that your parent, or others reading, own a “smart fridge”.

Re: We should have the ability to run any code we want on hardware we own

#835

Post by const_cast »

scosman wrote: post #65
marcus_holmes wrote: post #47

I know I'm going to get downvoted to hell for this, but I genuinely think it's OK for a device manufacturer to say: "we are building this device to run this software. If you don't want to run this software, then don't buy this device. There are plenty of other devices out there that will run other software, you can buy one of those if you want to run other software - our devices are designed to only run our software,…

+1. Smartphones aren't a monopoly. GrapheneOS is a thing. More companies can build hardware for it if there's demand. Not every piece of hardware needs to be general purpose computer. I've been delighted to get my parents on iPhone+iPad for simplicity (and they have too). It feels this crowd sometimes assumes every barrier put in place is anti-consumer, but it's not. Blocking access to sensors, limiting background ru…

There is exactly one device produced in the entire US that can legitimately run graphene is in a usable way.

Not a monopoly my ass.

> Make cool hacker centric hardware. Make cool easy to use, locked down, and foolproof hardware. Both can and should exist.

Yes, what a splendid idea! Let me just invest a few billion I have lying around here. And maybe after that we can all take a spaceship to Mars and colonize it!

Get real.

Also, doesn't even fucking matter. Guess what, let's say I do invest the 10 billion dollars to make said device.

Will my bank allow it? No. Why? Because Google says so. Google says "no, that's not attested"

It doesn't matter if I make one device, two devices, or one trillion devices. Its still ALL Google. They decide everything.

Re: We should have the ability to run any code we want on hardware we own

#836

Post by [deleted] »

ozgrakkurt wrote: post #278
josephg wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My parents are getting old and they aren't tech savvy. The missing piece here is that I want my parents to have a computer they can safely do their banking on, without leaving them vulnerable to scams and viruses and the like. I like that they have iphones. Doing internet banking on their phone is safer than doing it on their desktop computer. Why is that? The reason is that the desktop PC security model is deeply fl…

What are the stats here, this sounds like pure bs to be honest. Main way people around me get scammed by far like 90% is social engineering

[deleted]

Re: We should have the ability to run any code we want on hardware we own

#837

Post by const_cast »

b_e_n_t_o_n wrote: post #286
School-Cotton wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

iPhones have a locked bootloader; it is impossible to run an OS not signed by Apple unless you find an exploit.

So what? Should security features be illegal so people can more easily run their own OS's on phones?

Yes?

A car that can only drive itself at 10 MPH by a software lock is certainly safer.

But that's stupid and that should be illegal.

Also, the horse is driving the carriage here. Why do you think Apple is just de facto more secure?

That's just pure blind faith. You have zero evidence for that and you couldn't find evidence if your life depended on it. The entire device is closed-source.

Youre just blindly trusting Apple not to pwn you.

Re: We should have the ability to run any code we want on hardware we own

#838

Post by const_cast »

Nursie wrote: post #558
greatgib wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing prevents that the device is locked by you instead of the "store" or even that the device has a "safe" mode that has to be explicitly disabled by the user in a non obvious way like connecting the device to a computer and running a command or so. The only important thing is for the bank, Netflix and co to not be able to discriminate. But again nothing would provide the bank to offer a setting for the user to re…

I think the bank should be able to discriminate, they should be allowed to say they only work on locked devices, surely. It’s a security measure, particularly as we place more responsibility on banks to prevent their customers being defrauded.

You must allow your government issued brain chip in order to have money. But don't worry citizen - you have the choice. You can always choose to never have money.

How will we use the brain chip? Citizen, for your security, you must not ever see the brain chip software. You must trust it is perfectly secure and will not be used for nefarious reasons.

All citizens who deny the brain chip, please board the train to your designated shanty town.

Re: We should have the ability to run any code we want on hardware we own

#839

Post by inetknght »

ironman1478 wrote: post #790

I think a different perspective on this is required. This requires taking Google in good faith (for the arguments sake). The requirements are being rolled out first in countries with high amounts of scam apps. Let's assume it's causing a real issue for the people, which then is a bad look for Google because all these apps are hosted on their store. I could imagine in the future a country sueing Google for allowing th…

> I think the real problem is that these countries are abdicating their duty to govern. Why are they not jailing these people running these scams?

I 110% agree with you. I advocate for blocking entire countries from the Internet until they start enforcing criminal liabilities to the scum.

Unfortunately, business loves the scum. I'd argue business wants the scum because it's a playground field for "innovating" locked down hardware.

Re: We should have the ability to run any code we want on hardware we own

#840

Post by renecito »

Personally, I'm not demanding to enable tinkering on everything if that's raising prices, it could be as simple as having some "This unit is serviceable" label, I'd let people to value it and manufacturers to follow it.

TBH, I think most people wouldn't care, specially in USA, it is way easier and cheaper to replace than to repair, workmanship is really expensive here.

But If a manufacturer shuts down a Cloud service that bricks my device they should open the interfaces and protocols to make them functional.

Post reply on HN