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

961–970 of 1001 posts

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

#961

Post by e_i_pi_2 »

I know it's not quite the point of the article, but just to push back on the phrase

> I should be able to run whatever code I want on hardware I own

There's a few cases where this definitely seems wrong - you can own a radio transmitter but it's super illegal to broadcast in certain frequencies. So while you're "able" to in the sense that's in physically possible, you're not "able" to because it's illegal, and I think most people would want it that way.

In a similar way, it's illegal to modify your car or especially guns in certain ways. I could see a similar argument saying "I own this machine, I should be able to modify it mechanically however I want". Yes you own it, but as soon as you bring it in the world then you also need to account for how it's going to impact everyone else. You can't even manufacture certain hardware on your own without the right approval.

If it's "I should be able to run whatever code I want on hardware I own if I accept the risks of doing so" then that seems more balanced, but also doesn't seem too desirable because you're adding more footguns into the world that average consumers wouldn't want to run into accidentally

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

#962

Post by e_i_pi_2 »

agentultra wrote: post #64

100 percent agree. I’ve given talks on how various jailbreak exploits work in order to teach people how to protect their own software but also with the suggestion that we should be able to do this. It’s nuts that personal computers aren’t personal anymore. Devices you might not think of as PC’s… just are. They’re sold in slick hardware. And the software ecosystem tries to prevent tampering in the name of security… bu…

> It’s nuts that personal computers aren’t personal anymore

I think the core driver here is that most people don't want a "personal" computer, they want a device that's able to reliably accomplish tasks. Early computers gave users much more power and control but that also came with the responsibility to set up and maintain the system, which limited the userbase a lot. I'd argue a lot of the security is security from the user against themself - there is definitely some value in trying your best to make sure a user is unable to brick their phone no matter how much they try, because they're likely going to blame you and ask you to fix it afterwards

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

#963

Post by K0nserv »

e_i_pi_2 wrote: post #961

I know it's not quite the point of the article, but just to push back on the phrase > I should be able to run whatever code I want on hardware I own There's a few cases where this definitely seems wrong - you can own a radio transmitter but it's super illegal to broadcast in certain frequencies. So while you're "able" to in the sense that's in physically possible, you're not "able" to because it's illegal, and I thin…

OP here: Yes I agree that there needs to be limits on this. Classic "your freedom ends where mine begins"

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

#964

Post by amelius »

kristov wrote: post #641

I think the conversation needs to change from "can't run software of our choice" to "can't participate in society without an apple or google account". I have been living with a de-googled android phone for a number of years, and it is getting harder and harder, while at the same time operating without certain "apps" is becoming more difficult. For example, by bank (abn amro) still allows online banking on desktop via…

Maybe the best solution is to get banned by these companies. At least then you have full rights to complain to government websites that require apple/google accounts.

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

#965

Post by FredPret »

Levitz wrote: post #525
safety1st wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only competition can provide a solution. We have lost sight of this principle even though all Western democracies are built on the idea of separation of powers, and making it hard for any one faction of elites to gain full control and ruin things for everyone else. Make them fight with each other, let them get a piece of the pie, but never all of it. That's why we have multiple branches of government, multiple partie…

>There has never been a utopian past and there will never be a utopian future. I wouldn't call it utopian, but I'd say we are way past "peak democracy" at this point. There was a time in which corporations did get broken up when too large, when we did understand that it's about serving the population first and accumulating wealth after that, when corporations influencing politics was widely seen as a negative. It doe…

I think everyone would have a problem with the type of domination exhibited by Apple & Google, if they understood it.

There are many voters who are not well versed in tech. You can see this reflected in the kinds of politicians that win, and in the types of issues they are (and are not) fighting over.

It's up to us to make the issues clear and simple.

