4 ms·

I always find fantastic how these kinds of arguments can be made blatantly ignoring that they basically are a plea for authoritarian governments. Do you realiz

I always find fantastic how these kinds of arguments can be made blatantly ignoring that they basically are a plea for authoritarian governments. Do you realize how bad basic freedoms are? Most people are better off without them, because many would harm themselves. And can you imagine the gains if instead of letting people speak for themselves, we has a single entity vetting everyone's discourse? Man, dictatorship is so great, so efficient.

throwawayaway 11y ago
Vote Trump, get a despot - have Americans live with the consequencies of locked down technology, surveillance.
icebraining 11y ago
The difference is that you purposefully opt-in to a smartphone, but can't opt-in (at least, not on an individual basis) to a regime. Would a totalitarian state be as objectionable if people had to chose to move there, and could leave as easily as one can change phones?
- logicrook 11y ago
  There are consistently laws to purposefully remove digital rights for the people (think encryption tools). With this argument, you justify that rights should be taken from everybody for the sake of the majority, and there's no opt-in anymore.
  - icebraining 11y ago
    I don't understand your point.
- Laforet 11y ago
  People who are born in such a regime usually don't get a (easy) opt-out but I digress. My feelings towards AAPL was pretty mixed from day 1 and has changed surprisingly little over the past few years. I genuinely applaud their take on many issues such as strong encryption and the ability to side-load your own apps from source. On the other hand I am very alarmed by the fact that backing up apps from iOS device is no longer possible from iOS9. It might be an improvement for security, version control or whatever, but it made me very reluctant to pick up my iPad again knowing that I have less control of the platform than ever before. Keep in mind that iOS devices must phone home for activation and repeat the process every three years. It is rather unlikely yet not entirely impossible that one day Apple will cease to provide activaton for older devices and render them useless. In that sense I don't really own my iPad but paid a premium for the priviledge to able to use it, only as long as Apple allows me to. Suffice to say I refuse to be subject to the same tyranny again.
  - icebraining 11y ago
    People who are born in such a regime usually don't get a (easy) opt-out but I digress. That's my point - it's not useful to compare the loss of rights in states to the loss of rights in smartphone platforms, because the latter are easily opted-out.
    - throwawayaway 11y ago
      The point people are making is that if it's the only thing on the shelf it's not easy to opt out.
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
      - icebraining 11y ago
        http://www.ubuntu.com/phone/devices http://www.ubuntu.com/phone/devices https://shop.goldelico.com/wiki.php?page=GTA04%20Complete https://shop.goldelico.com/wiki.php?page=GTA04%20Complete (soon?) http://neo900.org/ http://neo900.org/
        throwawayaway 11y ago
        Hope springs eternal!
        icebraining 11y ago
        Hope? I'm fine with my Nexus tablet and feature phone.
barnabee 11y ago
The argument is "it's an allowable trade off for a hardware product to be locked down and for consumers to decide whether they still want to buy it given the restrictions" not "all hardware must be locked down and all software approved by corporations/government"- the latter is clearly not OK.
- logicrook 11y ago
  You fail to recognize the political implications of individually opting for locked-down solutions. If many people opt-in for a locked solution, they essentially remove the possibility for others to adopt free solutions -university, businesses, have to be able to communicate with the maximal number of people.
jerf 11y ago
The human brain comes with built-in hardware for dealing with social challenges. It is probably not 100% trustworthy for large-scale society because of the recent appearance of such a structure [1], but it exists. There is obviously no such built-in hardware support for analyzing software-imposed risks. If such hardware existed, it's not actually the consumer's behavior that would change, it would be the software producers, because the software engineers would feel that bit of their brain poking them and produce much less insecure software in the first place. So, I don't think the argument translates as well as you say in real life. [1]: Proof: There exist a large number of people who disagree with $YOU about the optimum nature of government. You are self-evidently correct, of course, and they are wrong. So a lot of people are running on self-evidently faulty hardware for large-scale society.
chakalakasp 11y ago
I fail to see how these scenarios are even remotely analogous. Closed systems are what the consumer has happily chosen for their phones, which they vote for with their dollars. Our system of government is what people have chosen -- and you will note that it is not "open". I can't walk up to the Senate floor and present a bill, nor can you. The system for doing that is closed. If you want to be a part of if, you have to be vetted by the people. I have yet to have a customer bring me an Android or an iOS device that was ridden with browser toolbars, malware popups, or link re-directors. I probably get 4 or 5 customers a week with this problem in Windows 7, 8, or 10. Any random business or small town cop shop I walk into is guaranteed to have at least half of their computers infected with something or other. People practicing law who are totally oblivious that their search has been hijacked by Conduit or one of its clones. This is because Microsoft is much more open than iOS or typical Android installs. Everything most consumers get on smartphones comes from vetted stores owned by the OS developer. While there have been a few things that have snuck under the radar with both Google and Apple, for the most part if you submitted Conduit to the App Store, I'm pretty sure someone from Apple would drive to your place and punch you right in the face. And this is why people prefer the closed ecosystem. They want to get work done in their field and not hassle with doing work in another field they don't care about, like IT.
- AnthonyMouse 11y ago
  Windows gets full of malware because "download executables from the internet and run them" is the expected way to install Windows software, so the process for installing Conduit is no different than the process for installing 7zip or Adblock. What you're making the argument for is a package manager with vetted packages, not a prohibition on advanced users installing anything outside of the package manager using a different method.
legulere 11y ago
You're equalling basic human rights with the freedom to modify a tool (which the computer is). If you step back a bit you'll recognize that computers aren't the only important thing in your life. Many people own cars and there's lots of proprietary things about them. Does that mean car owners are living in an authoritarian world? If those people just didn't ride cars they would be so much more free! It's the power to tinker with the cars, not the power to use that makes them free! Electronics generally contain chips that are proprietary and that we can't change. And we usually can't change the firmware of those devices. Nobody seems to be complaining about that (except firmware in computers because that's supposed to be software again or something). Apparently we don't see how we're living in such an authoritarian world. Computers and smartphones are also tools. Just like with the stuff before, the most important thing is that they do their job in a good way. Being a toy to tinker around with isn't one of them, at least for me. And that's the only thing your so called freedoms really give you.

