4 ms·

That it is necessary to jailbreak consumer devices is grotesque. I can totally understand that a car has a software / OS that is locked down. But a consumer dev

That it is necessary to jailbreak consumer devices is grotesque. I can totally understand that a car has a software / OS that is locked down. But a consumer device? - Apple is slowly moving the whole industry in a direction where in a couple of decades we can use electronic devices only in a way that the producer wants it to be used. Locking up systems, not allowing departure in any way, taking each and every freedom to tinker with devices we own: despicable. Edit: I absolutely hate Apple‘s vision for computing devices. Don‘t tell me it‘s good for my grandma because she can‘t mess up with her computer. You can build machines that are both easy to use and give us the freedom to do whatever we want to do with them. Extend them, change them, hack them, open them up, change parts, install other OSes, and whatnot.

Nextgrid 6y ago
> a car has a software / OS that is locked down For as long as cars (and other motor vehicles) existed people have been able to work on them including on safety systems such as brakes, and the lack of widespread accidents because of this doesn't support the idea of locking them down now.
- jedberg 6y ago
  People make this argument a lot, but the main counterpoint is that if you sell faulty brakes, it's hard for someone externally to exploit that on a massive scale. If you sell faulty car software, it's easy for someone to exploit that remotely on a massive scale.
  - ryukafalz 6y ago
    How exactly does blocking car owners from working on their cars stop someone from exploiting them on a massive scale?
    - noitpmeder 6y ago
      I mean if I sell faulty brakes, that could be easily disabled by someone doing something to them physically, it is still pretty hard to disable -everyone's- breaks. I have to go and physically, car by car, break them. With sofware, it is as simple as pushing a faulty OTA update. A large portion of all the cars will _instantly_ be impacted.
      - beagle3 6y ago
        And yet, that does not answer the question "How exactly does blocking car owners from working on their cars stop someone from exploiting them on a massive scale?" If the OTA is buggy, it can be exploited on a massive scale regardless. If you have a hardware switch that needs to be pressed while updating software, there is no possibility for massive scale exploit.
jakebasile 6y ago
I don't see how it is grotesque. No one is forced to buy these products, they can just as easily buy a competitor's or go the distance and build their own. I prefer to have my devices work with minimal effort on my part, and with "good enough" security I can trust.
- realusername 6y ago
  > I prefer to have my devices work with minimal effort on my part, and with "good enough" security I can trust. I mean, everyone has their own acceptable definition of security, I also don't use Apple devices because I cannot check the security of it and any action I could take regarding securing it better means I need to exploit my device...
  - kevindong 6y ago
    How do you check the security of _any_ device (e.g. Android, laptop, TV, watch, etc. basically anything that contains software that communicates with external servers) that you purchase? Even with open source projects, it'd be a Herculean task to confirm that your purchased devices actually contain the same source code that's published (e.g. imagine trying to confirm that the firmware on your wifi card is actually what it says it is).
    - realusername 6y ago
      > How do you check the security of _any_ device (e.g. Android, laptop, TV, watch, etc. basically anything that contains software that communicates with external servers) that you purchase? I generally try first to buy hardware I can install myself the OS, that removes the temptation of the manufacturer to use the product as a data gathering tool. > Even with open source projects, it'd be a Herculean task to confirm that your purchased devices actually contain the same source code that's published (e.g. imagine trying to confirm that the firmware on your wifi card is actually what it says it is). When it's open source, there are always more eyeballs on the system, it's not perfect but it's always a better guarantee of security and privacy.

Nextgrid 6y ago

> a car has a software / OS that is locked down For as long as cars (and other motor vehicles) existed people have been able to work on them including on safety systems such as brakes, and the lack of widespread accidents because of this doesn't support the idea of locking them down now.

jedberg 6y ago
People make this argument a lot, but the main counterpoint is that if you sell faulty brakes, it's hard for someone externally to exploit that on a massive scale. If you sell faulty car software, it's easy for someone to exploit that remotely on a massive scale.
- ryukafalz 6y ago
  How exactly does blocking car owners from working on their cars stop someone from exploiting them on a massive scale?
  - noitpmeder 6y ago
    I mean if I sell faulty brakes, that could be easily disabled by someone doing something to them physically, it is still pretty hard to disable -everyone's- breaks. I have to go and physically, car by car, break them. With sofware, it is as simple as pushing a faulty OTA update. A large portion of all the cars will _instantly_ be impacted.
    - beagle3 6y ago
      And yet, that does not answer the question "How exactly does blocking car owners from working on their cars stop someone from exploiting them on a massive scale?" If the OTA is buggy, it can be exploited on a massive scale regardless. If you have a hardware switch that needs to be pressed while updating software, there is no possibility for massive scale exploit.

jakebasile 6y ago

I don't see how it is grotesque. No one is forced to buy these products, they can just as easily buy a competitor's or go the distance and build their own. I prefer to have my devices work with minimal effort on my part, and with "good enough" security I can trust.

realusername 6y ago
> I prefer to have my devices work with minimal effort on my part, and with "good enough" security I can trust. I mean, everyone has their own acceptable definition of security, I also don't use Apple devices because I cannot check the security of it and any action I could take regarding securing it better means I need to exploit my device...
- kevindong 6y ago
  How do you check the security of _any_ device (e.g. Android, laptop, TV, watch, etc. basically anything that contains software that communicates with external servers) that you purchase? Even with open source projects, it'd be a Herculean task to confirm that your purchased devices actually contain the same source code that's published (e.g. imagine trying to confirm that the firmware on your wifi card is actually what it says it is).
  - realusername 6y ago
    > How do you check the security of _any_ device (e.g. Android, laptop, TV, watch, etc. basically anything that contains software that communicates with external servers) that you purchase? I generally try first to buy hardware I can install myself the OS, that removes the temptation of the manufacturer to use the product as a data gathering tool. > Even with open source projects, it'd be a Herculean task to confirm that your purchased devices actually contain the same source code that's published (e.g. imagine trying to confirm that the firmware on your wifi card is actually what it says it is). When it's open source, there are always more eyeballs on the system, it's not perfect but it's always a better guarantee of security and privacy.