17 ms·

Dear humans, 1) You willingly delegated the decision of what code is allowed to run on your devices to the manufacturer (2009). Smart voices warned you of toda

by keyme 5y ago

Dear humans, 1) You willingly delegated the decision of what code is allowed to run on your devices to the manufacturer (2009). Smart voices warned you of today's present even then. 2) You willingly got yourself irrevocably vendor-locked by participating in their closed social networks, so that it's almost impossible to leave (2006). 3) You willingly switched over essentially all human communication to said social networks, despite the obvious warning signs. (2006-2021) 4) Finally you showed no resistance to these private companies when they started deciding what content should be allowed or banned, even when it got purely political (2020). Now they're getting more brazen. And why shouldn't they? You'll obey.

ben_w 5y ago
(1) happened with the first multitasking OS, or possibly when CPUs got microcode; Android and iOS are big increases in freedom in comparison to the first phones. (2) and (3) are bad, but a tangential bad to this: it’s no good having an untainted chat layer if it’s running on an imperfect — anywhere from hostile to merely lowest-bidder solution — OS. (And most of the problems we find in software have been closer to the later than the former). (4) for all their problems, the American ones held off doing that until there was an attempted coup, having previously resisted blocking Trump despite him repeatedly and demonstrably violating their terms.
- majewsky 5y ago
  Re (1): That's technically true, but missing the point when viewed holistically. Those first feature phones were mostly just used to make quick calls to arrange an appointment or discuss one or two things. They were not a platform to mediate a majority chunk of our social lifes like today's phones are.
  - ben_w 5y ago
    That also seems to miss the point, as for most of the stuff you’re describing the phone is a thin client and the computation is on a server, and that would still be true even if the phones themselves ran only GPL-licenced code and came with pre-installed compilers and IDEs.
franciscop 5y ago
I don't think this is a fair characterization; it should not be most people's life goal to fight for their privacy against big companies. Some people make it theirs, and that's fine, but I think it's def not something to expect from most people, in the same way that you don't expect everyone to be actively fighting for clean tap water or drivable roads. Instead, we as a collective decided to offload these tasks to the government and make broad decisions through voting. This allows us to focus on other things (at work, with our actual job, at home, you can focus with what matters for you, whatever that might be). For instance, I tried to avoid Facebook for a while and it was working well, I just missed few acquaintances but could keep in touch with the people who matter for me. Then suddenly they acquired Whatsapp. What am I to do? Ask my grandmother and everyone in between to switch to Telegram? Instead, I'm quite happy as a European about the GDPR and how the EU is regulating companies in these regards. It's definitely not yet there, but IMHO we are going in the right direction.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
gorgoiler 5y ago
> closed social networks It’s not clear that governments would give the open social networks an easier ride either. It could be argued that distributed FOSS developers are easier to pressurise into adding back doors, unless we officially make EFF our HR/Legal department. The other problem is workers have a right to be paid. The alternatives are FOSS and/or distributed social media. Who in good conscience would ask a tech worker to give away their labour for free, in the name of everyone else’s freedom? In a world of $4k rent, who amongst us will do UX, frontend, backend, DevOps, UO, and Security for 7 billion people, for anything but the top market rate? The real alternative is to attack the actual problem: state overreach. Don’t attack people for using SnapChat — get them to upend the government’s subservience to intrusive law enforcement.
- feanaro 5y ago
  > It could be argued that distributed FOSS developers are easier to pressurise into adding back doors, unless we officially make EFF our HR/Legal department. How could this be argued?
- fsflover 5y ago
  > It could be argued that distributed FOSS developers are easier to pressurise into adding back doors All millions of them at the same time?
  - Fnoord 5y ago
    Of course not. You'd only need a few important ones, and all you'd have to do is compromise them in one way or another. This can be done via coercion, via money, or by physically or virtually breaking into their system(s). For example, if money can be an incentive, you can stimulate a FOSS dev to add a NOBUS vulnerability in code. Also, since all the code is public, organizations like NSA can do in-house fuzzing, keeping the findings to themselves.
    - feanaro 5y ago
      And any other researcher can fuzz the code themselves too and make their findings public.
no_time 5y ago
You could go back even further if you wanted. Possibly to the first handwritten letter delivered by a third party. That's where all the potential for censorship and tampering started. Truth is even if our tools evolve, our chains evolve faster.
- simonh 5y ago
  Case in point being the Black Chamber run by the Thurn und Taxis post in Brussels in the 16th Century. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230298125_11 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230298125_11 Signals intelligence intercept and analysis centres have been called Black Chambers for a long time, including the first such group in the US, predecessor to the NSA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Chamber https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Chamber
durovo 5y ago
If it seems like this scanning is working as advertised, this will be a great marketing stunt for Apple. Actual predators will stop using Apple products out of fear of getting caught and they will be forced to use Android. Now any person who owns an Android is a potential predator. Also, if you are trying to jailbreak your iPhone, you are a potential predator.
