4 ms·

Unless you review every patch and download to your PC pretty much any software vendor of a product you have installed could brick it or share your personal data

Unless you review every patch and download to your PC pretty much any software vendor of a product you have installed could brick it or share your personal data. How is a Kindle any different? The thing that stops Amazon doing it is the same thing that stops them doing it - it would be commercial suicide to do so.

rbanffy 16y ago
> Unless you review every patch I happen not to use Windows, so I don't download software from "any software vendor" and most of what I download was peer-reviewed at the source level. Not to say nothing bad ever happened (Debian's SSH keygen comes to mind), but, most of the time, it was caught before it did any relevant damage. > How is a Kindle any different? Amazon already deleted content users purchased without their consent. That proves, without any doubt, there is at least one backdoor Amazon can use to delete content from your device. Did anyone review Amazon's code to make sure there are no other backdoors? > it would be commercial suicide to do so. Have you ever seen a WGA false-alarm?
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- Tyrannosaurs 16y ago
  The fact it's been peer reviewed merely means that a group of people have agreed that what it does is fine. There is nothing that says you will agree with that view - it's still all trust, it's just who you trust. Personally I'm fine trusting Amazon because I believe their commercial imperative to behave reasonably is a strong enough incentive. WGA false alarms are collateral damage (and tend to get resolved very quickly in my personal experience), what you're suggesting by them bricking a device is a very different thing - willingly damaging something with the sole intent of doing so and in all probability no intention of undoing it.
  - rbanffy 16y ago
    > it's just who you trust No. It's trusting someone who has no conflict of interest with you. Amazon wants as much revenue from you as they can extract without making you switch. You want as much benefit you can get with little regard to Amazon's profits. By owning content that can only be experienced through channels they control, your cost of switching is higher and so are the margins they can impose on you. > because I believe their commercial imperative to behave reasonably is a strong enough incentive Deleting content users paid for? Removing books they find questionable from a user library? Surely you are not serious. > WGA false alarms are collateral damage (and tend to get resolved very quickly Last time I saw it happen, a total of 45 minutes on the phone over about 4 hours. The sticker on the machine was for Windows 2000 and it took the user some time to find the original XP packaging. That was the last Windows that user (a then colleague of mine) ever used.
    - Tyrannosaurs 16y ago
      That's a completely different point. You were originally talking about trusting them to delete content or brick a device, now it's about profit maximisation. How are they going to maximise profit by bricking my Kindle or deleting books I've bought from them given that in most cases that would be the last action in our relationship? Before I judge them on this I'm keen to hear their take on it. At the moment we have anecdotal evidence from someone who has an interest. If for instance Amazon had discovered the content violated certain laws that would be reasonable I'd suggest. But you talk about it as if this is routine which is clearly a long way from the truth. I repeat, they're in the business of selling books. How many books will they sell if they keep deleting them? Besides, if you're that bothered you can back up everything you own. If they delete the item then convert it to a different format and restore it. Yes it's work but so is Linux and you seem to think that's a reasonable effort to put into protecting yourself from this sort of thing.
      - rbanffy 16y ago
        > How are they going to maximise profit by bricking my Kindle or deleting books I've bought from them given that in most cases that would be the last action in our relationship? My original point is that Amazon has complete control over the Kindle you paid for. They can delete books as they wish and I would not be surprised if, upon proper court order, track your reading habits and/or your physical location.

rbanffy 16y ago

> Unless you review every patch I happen not to use Windows, so I don't download software from "any software vendor" and most of what I download was peer-reviewed at the source level. Not to say nothing bad ever happened (Debian's SSH keygen comes to mind), but, most of the time, it was caught before it did any relevant damage. > How is a Kindle any different? Amazon already deleted content users purchased without their consent. That proves, without any doubt, there is at least one backdoor Amazon can use to delete content from your device. Did anyone review Amazon's code to make sure there are no other backdoors? > it would be commercial suicide to do so. Have you ever seen a WGA false-alarm?

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
Tyrannosaurs 16y ago
The fact it's been peer reviewed merely means that a group of people have agreed that what it does is fine. There is nothing that says you will agree with that view - it's still all trust, it's just who you trust. Personally I'm fine trusting Amazon because I believe their commercial imperative to behave reasonably is a strong enough incentive. WGA false alarms are collateral damage (and tend to get resolved very quickly in my personal experience), what you're suggesting by them bricking a device is a very different thing - willingly damaging something with the sole intent of doing so and in all probability no intention of undoing it.
- rbanffy 16y ago
  > it's just who you trust No. It's trusting someone who has no conflict of interest with you. Amazon wants as much revenue from you as they can extract without making you switch. You want as much benefit you can get with little regard to Amazon's profits. By owning content that can only be experienced through channels they control, your cost of switching is higher and so are the margins they can impose on you. > because I believe their commercial imperative to behave reasonably is a strong enough incentive Deleting content users paid for? Removing books they find questionable from a user library? Surely you are not serious. > WGA false alarms are collateral damage (and tend to get resolved very quickly Last time I saw it happen, a total of 45 minutes on the phone over about 4 hours. The sticker on the machine was for Windows 2000 and it took the user some time to find the original XP packaging. That was the last Windows that user (a then colleague of mine) ever used.
  - Tyrannosaurs 16y ago
    That's a completely different point. You were originally talking about trusting them to delete content or brick a device, now it's about profit maximisation. How are they going to maximise profit by bricking my Kindle or deleting books I've bought from them given that in most cases that would be the last action in our relationship? Before I judge them on this I'm keen to hear their take on it. At the moment we have anecdotal evidence from someone who has an interest. If for instance Amazon had discovered the content violated certain laws that would be reasonable I'd suggest. But you talk about it as if this is routine which is clearly a long way from the truth. I repeat, they're in the business of selling books. How many books will they sell if they keep deleting them? Besides, if you're that bothered you can back up everything you own. If they delete the item then convert it to a different format and restore it. Yes it's work but so is Linux and you seem to think that's a reasonable effort to put into protecting yourself from this sort of thing.
    - rbanffy 16y ago
      > How are they going to maximise profit by bricking my Kindle or deleting books I've bought from them given that in most cases that would be the last action in our relationship? My original point is that Amazon has complete control over the Kindle you paid for. They can delete books as they wish and I would not be surprised if, upon proper court order, track your reading habits and/or your physical location.