throwawayaway 11y ago

Vote Trump, get a despot - have Americans live with the consequencies of locked down technology, surveillance.

icebraining 11y ago

The difference is that you purposefully opt-in to a smartphone, but can't opt-in (at least, not on an individual basis) to a regime. Would a totalitarian state be as objectionable if people had to chose to move there, and could leave as easily as one can change phones?

logicrook 11y ago
There are consistently laws to purposefully remove digital rights for the people (think encryption tools). With this argument, you justify that rights should be taken from everybody for the sake of the majority, and there's no opt-in anymore.
- icebraining 11y ago
  I don't understand your point.
Laforet 11y ago
People who are born in such a regime usually don't get a (easy) opt-out but I digress. My feelings towards AAPL was pretty mixed from day 1 and has changed surprisingly little over the past few years. I genuinely applaud their take on many issues such as strong encryption and the ability to side-load your own apps from source. On the other hand I am very alarmed by the fact that backing up apps from iOS device is no longer possible from iOS9. It might be an improvement for security, version control or whatever, but it made me very reluctant to pick up my iPad again knowing that I have less control of the platform than ever before. Keep in mind that iOS devices must phone home for activation and repeat the process every three years. It is rather unlikely yet not entirely impossible that one day Apple will cease to provide activaton for older devices and render them useless. In that sense I don't really own my iPad but paid a premium for the priviledge to able to use it, only as long as Apple allows me to. Suffice to say I refuse to be subject to the same tyranny again.
- icebraining 11y ago
  People who are born in such a regime usually don't get a (easy) opt-out but I digress. That's my point - it's not useful to compare the loss of rights in states to the loss of rights in smartphone platforms, because the latter are easily opted-out.
  - throwawayaway 11y ago
    The point people are making is that if it's the only thing on the shelf it's not easy to opt out.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - icebraining 11y ago
      http://www.ubuntu.com/phone/devices http://www.ubuntu.com/phone/devices https://shop.goldelico.com/wiki.php?page=GTA04%20Complete https://shop.goldelico.com/wiki.php?page=GTA04%20Complete (soon?) http://neo900.org/ http://neo900.org/
      - throwawayaway 11y ago
        Hope springs eternal!
        icebraining 11y ago
        Hope? I'm fine with my Nexus tablet and feature phone.

