3 ms·

> On the other hand, the owner of a network has some right to look into the packets on that network. I don't agree. If you let a guest use your WiFi network fo

by gnode 8y ago

> On the other hand, the owner of a network has some right to look into the packets on that network. I don't agree. If you let a guest use your WiFi network for instance, there's no inherent moral right for you to intercept their emails. However I generally agree with the principle that if you own a device, you have the right to learn what it's doing, and the trend towards black boxes is concerning.

duckMuppet 8y ago
You have no more right to learn what a particular device is doing than you have in intercepting emails of guests on Wi-Fi. You might have purchased a particular device, but you generally don't have the rights to the software or firmware that runs it. If you're truly concerned, you should support manufacturers that leave their system open by design, or support open source devices, and contact manufacturers describing your concerns. But the tradeoff wars of freedom v. security were lost long ago. The idea that one should shoulder any blame for choices is lost on a generation that needs YouTube videos to cut an onion. Likewise, a significant number of individuals can't be bothered to change their router password from 123456, and an even greater number of folks think the govt needs to regulate the internet to keep it fair and safe for everyone.. Forced encryption with no choice by design is a feature, not a bug. Use open source or
- gnode 8y ago
  > but you generally don't have the rights to the software or firmware that runs it Legally this is correct in certain jurisdictions. But I'd say this is similar to arguing that you have no right to know the ingredients in food you buy.
- rocqua 8y ago
  > You might have purchased a particular device, but you generally don't have the rights to the software or firmware that runs it. True, I don't have a right to see their source code. But decent laws shouldn't prevent me from reverse-engineering the code (DMCA is not a decent law). Moreover, access to code is orthogonal to control over devices one owns. If I own a device, I should be the one who has ultimate control over it.

by gnode 8y ago

duckMuppet 8y ago

You have no more right to learn what a particular device is doing than you have in intercepting emails of guests on Wi-Fi. You might have purchased a particular device, but you generally don't have the rights to the software or firmware that runs it. If you're truly concerned, you should support manufacturers that leave their system open by design, or support open source devices, and contact manufacturers describing your concerns. But the tradeoff wars of freedom v. security were lost long ago. The idea that one should shoulder any blame for choices is lost on a generation that needs YouTube videos to cut an onion. Likewise, a significant number of individuals can't be bothered to change their router password from 123456, and an even greater number of folks think the govt needs to regulate the internet to keep it fair and safe for everyone.. Forced encryption with no choice by design is a feature, not a bug. Use open source or

gnode 8y ago
> but you generally don't have the rights to the software or firmware that runs it Legally this is correct in certain jurisdictions. But I'd say this is similar to arguing that you have no right to know the ingredients in food you buy.
rocqua 8y ago
> You might have purchased a particular device, but you generally don't have the rights to the software or firmware that runs it. True, I don't have a right to see their source code. But decent laws shouldn't prevent me from reverse-engineering the code (DMCA is not a decent law). Moreover, access to code is orthogonal to control over devices one owns. If I own a device, I should be the one who has ultimate control over it.