6 ms·

Toward a Technological Cage for the Masses

95 points by sT370ma2 6y ago

gotem 6y ago
I’m not too concerned Sent from my iPhone
zeveb 6y ago
The problem is that people want cages. They want cages, especially, for their foes (real or perceived): every time you hear someone say, 'there ought to be a law' what he is really saying is, 'I want armed men to use the threat of deadly violence to herd people who do what I don't like or don't do what I like into cages.' Less obviously, many (perhaps most) people want cages for themselves. They don't trust themselves to make adult decisions, or simply don't want to be responsible for their choices. There is security to three hots & a cot, just as there is security to the iOS App Store. What's missing is not security but liberty. And folks don't just want cages for their foes and themselves; they want not to be confronted with it. Just note the downvotes any post about the lack of freedom on iOS will get.
- Dirlewanger 6y ago
  You're getting downvoted, but you're correct. While I think it's partly a failure in properly communicating all of the dangers with big tech to the public, I think the bigger reason is that people just don't give a shit. When trying to talk to non-techie co-workers/friends at happy hours, I've mostly gotten either blank stares or nervous laughter as they go back to staring at their iPhones (hell, I get those responses from other developers who should know better as well). As long as people have their Instagram feed, they're kept satisfactorily sedated.
- ike77 6y ago
  Your second paragraph is really insightful. It's very simple, perfectly describe the behavior of countless people in various situations, and is not a mere criticism of people in general as this kind of behavior is perfectly rational from an incentive perspective. I would like to read more about that.
- eternalban 6y ago
  You are articulating the insight that has been intuitively grasped by leaders, revolutionaries, and despots alike, throughout history. If you look at it from a systems point of view, the mass of humanity provides the 'inert balast' that allows for continuity and long-term activities. The system design bug here is that, the acquiescence of the masses is obtained via pschological phenomena common to the human being. The implication of that is that there is a system level disconect between "how am I actually doing" vs "how do I think I am doing". The system of collective human management operates at the partially fictional level of "perception" vs factual "reality". It is this psychological content, formed via psychological manipulations (such as religion, ideology, propaganda), that informs the 'views' and 'decisions' of the masses. We don't have a systemic approach to providing decentralized "information as utility" services for our societies. There are no technical issues. ("Business model" is not a technical problem.) A centralized approach allows for maintenance of power for existing entities (individuals, families, organizations, corporations). The forces behind centralization are powerful and entrenched, and the opposing vision is held by relatively marginal entities. Obviously entrenched power will fight tooth and nail to maintain power. What "people want" is neither here nor there; they'll use whatever toy they are given, because that is what "people" have been doing since day 1.
ghoward 6y ago
Unfortunately, I think this author is far more correct than not. Also unfortunately, we can't just create computer companies that do better; there are too many perverse incentives.
- rimliu 6y ago
  I don't think author is correct. One more piece from someone who cannot imagine people being interesting in other things than computers. I don't see car enthusiasts lamenting (maybe they do, I just don't see them) that Joe Average has no idea how to tune a carburetor or change the brake fluid. Once again some talk about the imagined war on "general purpose computing". You know who is interested in general purpose computing? People doing it. For others computer is just a tool helpful to write an email, retouch some photos, or compose some music. Do we see public WiFi where we have zero access to configuration, as the "war on general purpose networking"? Or do we not care as long as it works (snooping aside).
  - ghoward 6y ago
    The phrase "snooping aside" invalidates your whole argument. It's not like using a car will harm Joe Average on average, but because of the snooping carried on by general-purpose computers, using a computer does hurt Joe Average on average.
    - rimliu 6y ago
      If you think it invalidates my whole argument, then you did not understand my argument at all. It is extremely sad that HN folks have zero empathy.
      - ghoward 6y ago
        I think you didn't understand me. I do understand that Joe Average wants to use general-purpose computing to accomplish things. My point is that Joe Average does not understand the hidden costs of using computers that are spying on him, costs that might make him want to find some other way of accomplishing his tasks.
teraku 6y ago
What I find really concerning is that all of this is man-made. So we have management who wants to maximize profits. I don't really blame them, it's a lot of money involved and a shark tank environment. (I mean I do blame them, but I can see their reasoning). But then we have engineers who just do as they told in making all this possible, having the craziest ideas, like: > The Asus EEE PC 900 that I bought had a 4 GB SSD held in place by a screw that was soldered in place. This prevented the SSD from being upgraded. In the end humanity is its biggest adversary
- ntsplnkv2 6y ago
  > But then we have engineers who just do as they told in making all this possible, having the craziest ideas, like: These engineers are paid A LOT of money.
  - teraku 6y ago