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

#966

Post by Hackbraten »

epolanski wrote: post #927
kristov wrote: post #641

I think the conversation needs to change from "can't run software of our choice" to "can't participate in society without an apple or google account". I have been living with a de-googled android phone for a number of years, and it is getting harder and harder, while at the same time operating without certain "apps" is becoming more difficult. For example, by bank (abn amro) still allows online banking on desktop via…

Just to point out, while everything you say is true, there are already similar life destroying mechanisms such as getting debanked. A friend of mine owns a hotel in southern Italy, long story short during an investigation into mafia-related businesses his operation was also checked (and fully cleared as 100% unrelated to any wrong business whatsoever, it just ended in a cross examination). Since those examinations in…

> all banks refuse to service him again because he created a massive amount of work

I don’t get this line of reasoning. He certainly didn’t create that massive amount of work. The investigators did.

What is this, guilt by association?

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

#967

Post by mixmastamyk »

marc_abonce wrote: post #916
mixmastamyk wrote: post #882

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t use a bank with a phone. What do you do with it? (One exception, I used to scan checks five years ago, but thankfully that finally ended.)

Some banks require an app for pretty much everything other than retrieving cash from an ATM, because they don't have a web app anymore: 1. Transfer money to another account. The alternative is to waste half a PTO to go to the actual bank (because they only open at working hours) to make that transfer. 2. Make an online payment. Most new cards no longer have a CVV (3 digit code) and instead require you to use the app…

Wow, I thought Schwab was bad because they don’t support true fido2 keys. But no website, crikey.

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

#968

Post by agentultra »

e_i_pi_2 wrote: post #962
agentultra wrote: post #64

100 percent agree. I’ve given talks on how various jailbreak exploits work in order to teach people how to protect their own software but also with the suggestion that we should be able to do this. It’s nuts that personal computers aren’t personal anymore. Devices you might not think of as PC’s… just are. They’re sold in slick hardware. And the software ecosystem tries to prevent tampering in the name of security… bu…

> It’s nuts that personal computers aren’t personal anymore I think the core driver here is that most people don't want a "personal" computer, they want a device that's able to reliably accomplish tasks. Early computers gave users much more power and control but that also came with the responsibility to set up and maintain the system, which limited the userbase a lot. I'd argue a lot of the security is security from…

We can have both worlds.

Just because there are some users that prefer such devices doesn't mean that a technical user who can repurpose that device shouldn't be allowed to.

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

#969

Post by NoGravitas »

mike_hearn wrote: post #460
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…

> Any program I run is allowed to silently edit, delete or steal anything I own ... there's currently no desktop environment that provides that ability Putting aside the philosophical issues, that statement isn't true for a few years now. It's not well known, even in very technical circles like HN, but macOS actually sandboxes every app: • All apps from outside the app store are always sandboxed to a lesser degree, e…

> It's the only OS that has managed this transition to all-sandboxed-all-the-time.

Depending on how broadly you define [desktop] OS. There are immutable Linux distributions like Fedora Silverblue or Kinoite where all user apps are run from Flatpak, and so have sandboxing. I'd say it's less mature than MacOS but it's catching up.

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

#970

Post by jll29 »

kristov wrote: post #641

I think the conversation needs to change from "can't run software of our choice" to "can't participate in society without an apple or google account". I have been living with a de-googled android phone for a number of years, and it is getting harder and harder, while at the same time operating without certain "apps" is becoming more difficult. For example, by bank (abn amro) still allows online banking on desktop via…

Society needs to kill apps (by refusal to install/use) before apps kill the open Web.

Another conversation to be had is the effect of messenger apps to exclude those that do not use them (socially, commercially, and soon politically if governments introduce "ID apps" and force their presence to vote). Each proprietary app creates its own communication silo, and people start not talking over email anymore, which is a fantastic open protocol that excludes no-one.

I have been refusing to use WhatsApp for years and out of all people I know, only one friend sends me "VIP vintage" email invitations when everyone else gets things via a Meta-controlled proprietary channel, everyone else ignores people not on these platforms. (Almost even more worrying is what people talk about on these platforms when you do get on there; when accidentally overlooking what a random person on a bus chats about, then I'm happy to have reduced usage of such proprietary platforms over the last couple of years.)

Parents should not permit their childrens' data to get onto these platforms under any circumstances (in Europe, GDPR helps).

Post reply on HN