3 ms·

Let's put it this way then: what's the harm in the Raspberry Pi to allow SSH right out of the box? That's up to the owner right? I shouldn't have to configure i

Let's put it this way then: what's the harm in the Raspberry Pi to allow SSH right out of the box? That's up to the owner right? I shouldn't have to configure it, it should just work. Except people who aren't Linux or security experts leave it with the default config and the system quickly gets absorbed into a botnet that negatively impacts everyone else on the Internet. You can't think of anything connected to the Internet as completely "owned" by any one person. The Internet is a hivemind of machines and humans, and every single person has the ability to impact many other people. Even unintentionally, even unknowingly. If we want complete personal ownership of every device in our possession, I'm all for it. But that would require every person who owns a device connected to the Internet to take full personal responsibility for anything that happens on/from their device that negatively impacts others. Would you be okay with me suing you personally because one of your devices got infected with malware and slowed down my home Internet connection? Would you be okay with me suing your grandmother? There is hardware and software out there for people who can handle that responsibility. The majority of Internet users can't handle it, though. That's why the majority of Internet-connected devices don't allow people to meddle with things they can't understand. The GNU philosophy is a great ideal to strive for, but like with most ideals it doesn't handle reality very gracefully. With complete ownership comes complete responsibility, and very few people are ready to take complete responsibility for what their Internet-connected device does.

simion314 7y ago
You are very extremist in your possition, you can have extreme safe configs by default, then give an escape from jail to power users like Crheombooks have done or other devices that give you the option to install a different OS , Is your grandma formatting her PC and installing Linux ? IF yes great but probably she is not and she will also not flash her iOS device with a different firmwere either.
- freehunter 7y ago
  Richard Stallman is very extreme in his position. I’m just stating the reason why the status quo is a good thing. Agreeing with the way things currently exist is not an extreme position.
  - traverseda 7y ago
    >Would you be okay with me suing you personally because one of your devices got infected with malware and slowed down my home Internet connection? Would you be okay with me suing your grandmother? That's definitely not the status quo, it's also a pretty extreme position.
    - freehunter 7y ago
      Of course not, that's the bleak alternate reality. The status quo is "you don't actually own your device". Apple or Google finds malware in an app and they remove it from your device automatically. That's the status quo. The status quo is if you get malware on your PC and it negatively impacts other people on the Internet, nothing happens and you're not punished for it so others suffer from your lack of ownership. That's the status quo. The statement you quoted is what would happen if everyone were to actually completely own their own Internet-connected devices and took full responsibility for them. It's not a comforting idea. People like to throw around words like "ownership" but shy away when related words like "responsibility" show up. I'm personally liable for the damage my car causes, because I own my car. I'm not personally liable for the damage my computer causes. Do people actually want to be? That's what ownership means.
      - traverseda 7y ago
        Cars are required to implement safety standards. You're not taking full responsibility for your car, the company you bought it from is responsible for selling a product that's safe. If you modify your car to be unsafe, then you're responsible. People can own their phones/computers, they can be allowed to disable safety features, while still holding companies responsible for implementing a safe product. It should be entirely possible to completely own your car/phone/whatever while still largely holding the company responsible for the users safety.
  - simion314 7y ago
    It is super extreme, you basically say that ownership of an item is incompatible with safety. By this logic you will not really own the future Apple car because your grandma can't change her tires so nobody should change the tires then an Apple approved person. "do you want some random guy changing a tire and not screwing it correctly, there will be a PR nightmare for Apple...." <- this is what I expect as a response
tathougies 7y ago
Secure by default is smart, as is designing for the lowest common denominator. I do not fault the likes of Apple, Google, etc for that. However, what I do fault them for is not offering documentation to enable sufficiently technical owners to exercise their rights of private property and full ownership over the hardware they have bought.

simion314 7y ago

You are very extremist in your possition, you can have extreme safe configs by default, then give an escape from jail to power users like Crheombooks have done or other devices that give you the option to install a different OS , Is your grandma formatting her PC and installing Linux ? IF yes great but probably she is not and she will also not flash her iOS device with a different firmwere either.

freehunter 7y ago
Richard Stallman is very extreme in his position. I’m just stating the reason why the status quo is a good thing. Agreeing with the way things currently exist is not an extreme position.
- traverseda 7y ago
  >Would you be okay with me suing you personally because one of your devices got infected with malware and slowed down my home Internet connection? Would you be okay with me suing your grandmother? That's definitely not the status quo, it's also a pretty extreme position.
  - freehunter 7y ago
    Of course not, that's the bleak alternate reality. The status quo is "you don't actually own your device". Apple or Google finds malware in an app and they remove it from your device automatically. That's the status quo. The status quo is if you get malware on your PC and it negatively impacts other people on the Internet, nothing happens and you're not punished for it so others suffer from your lack of ownership. That's the status quo. The statement you quoted is what would happen if everyone were to actually completely own their own Internet-connected devices and took full responsibility for them. It's not a comforting idea. People like to throw around words like "ownership" but shy away when related words like "responsibility" show up. I'm personally liable for the damage my car causes, because I own my car. I'm not personally liable for the damage my computer causes. Do people actually want to be? That's what ownership means.
    - traverseda 7y ago
      Cars are required to implement safety standards. You're not taking full responsibility for your car, the company you bought it from is responsible for selling a product that's safe. If you modify your car to be unsafe, then you're responsible. People can own their phones/computers, they can be allowed to disable safety features, while still holding companies responsible for implementing a safe product. It should be entirely possible to completely own your car/phone/whatever while still largely holding the company responsible for the users safety.
- simion314 7y ago
  It is super extreme, you basically say that ownership of an item is incompatible with safety. By this logic you will not really own the future Apple car because your grandma can't change her tires so nobody should change the tires then an Apple approved person. "do you want some random guy changing a tire and not screwing it correctly, there will be a PR nightmare for Apple...." <- this is what I expect as a response

tathougies 7y ago

Secure by default is smart, as is designing for the lowest common denominator. I do not fault the likes of Apple, Google, etc for that. However, what I do fault them for is not offering documentation to enable sufficiently technical owners to exercise their rights of private property and full ownership over the hardware they have bought.