    If that makes them sleep better at night, I wonder... I guess they do. I get payed well, I could earn more with my qualifications, but I already earn quite a lot and I have more holiday than any other software person I know in my area. Not sure if more income would make me happier. More wealth, probably, but no paycheck is gonna suddenly make me rich, so that's that.
  - srtjstjsj 6y ago
    The person who designed the hard drive lock didn't get rich off it. Some VP did.
    - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
      That person makes a living, though. Life isn't just about "getting rich" and being wolf of wall street. Engineers aren't billionaires or VPs but they're making a real good living most places in the US.
      - teraku 6y ago
        That's true. But if you think about it: if you have the skillset to design a laptop, your possibilities for jobs are much grander than making laptop's less upgrade-able
dsign 6y ago
There are users at all levels; some are really fine with the spreadsheet in Google Drive, and really it leaves them with time to take a stroll in the park and talk to friends and relatives. Some users want to put together their own computers and their own operating systems, and they will do too. No point in complaining for what the "masses" don't want to do.
- ragnese 6y ago
  > Some users want to put together their own computers and their own operating systems, and they will do too. We'll see how feasible/affordable that is in 10 years. I'm afraid that consumer hardware is only going to get more and more locked down in the name of "security".
dwpdwpdwpdwpdwp 6y ago
I'll be the contrarian: Has the author ever heard of Linux? I'm being glib, and share many of the author's frustrations with the state of things, but really the trends covered in the article have been happening for well over a decade. In that time Raspberry pi's have hit the market and the microcontroller market has never been better for hobbyists and professionals. Likewise with scientific computing frameworks like R and Python. The author even managed to get a personal website up for all of us to read. The options for personal computing are wide, wide open, even if some markets or products remain closed and proprietary and tough to hack. Also, > I suppose one can argue that if we all have nothing but dumb terminals running software from a ROM (which cannot be written to), then no malware can get onto our computers. But, do we want to go back to the dumb terminal days of the 1980's? Is this the "modern" operating system that we want? For certain stuff like online banking, yes.
- tyingq 6y ago
  The author does give ChromeOS some credit for allowing Linux apps to run, so it sounds like he gets that bit. But, he's focusing on what is typically available to consumers. And he's right that MacOS, Windows, and ChromeOS all are on some path to be more locked down.
- EvanAnderson 6y ago
  > In that time Raspberry pi's have hit the market and the microcontroller market has never been better for hobbyists and professionals. That's great if you want a microcontroller or a Raspberry Pi. What about computers with PC-level capabilities, or laptop form factors? What's going to happen when those devices fall under the arbitrary distinction of being "too insecure" for individuals to have full control of? A couple of years ago, during a public Q&A, I asked Steve Wozniak what he thought about the architecture of control that Apple mandates on their "i-device" hardware. My question was to the effect of "What do you think about how I don't own my iPhone or iPad the way I owned my Apple II?" His answer took the form of the "we have to give up some of our ownership in order to have nice things" trope. When Steve Wozniak, of all people, answered the question that way I knew that the era of individual ownership (and the control that implies) of general purpose computers really was on the way out.
ike77 6y ago
I want to add a personal anecdote to this very interesting article. Basically as soon as I fully understood that all my voice communications were stored by the NSA, by my ISP (and can be accessed by my countries government without me knowing), and by various other institutions and secret services, I decided to record all my phone calls. The rationale being that I could not prevent most of the world to listen to me, but at least in the event they would use what I said against me, I had a piece of the evidence and would be able to defend myself. On a more practical level, everytime I call a big company they have a prerecorded message telling me that the conversation "could" be recorded (they definitely record all of them). And those company (ISPs, insurances, government...) will very often promise thing on the telephone and then not follow through as they know that it is very hard for most people to precisely recall the content of the phone call, even less to prove it. So, it did put me in a weird spot legally as my country's laws specify that the consent must be explicitly requested to the receiver of the call to be allowed to record. The thing is that it is not illegal to record phone calls without an agreement. But such a recording cannot be shared or released and would not be receivable as an evidence in a court of law. I was perfectly happy with this situation, as already being able to precisely recall what was said during a call would alleviate a lot of concerns. Android recently removed (in v.10) the possibility to record phone calls (except to a few of their close friends apps, FB, MS...) They unilaterally decided to interpret my countries laws as an interdiction to record phone calls. On top of that, they made no official announcements about that, not even a trace in a changelog here or there. The worst in all that is that obviously, most people didn't understand that it was Google's decisions. So now if you go to a call recorder's app page you will see a mass of people claiming that the app is a scam https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.appstar.callrecorderpro&hl=en https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.appstar.ca... . They even managed to totally shift the blame on their partners. Now, the only option I'm left with if I want to be able to record calls again, seems to be to root my phone. Which obviously from a privacy focused perspective seems unacceptable (giving root access to all userland applications!) So precisely as the article describe, I lost what I consider is a very important feature, I have no say or recourse in that and the issue is not big / mainstream enough to gather any attention.
