3 ms·

I really dislike this take (it's from RMS) — it focuses on a single use case (indie user wanting to have complete control over his/her platform), while ignoring

by jwr 7y ago

I really dislike this take (it's from RMS) — it focuses on a single use case (indie user wanting to have complete control over his/her platform), while ignoring countless other use cases where someone legitimately does need to ensure that the platform can be trusted (e.g. it can be authenticated and runs the code it is supposed to run).

rini17 7y ago
Why just indie user? Companies need to have trust in their property, too.
- smolder 7y ago
  They need the illusion of trustworthy hardware so they can operate as if it is. If it turns out people need actual control over their own things and information for some reason, like to prevent subversion of our society from the inside, from the peak of power and privilege... we might just be shit out of luck.
  - rini17 7y ago
    Depends. Farmers can't live with that illusion, they prefer something they can fix themselves (that is a recurring topic on HN.). It's possible more enterprises will end up like that as the current wave of outsourcing everything will ebb.
    - smolder 7y ago
      I would say the farm equipment DRM isn't even giving the illusion of control. It's plainly obvious it restricts the equipment's use to everyone who owns them, and not in some lawfully required way. Backdoored/coincidentally-flawed software and hardware and things like that which are pervasive in tech don't get in people's way so much. As soon as flaws become more widely known they get patched. Surveillance doesn't get in people's way, directly. DRM like EME stops some copying but goes unnoticed by most, and can be rationalized easier than the farm equipment.
saagarjha 7y ago
> while ignoring countless other use cases where someone legitimately does need to ensure that the platform can be trusted 99% of the time this is DRM :/
- jwr 7y ago
  99% of internet comments that say "99%" pull that number out of thin air. In my work, it's mostly about being certain that our embedded devices run the code that we wrote and that the devices themselves are not rogue clones. In other words, about ensuring the security of the entire system. I get the backlash against DRM, I hate it too. But I think these days the biggest DRM hoopla is largely over, and I am annoyed by the rather childish "treacherous computing" take.
  - garaetjjte 7y ago
    But it really comes down to the same thing, that you want to deny users ability to run their own software, or make modifications to hardware, etc. In case you are really the owner of the hardware, why you need measures to prevent against reflashing with other software?
    - jwr 7y ago
      I sell complete systems with hardware and software. I want to make sure that the hardware hasn't been hacked into and that (for example) my cameras or sensors are sending me real data. I could also want to prevent hardware cloning. There are lots of legitimate cases that do not boil down to "but you want to hurt your users". My users want a system that can be trusted, too.

by jwr 7y ago

rini17 7y ago

Why just indie user? Companies need to have trust in their property, too.

smolder 7y ago
They need the illusion of trustworthy hardware so they can operate as if it is. If it turns out people need actual control over their own things and information for some reason, like to prevent subversion of our society from the inside, from the peak of power and privilege... we might just be shit out of luck.
- rini17 7y ago
  Depends. Farmers can't live with that illusion, they prefer something they can fix themselves (that is a recurring topic on HN.). It's possible more enterprises will end up like that as the current wave of outsourcing everything will ebb.
  - smolder 7y ago
    I would say the farm equipment DRM isn't even giving the illusion of control. It's plainly obvious it restricts the equipment's use to everyone who owns them, and not in some lawfully required way. Backdoored/coincidentally-flawed software and hardware and things like that which are pervasive in tech don't get in people's way so much. As soon as flaws become more widely known they get patched. Surveillance doesn't get in people's way, directly. DRM like EME stops some copying but goes unnoticed by most, and can be rationalized easier than the farm equipment.

saagarjha 7y ago

> while ignoring countless other use cases where someone legitimately does need to ensure that the platform can be trusted 99% of the time this is DRM :/

jwr 7y ago
99% of internet comments that say "99%" pull that number out of thin air. In my work, it's mostly about being certain that our embedded devices run the code that we wrote and that the devices themselves are not rogue clones. In other words, about ensuring the security of the entire system. I get the backlash against DRM, I hate it too. But I think these days the biggest DRM hoopla is largely over, and I am annoyed by the rather childish "treacherous computing" take.
- garaetjjte 7y ago
  But it really comes down to the same thing, that you want to deny users ability to run their own software, or make modifications to hardware, etc. In case you are really the owner of the hardware, why you need measures to prevent against reflashing with other software?
  - jwr 7y ago
    I sell complete systems with hardware and software. I want to make sure that the hardware hasn't been hacked into and that (for example) my cameras or sensors are sending me real data. I could also want to prevent hardware cloning. There are lots of legitimate cases that do not boil down to "but you want to hurt your users". My users want a system that can be trusted, too.