barnabee 11y ago

The argument is "it's an allowable trade off for a hardware product to be locked down and for consumers to decide whether they still want to buy it given the restrictions" not "all hardware must be locked down and all software approved by corporations/government"- the latter is clearly not OK.

logicrook 11y ago
You fail to recognize the political implications of individually opting for locked-down solutions. If many people opt-in for a locked solution, they essentially remove the possibility for others to adopt free solutions -university, businesses, have to be able to communicate with the maximal number of people.

jerf 11y ago

The human brain comes with built-in hardware for dealing with social challenges. It is probably not 100% trustworthy for large-scale society because of the recent appearance of such a structure [1], but it exists. There is obviously no such built-in hardware support for analyzing software-imposed risks. If such hardware existed, it's not actually the consumer's behavior that would change, it would be the software producers, because the software engineers would feel that bit of their brain poking them and produce much less insecure software in the first place. So, I don't think the argument translates as well as you say in real life. [1]: Proof: There exist a large number of people who disagree with $YOU about the optimum nature of government. You are self-evidently correct, of course, and they are wrong. So a lot of people are running on self-evidently faulty hardware for large-scale society.

chakalakasp 11y ago

I fail to see how these scenarios are even remotely analogous. Closed systems are what the consumer has happily chosen for their phones, which they vote for with their dollars. Our system of government is what people have chosen -- and you will note that it is not "open". I can't walk up to the Senate floor and present a bill, nor can you. The system for doing that is closed. If you want to be a part of if, you have to be vetted by the people. I have yet to have a customer bring me an Android or an iOS device that was ridden with browser toolbars, malware popups, or link re-directors. I probably get 4 or 5 customers a week with this problem in Windows 7, 8, or 10. Any random business or small town cop shop I walk into is guaranteed to have at least half of their computers infected with something or other. People practicing law who are totally oblivious that their search has been hijacked by Conduit or one of its clones. This is because Microsoft is much more open than iOS or typical Android installs. Everything most consumers get on smartphones comes from vetted stores owned by the OS developer. While there have been a few things that have snuck under the radar with both Google and Apple, for the most part if you submitted Conduit to the App Store, I'm pretty sure someone from Apple would drive to your place and punch you right in the face. And this is why people prefer the closed ecosystem. They want to get work done in their field and not hassle with doing work in another field they don't care about, like IT.

AnthonyMouse 11y ago
Windows gets full of malware because "download executables from the internet and run them" is the expected way to install Windows software, so the process for installing Conduit is no different than the process for installing 7zip or Adblock. What you're making the argument for is a package manager with vetted packages, not a prohibition on advanced users installing anything outside of the package manager using a different method.

legulere 11y ago

You're equalling basic human rights with the freedom to modify a tool (which the computer is). If you step back a bit you'll recognize that computers aren't the only important thing in your life. Many people own cars and there's lots of proprietary things about them. Does that mean car owners are living in an authoritarian world? If those people just didn't ride cars they would be so much more free! It's the power to tinker with the cars, not the power to use that makes them free! Electronics generally contain chips that are proprietary and that we can't change. And we usually can't change the firmware of those devices. Nobody seems to be complaining about that (except firmware in computers because that's supposed to be software again or something). Apparently we don't see how we're living in such an authoritarian world. Computers and smartphones are also tools. Just like with the stuff before, the most important thing is that they do their job in a good way. Being a toy to tinker around with isn't one of them, at least for me. And that's the only thing your so called freedoms really give you.