- ragnese 6y ago
walterbell 6y ago
The approach suggested in the article is to use market forces, i.e. boycott products which move us closer to unwanted futures. This is challenging when the majority of products are headed in one direction, driven by market demand that companies can influence by advertising. Another approach is to use regulatory power in democratic societies, e.g. to enact legislation for right to repair (https://www.ifixit.com/Right-to-Repair/Intro https://www.ifixit.com/Right-to-Repair/Intro), or specific DMCA exemptions for owners to modify device firmware (https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2020/sep/16/dmca-exemptions-2020/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2020/sep/16/dmca-exemptions-2...). These are necessary but insufficient steps to restore choice in functionality and freedom, which are sometimes placed in false opposition via vague threat models. In practice, what has worked has been competition from smaller vendors. In a world of more complexity, we need more than GPD Pockets and kickstarters to lead the way with pioneering examples that can be copied by bigger companies. Without the creative force of a Steve Jobs, Apple depends on the broader market to experiment. Several iPad Pro features can be credited to MS Surface, including concessions (still poorly implemented) on a local file system. If we end up with a few monopolies, will innovation slow without competitors teaching consumers about alternatives? There needs to be a commercial arena where engineers in smaller companies have economic incentives to develop prototypes that increase freedom without compromising security, which "appliances" can then copy. FPGAs and RISC-V have some promise for open hardware, but progress is slowed by closed software toolchains. There are no quick fixes, but pockets of general-purpose hardware success can be encouraged by legislation, engineering talent voting with their feet, and yes, commercial support by customers.
- square_usual 6y ago
  > This is challenging when the majority of products are headed in one direction, driven by market demand that companies can influence by advertising. Exactly. The author says it's large corporations that are driving us there, and yet seems to be naive enough to believe that the very market forces that made those large corporations large and drove technology in this direction can be changed by an extremely insignificant minority. The vast majority of people want tech that's cheap and does what they want, as evidenced by Xiaomi being the biggest smartphone company in India. The only way to turn that around is to have a power equally as big as the companies - i.e. Government.
op03 6y ago
Things got back and forth between open and closed - freedom and convenience. There is no end state. Once upon a time everyone thought IBM was invincible and then Intel and then Microsoft. Then what happened? To understand the cycle read - The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires by Tim Wu (of Net Neutrality fame).
jlehman 6y ago
The problem of the technological cage posed by reliance on cloud services is one of the reasons Urbit is being developed. It's a personal server that operates on a P2P network. You own your own data, and your messages are encrypted. It feels like a cloud service, except you own it completely. The project has been in the works for over a decade. It works, has an active community, and is making rapid strides in functionality and stability. I'd know, because I use it every day. Here's a good primer on what Urbit is looking to create: https://urbit.org/blog/urbit-is-for-communities/ https://urbit.org/blog/urbit-is-for-communities/ Many seem to like to whine about Urbit and claim that it's creating a kind of digital feudalism. Perhaps they think that what we currently have isn't that. I have no interest in engaging with those old and tired arguments, which is why I originally ignored them and looked into it myself. If you also like to think for yourself, let me know and I'll bring you onto the network.
- EvanAnderson 6y ago
  Urbit looks like some strange combination of rent seeking, land grab, and absurdist comedy. I keep waiting for the whole thing to come out as having been a joke.
  - square_usual 6y ago
    What do you mean? Why do you think it's "rent seeking, land grab, and absurdist comedy"?
    - ghoward 6y ago
      Urbit's system creates an elite: the galaxy owners. They will, of course, use their positions to seek rent and grab "land" (control over territory, where territory is just planets and the like).
      - selfhoster11 6y ago
        Somebody's got to own the resources, because they come from the physical world. That will be either power users who know enough about ownership, community groups, or commercial groups. Unless you have a fully distributed system with no centralised nodes, that's what you get.
captainbland 6y ago
> After all, who needs anything but four cold, bare walls, a toilet, and a bed to sleep on. You will be happy here, where "we" will decide what you need and what you don't. "We" will feed, clothe, and house you. "We" will provide you with everything "we" feel that you need It's kind of a bad joke, this idea that these encroachments on the freedom on the internet are going hand-in-hand with 'free stuff from the government' because in most cases in the anglosphere it seems like, with the notable exception of furlough schemes brought in for the pandemic, we're generally seeing the opposite trend: social protections being torn up and we're told to be happy about this. Our avenues for complaining about it are slowly being captured primarily by large, ultimately unsympathetic corporations who would rather we as individuals be as insecure as possible so as to be maximally dependent on them and their peers for a wage.
ubermonkey 6y ago
The main gripe here is, I think, that many people trade away privacy and flexibility without even understanding what they're doing. Most people who read HN don't do that, even if they choose platforms that tilt towards those sorts of services and software. For instance, I'm pretty firmly in the Apple ecosystem, but I could migrate to something else pretty easily IF I wanted to (I don't). I'm not locked in here. My data is stored locally (though I use Dropbox to make it available across multiple devices and platforms). I use proprietary formats very very sparingly. I feel pretty comfortable the "cage door" can't close on me without me changing these choices pretty drastically. I'm sure there are Android/Windows people here who do the same thing. Sure, Windows does some invasive things, but if you're careful, you can avoid most of it, and preserve your ability to switch to something else without much difficulty. No cage door there, either. The trick is to avoid getting SO enmeshed with a vendor that you cannot easily leave. This is one reason why companies like AT&T want you to bundle cell service and home Internet and cable and telephone, because it makes it harder to "fire" them when they screw up. This "trick" is pretty easy, again, for the sort of person who reads this site. It's a lot harder for your uncle Larry who just wants to read ESPN and balance his checkbook and cares not one whit about the privacy implications of Google docs or whatever.
- fanatic2pope 6y ago
  Have you ever actually TRIED leaving Apple's ecosystem? Like doing regular backups and restores of your data, you're confidence level should be equal to your ability to actually follow through.
  - ubermonkey 6y ago
    I feel like this isn't really a question you're asking so much as an attempt to suggest that it isn't easy or possible. It totally is, and I know it is, because I maintain a parallel working environment on a Dell XPS 15 for a bunch of complicated reasons. All my data is there, too. I hate that environment, so I don't work there often, but I could if I had to (such as a couple years ago, when my battery failed in my previous Macbook and had to go in for repair -- it was trivial to do my job from the (previous) Dell for a few days). This is possible because I do the things I outlined above. I use exclusively x-platform tools, like Office, when I use something with an obscure file format. My notes and management tools are exclusively in Orgmode in emacs. Etc. Also: *your, not you're.
Funes- 6y ago
I want to stop for a second and appreciate how much I like websites like the one on the OP: no javascript; no ads; non-commercial, honest content; light, straightforward design. All in all, just a no-strings-attached personal site. That's what the Web should be all about. I miss the late 90s' and early 00s' world wide web. Any search would direct you to a bunch of personal sites just like this one; now, you'd be lucky to find something similar among the typical pile of irrelevant commercial sites bordering on being straight scams that any search engine throws at you.
- growlist 6y ago
  Can't agree more.
Kim_Bruning 6y ago
This is the future that RMS has been fighting against this whole time. I think he's always been a bit of a Cassandra. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html
fl0wRiny 6y ago
This article is kind of comical, but I get his point. Even though I think it's not really taking into account the whole picture. Consider as a fact that the internet is broken, in regards to free speech. How many bot/fake accounts are created that spam toxic messages and influence culture? People with the most followers or likes getting to the top of the algorithms list so they exploit the algorithm. Most of the people are abusing the idea of "free speech" as anonymous trolls or maybe not even human at all or from the same country. It's a serious problem. I don't think people would say half the things they do on the internet if it were connected to their identity. Something isn't right here...
- Kim_Bruning 6y ago
  The irony is that it is the weak who actually benefit most from anonymity.
vitiral 6y ago
Check out civboot.org Even if there's not some kind of secret agenda, the increasing complexity will make it so most people can't use a computer anyway in the horizon. I want to do something about it.
dusted 6y ago
This is somewhat why I collect computers, because one day, you can't buy a general purpose machine anymore.. I just hope when that happens, mine will be top of the line and solid enough to last. Though, is this not tinfoil hat territory? Won't the fact that _some_ people _want_ general purpose computer, mean that they will always exist? Even if the established manufacturers decide to stop production, won't someone else start a production ?
unraveller 6y ago
>they wanted consumers to hate netbooks, so that they would go back to paying for higher-priced laptops. Manufacturer induced non-flagship fatigue is real. We're never getting a reasonable forever laptop, it must always be lacking in obvious areas that costs very little to correct. You only get that if you over pay for everything at the top of the line -- where dissatisfaction is not allowed. Best we can do is buy direct from upstart companies with at most one or two thunderclap flagship offerings every tech cycle. Amazon scale advantage only entrenches the endless consumer bait and suffering by trusted brands.

95 points by sT370ma2 6y ago

I’m not too concerned Sent from my iPhone

The problem is that people want cages. They want cages, especially, for their foes (real or perceived): every time you hear someone say, 'there ought to be a law' what he is really saying is, 'I want armed men to use the threat of deadly violence to herd people who do what I don't like or don't do what I like into cages.' Less obviously, many (perhaps most) people want cages for themselves. They don't trust themselves to make adult decisions, or simply don't want to be responsible for their choices. There is security to three hots & a cot, just as there is security to the iOS App Store. What's missing is not security but liberty. And folks don't just want cages for their foes and themselves; they want not to be confronted with it. Just note the downvotes any post about the lack of freedom on iOS will get.

Dirlewanger 6y ago
You're getting downvoted, but you're correct. While I think it's partly a failure in properly communicating all of the dangers with big tech to the public, I think the bigger reason is that people just don't give a shit. When trying to talk to non-techie co-workers/friends at happy hours, I've mostly gotten either blank stares or nervous laughter as they go back to staring at their iPhones (hell, I get those responses from other developers who should know better as well). As long as people have their Instagram feed, they're kept satisfactorily sedated.
ike77 6y ago
Your second paragraph is really insightful. It's very simple, perfectly describe the behavior of countless people in various situations, and is not a mere criticism of people in general as this kind of behavior is perfectly rational from an incentive perspective. I would like to read more about that.
eternalban 6y ago
You are articulating the insight that has been intuitively grasped by leaders, revolutionaries, and despots alike, throughout history. If you look at it from a systems point of view, the mass of humanity provides the 'inert balast' that allows for continuity and long-term activities. The system design bug here is that, the acquiescence of the masses is obtained via pschological phenomena common to the human being. The implication of that is that there is a system level disconect between "how am I actually doing" vs "how do I think I am doing". The system of collective human management operates at the partially fictional level of "perception" vs factual "reality". It is this psychological content, formed via psychological manipulations (such as religion, ideology, propaganda), that informs the 'views' and 'decisions' of the masses. We don't have a systemic approach to providing decentralized "information as utility" services for our societies. There are no technical issues. ("Business model" is not a technical problem.) A centralized approach allows for maintenance of power for existing entities (individuals, families, organizations, corporations). The forces behind centralization are powerful and entrenched, and the opposing vision is held by relatively marginal entities. Obviously entrenched power will fight tooth and nail to maintain power. What "people want" is neither here nor there; they'll use whatever toy they are given, because that is what "people" have been doing since day 1.

ghoward 6y ago

Unfortunately, I think this author is far more correct than not. Also unfortunately, we can't just create computer companies that do better; there are too many perverse incentives.

rimliu 6y ago
I don't think author is correct. One more piece from someone who cannot imagine people being interesting in other things than computers. I don't see car enthusiasts lamenting (maybe they do, I just don't see them) that Joe Average has no idea how to tune a carburetor or change the brake fluid. Once again some talk about the imagined war on "general purpose computing". You know who is interested in general purpose computing? People doing it. For others computer is just a tool helpful to write an email, retouch some photos, or compose some music. Do we see public WiFi where we have zero access to configuration, as the "war on general purpose networking"? Or do we not care as long as it works (snooping aside).
- ghoward 6y ago
  The phrase "snooping aside" invalidates your whole argument. It's not like using a car will harm Joe Average on average, but because of the snooping carried on by general-purpose computers, using a computer does hurt Joe Average on average.
  - rimliu 6y ago
    If you think it invalidates my whole argument, then you did not understand my argument at all. It is extremely sad that HN folks have zero empathy.
    - ghoward 6y ago
      I think you didn't understand me. I do understand that Joe Average wants to use general-purpose computing to accomplish things. My point is that Joe Average does not understand the hidden costs of using computers that are spying on him, costs that might make him want to find some other way of accomplishing his tasks.

teraku 6y ago

What I find really concerning is that all of this is man-made. So we have management who wants to maximize profits. I don't really blame them, it's a lot of money involved and a shark tank environment. (I mean I do blame them, but I can see their reasoning). But then we have engineers who just do as they told in making all this possible, having the craziest ideas, like: > The Asus EEE PC 900 that I bought had a 4 GB SSD held in place by a screw that was soldered in place. This prevented the SSD from being upgraded. In the end humanity is its biggest adversary

ntsplnkv2 6y ago
> But then we have engineers who just do as they told in making all this possible, having the craziest ideas, like: These engineers are paid A LOT of money.
- teraku 6y ago
  If that makes them sleep better at night, I wonder... I guess they do. I get payed well, I could earn more with my qualifications, but I already earn quite a lot and I have more holiday than any other software person I know in my area. Not sure if more income would make me happier. More wealth, probably, but no paycheck is gonna suddenly make me rich, so that's that.
- srtjstjsj 6y ago
  The person who designed the hard drive lock didn't get rich off it. Some VP did.
  - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
    That person makes a living, though. Life isn't just about "getting rich" and being wolf of wall street. Engineers aren't billionaires or VPs but they're making a real good living most places in the US.
    - teraku 6y ago
      That's true. But if you think about it: if you have the skillset to design a laptop, your possibilities for jobs are much grander than making laptop's less upgrade-able

dsign 6y ago

There are users at all levels; some are really fine with the spreadsheet in Google Drive, and really it leaves them with time to take a stroll in the park and talk to friends and relatives. Some users want to put together their own computers and their own operating systems, and they will do too. No point in complaining for what the "masses" don't want to do.

ragnese 6y ago
> Some users want to put together their own computers and their own operating systems, and they will do too. We'll see how feasible/affordable that is in 10 years. I'm afraid that consumer hardware is only going to get more and more locked down in the name of "security".

dwpdwpdwpdwpdwp 6y ago

I'll be the contrarian: Has the author ever heard of Linux? I'm being glib, and share many of the author's frustrations with the state of things, but really the trends covered in the article have been happening for well over a decade. In that time Raspberry pi's have hit the market and the microcontroller market has never been better for hobbyists and professionals. Likewise with scientific computing frameworks like R and Python. The author even managed to get a personal website up for all of us to read. The options for personal computing are wide, wide open, even if some markets or products remain closed and proprietary and tough to hack. Also, > I suppose one can argue that if we all have nothing but dumb terminals running software from a ROM (which cannot be written to), then no malware can get onto our computers. But, do we want to go back to the dumb terminal days of the 1980's? Is this the "modern" operating system that we want? For certain stuff like online banking, yes.

tyingq 6y ago
The author does give ChromeOS some credit for allowing Linux apps to run, so it sounds like he gets that bit. But, he's focusing on what is typically available to consumers. And he's right that MacOS, Windows, and ChromeOS all are on some path to be more locked down.
EvanAnderson 6y ago
> In that time Raspberry pi's have hit the market and the microcontroller market has never been better for hobbyists and professionals. That's great if you want a microcontroller or a Raspberry Pi. What about computers with PC-level capabilities, or laptop form factors? What's going to happen when those devices fall under the arbitrary distinction of being "too insecure" for individuals to have full control of? A couple of years ago, during a public Q&A, I asked Steve Wozniak what he thought about the architecture of control that Apple mandates on their "i-device" hardware. My question was to the effect of "What do you think about how I don't own my iPhone or iPad the way I owned my Apple II?" His answer took the form of the "we have to give up some of our ownership in order to have nice things" trope. When Steve Wozniak, of all people, answered the question that way I knew that the era of individual ownership (and the control that implies) of general purpose computers really was on the way out.

ike77 6y ago

I want to add a personal anecdote to this very interesting article. Basically as soon as I fully understood that all my voice communications were stored by the NSA, by my ISP (and can be accessed by my countries government without me knowing), and by various other institutions and secret services, I decided to record all my phone calls. The rationale being that I could not prevent most of the world to listen to me, but at least in the event they would use what I said against me, I had a piece of the evidence and would be able to defend myself. On a more practical level, everytime I call a big company they have a prerecorded message telling me that the conversation "could" be recorded (they definitely record all of them). And those company (ISPs, insurances, government...) will very often promise thing on the telephone and then not follow through as they know that it is very hard for most people to precisely recall the content of the phone call, even less to prove it. So, it did put me in a weird spot legally as my country's laws specify that the consent must be explicitly requested to the receiver of the call to be allowed to record. The thing is that it is not illegal to record phone calls without an agreement. But such a recording cannot be shared or released and would not be receivable as an evidence in a court of law. I was perfectly happy with this situation, as already being able to precisely recall what was said during a call would alleviate a lot of concerns. Android recently removed (in v.10) the possibility to record phone calls (except to a few of their close friends apps, FB, MS...) They unilaterally decided to interpret my countries laws as an interdiction to record phone calls. On top of that, they made no official announcements about that, not even a trace in a changelog here or there. The worst in all that is that obviously, most people didn't understand that it was Google's decisions. So now if you go to a call recorder's app page you will see a mass of people claiming that the app is a scam https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.appstar.callrecorderpro&hl=en https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.appstar.ca... . They even managed to totally shift the blame on their partners. Now, the only option I'm left with if I want to be able to record calls again, seems to be to root my phone. Which obviously from a privacy focused perspective seems unacceptable (giving root access to all userland applications!) So precisely as the article describe, I lost what I consider is a very important feature, I have no say or recourse in that and the issue is not big / mainstream enough to gather any attention.

ragnese 6y ago

walterbell 6y ago

The approach suggested in the article is to use market forces, i.e. boycott products which move us closer to unwanted futures. This is challenging when the majority of products are headed in one direction, driven by market demand that companies can influence by advertising. Another approach is to use regulatory power in democratic societies, e.g. to enact legislation for right to repair (https://www.ifixit.com/Right-to-Repair/Intro https://www.ifixit.com/Right-to-Repair/Intro), or specific DMCA exemptions for owners to modify device firmware (https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2020/sep/16/dmca-exemptions-2020/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2020/sep/16/dmca-exemptions-2...). These are necessary but insufficient steps to restore choice in functionality and freedom, which are sometimes placed in false opposition via vague threat models. In practice, what has worked has been competition from smaller vendors. In a world of more complexity, we need more than GPD Pockets and kickstarters to lead the way with pioneering examples that can be copied by bigger companies. Without the creative force of a Steve Jobs, Apple depends on the broader market to experiment. Several iPad Pro features can be credited to MS Surface, including concessions (still poorly implemented) on a local file system. If we end up with a few monopolies, will innovation slow without competitors teaching consumers about alternatives? There needs to be a commercial arena where engineers in smaller companies have economic incentives to develop prototypes that increase freedom without compromising security, which "appliances" can then copy. FPGAs and RISC-V have some promise for open hardware, but progress is slowed by closed software toolchains. There are no quick fixes, but pockets of general-purpose hardware success can be encouraged by legislation, engineering talent voting with their feet, and yes, commercial support by customers.

square_usual 6y ago
> This is challenging when the majority of products are headed in one direction, driven by market demand that companies can influence by advertising. Exactly. The author says it's large corporations that are driving us there, and yet seems to be naive enough to believe that the very market forces that made those large corporations large and drove technology in this direction can be changed by an extremely insignificant minority. The vast majority of people want tech that's cheap and does what they want, as evidenced by Xiaomi being the biggest smartphone company in India. The only way to turn that around is to have a power equally as big as the companies - i.e. Government.

op03 6y ago

Things got back and forth between open and closed - freedom and convenience. There is no end state. Once upon a time everyone thought IBM was invincible and then Intel and then Microsoft. Then what happened? To understand the cycle read - The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires by Tim Wu (of Net Neutrality fame).

jlehman 6y ago

The problem of the technological cage posed by reliance on cloud services is one of the reasons Urbit is being developed. It's a personal server that operates on a P2P network. You own your own data, and your messages are encrypted. It feels like a cloud service, except you own it completely. The project has been in the works for over a decade. It works, has an active community, and is making rapid strides in functionality and stability. I'd know, because I use it every day. Here's a good primer on what Urbit is looking to create: https://urbit.org/blog/urbit-is-for-communities/ https://urbit.org/blog/urbit-is-for-communities/ Many seem to like to whine about Urbit and claim that it's creating a kind of digital feudalism. Perhaps they think that what we currently have isn't that. I have no interest in engaging with those old and tired arguments, which is why I originally ignored them and looked into it myself. If you also like to think for yourself, let me know and I'll bring you onto the network.

EvanAnderson 6y ago
Urbit looks like some strange combination of rent seeking, land grab, and absurdist comedy. I keep waiting for the whole thing to come out as having been a joke.
- square_usual 6y ago
  What do you mean? Why do you think it's "rent seeking, land grab, and absurdist comedy"?
  - ghoward 6y ago
    Urbit's system creates an elite: the galaxy owners. They will, of course, use their positions to seek rent and grab "land" (control over territory, where territory is just planets and the like).
    - selfhoster11 6y ago
      Somebody's got to own the resources, because they come from the physical world. That will be either power users who know enough about ownership, community groups, or commercial groups. Unless you have a fully distributed system with no centralised nodes, that's what you get.

captainbland 6y ago

> After all, who needs anything but four cold, bare walls, a toilet, and a bed to sleep on. You will be happy here, where "we" will decide what you need and what you don't. "We" will feed, clothe, and house you. "We" will provide you with everything "we" feel that you need It's kind of a bad joke, this idea that these encroachments on the freedom on the internet are going hand-in-hand with 'free stuff from the government' because in most cases in the anglosphere it seems like, with the notable exception of furlough schemes brought in for the pandemic, we're generally seeing the opposite trend: social protections being torn up and we're told to be happy about this. Our avenues for complaining about it are slowly being captured primarily by large, ultimately unsympathetic corporations who would rather we as individuals be as insecure as possible so as to be maximally dependent on them and their peers for a wage.

ubermonkey 6y ago

The main gripe here is, I think, that many people trade away privacy and flexibility without even understanding what they're doing. Most people who read HN don't do that, even if they choose platforms that tilt towards those sorts of services and software. For instance, I'm pretty firmly in the Apple ecosystem, but I could migrate to something else pretty easily IF I wanted to (I don't). I'm not locked in here. My data is stored locally (though I use Dropbox to make it available across multiple devices and platforms). I use proprietary formats very very sparingly. I feel pretty comfortable the "cage door" can't close on me without me changing these choices pretty drastically. I'm sure there are Android/Windows people here who do the same thing. Sure, Windows does some invasive things, but if you're careful, you can avoid most of it, and preserve your ability to switch to something else without much difficulty. No cage door there, either. The trick is to avoid getting SO enmeshed with a vendor that you cannot easily leave. This is one reason why companies like AT&T want you to bundle cell service and home Internet and cable and telephone, because it makes it harder to "fire" them when they screw up. This "trick" is pretty easy, again, for the sort of person who reads this site. It's a lot harder for your uncle Larry who just wants to read ESPN and balance his checkbook and cares not one whit about the privacy implications of Google docs or whatever.

fanatic2pope 6y ago
Have you ever actually TRIED leaving Apple's ecosystem? Like doing regular backups and restores of your data, you're confidence level should be equal to your ability to actually follow through.
- ubermonkey 6y ago
  I feel like this isn't really a question you're asking so much as an attempt to suggest that it isn't easy or possible. It totally is, and I know it is, because I maintain a parallel working environment on a Dell XPS 15 for a bunch of complicated reasons. All my data is there, too. I hate that environment, so I don't work there often, but I could if I had to (such as a couple years ago, when my battery failed in my previous Macbook and had to go in for repair -- it was trivial to do my job from the (previous) Dell for a few days). This is possible because I do the things I outlined above. I use exclusively x-platform tools, like Office, when I use something with an obscure file format. My notes and management tools are exclusively in Orgmode in emacs. Etc. Also: *your, not you're.

Funes- 6y ago

I want to stop for a second and appreciate how much I like websites like the one on the OP: no javascript; no ads; non-commercial, honest content; light, straightforward design. All in all, just a no-strings-attached personal site. That's what the Web should be all about. I miss the late 90s' and early 00s' world wide web. Any search would direct you to a bunch of personal sites just like this one; now, you'd be lucky to find something similar among the typical pile of irrelevant commercial sites bordering on being straight scams that any search engine throws at you.

growlist 6y ago
Can't agree more.

Kim_Bruning 6y ago

This is the future that RMS has been fighting against this whole time. I think he's always been a bit of a Cassandra. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html

fl0wRiny 6y ago

This article is kind of comical, but I get his point. Even though I think it's not really taking into account the whole picture. Consider as a fact that the internet is broken, in regards to free speech. How many bot/fake accounts are created that spam toxic messages and influence culture? People with the most followers or likes getting to the top of the algorithms list so they exploit the algorithm. Most of the people are abusing the idea of "free speech" as anonymous trolls or maybe not even human at all or from the same country. It's a serious problem. I don't think people would say half the things they do on the internet if it were connected to their identity. Something isn't right here...

Kim_Bruning 6y ago
The irony is that it is the weak who actually benefit most from anonymity.

vitiral 6y ago

Check out civboot.org Even if there's not some kind of secret agenda, the increasing complexity will make it so most people can't use a computer anyway in the horizon. I want to do something about it.

dusted 6y ago

This is somewhat why I collect computers, because one day, you can't buy a general purpose machine anymore.. I just hope when that happens, mine will be top of the line and solid enough to last. Though, is this not tinfoil hat territory? Won't the fact that _some_ people _want_ general purpose computer, mean that they will always exist? Even if the established manufacturers decide to stop production, won't someone else start a production ?

unraveller 6y ago

>they wanted consumers to hate netbooks, so that they would go back to paying for higher-priced laptops. Manufacturer induced non-flagship fatigue is real. We're never getting a reasonable forever laptop, it must always be lacking in obvious areas that costs very little to correct. You only get that if you over pay for everything at the top of the line -- where dissatisfaction is not allowed. Best we can do is buy direct from upstart companies with at most one or two thunderclap flagship offerings every tech cycle. Amazon scale advantage only entrenches the endless consumer bait and suffering by trusted brands.