- go_prodev 5y ago
  The twitter comments also mentioned scanning for political propaganda etc. This could work against Apple if normal folks don't want all their stuff scanned on behalf of unnamed agencies.
- aethertron 5y ago
  Some 'predators' are dumb. They'll keep using iPhones, get caught, and have their mugshots posted in the press. Great PR for the policy makers who decided this. Such stories will be shoved in the faces of the privacy advocates who were against it, to the detriment of their credibility.
  - Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
    Yeah, and a lot of shortsighted people (even here) will be happy, because they are not 'predators'. Of course, they won't be shown photos of victims of brutal dictatorships like Russia, Belarus, China, etc. They love it that phone manufacturer keeps their phone free of malware.
    - fsflover 5y ago
      > They love it that phone manufacturer keeps their phone free of malware. They love it that phone manufacturer tells their phone free of malware. Fixed that for you. See: Pegasus.
    - aethertron 5y ago
      I'd argue that this update is spyware and malware. Policy-makers are counting on normies being accepting of law-enforcement malware if the crimes targeted are serious enough.
f6v 5y ago
Is this anything new, though? The communications haven't been E2E protected ever since people started using phones.
- dangerface 5y ago
  Because E2E didn't exist when the phone was invented but there have been significant improvements since then.
  - _jal 5y ago
    Not POTS, but cell phones could have been E2E at least since cellular switched to digital.
    - gruez 5y ago
      The first digital phones ran on 56 bit (symmetric?) encryption. They certainty weren't powerful enough to run public key cryptography at safe key sizes, which is needed for secure e2e.
      - _jal 5y ago
        Not at key sizes considered safe today, but 384 bit RSA was considered secure for some uses around then. The RSA-155 Challenge (512 bits) was not beaten until 1999.
- eitland 5y ago
  No, but stock phones haven't always been spying on users client side.
xyzal 5y ago
The fact that even the 'smart' people from HN can't wait for their new M1 laptop to arrive convinced me that humans are a lost cause.
- paulcarroty 5y ago
  Not too lost 'cause you can run Linux on M1.
  - amelius 5y ago
    Until the manufacturer decides otherwise.
    - ricardobeat 5y ago
      Like every other system since UEFI came out a decade ago. Do you use a Librem phone/laptop yourself?
      - Nullabillity 5y ago
        Most other manufacturers aren't in the business of pushing their own OS.
        lijogdfljk 5y ago
        Fwiw, Apple's incentive seems to be hardware from the outside more than Software, imo. They tend to sell the hardware by the software for a lot of people, but given that they're so concerned with keeping their software on their hardware i suspect they don't have much reason to push their software over your software. What would concern me is if we see a big revenue stream from their software. Then i'd question them not wanting Linux on their machines. But imo you already gave them what they want when you buy an M1. I don't see a reason why they care beyond that.
        amelius 5y ago
disgruntledphd2 5y ago
This sort of scanning has existed for well over a decade, and was originally developed by Microsoft (search PhotoDNA). The only thing that's changed here is that there is more encryption around, and so legal guidelines are being written to facilitate this, which has been happening for a long, long time. (I don't disagree with your overall point, and child porn is definitely the thin edge of the wedge, but this isn't new and presumably shouldn't be too surprising for any current/former megacorp as they all have systems like this).
- nolok 5y ago
  That's a very strong frog slowly boiling attitude. "It's been happening for a long time already, the only difference now is a 0.1 degree increase", says the frog while being boiled alive.
  - russh 5y ago
    First they came for kiddie porn, and I did not speak out -because I had no kiddie porn. Then they came for Pepe the frog memes. I did not speak out -because I was held in solitary confinement pending trial and successful completion of the re-education camp.
- tux3 5y ago
  Nothing is ever new. You can always find some vague prototype of an idea that failed to become ubiquitous ten years ago. When I read that this shouldn't be surprising, it has an aftertaste of "Dropbox is not interesting/surprising because ftpfs+CVS have existed for well over a decade"
  - disgruntledphd2 5y ago
    > Nothing is ever new. You can always find some vague prototype of an idea that failed to become ubiquitous ten years ago. This has been standard practice for well over a decade amongst all big internet platforms. Like, one can argue that regardless, people's messages should not be readable for any reason, but that's gonna be a tough one to get through a court of law. The obvious difference here is that backdooring encryption is an all or nothing affair, which may require new thinking (it definitely does). But the ship around this particular form of backdooring has most definitely sailed. Like, the only reason Apple is new to this game is because they haven't been in the storage/media sharing business for as long as their competitors.
gjulianm 5y ago
I honestly don't like too much these smug takes > 1) You willingly delegated the decision of what code is allowed to run on your devices to the manufacturer (2009). Smart voices warned you of today's present even then. 99% of the population will delegate the decision of what code is allowed to run to someone, be it the manufacturer, the government, some guy on the Internet or whatever. For that 99% of the population, by the way, it's actually more beneficial to have restrictions on what software can be installed to avoid malware. > 2) You willingly got yourself irrevocably vendor-locked by participating in their closed social networks, so that it's almost impossible to leave (2006). "Impossible to leave" is not a matter of closed or open, but it's a matter of social networks in general. You could make Facebook free software and its problems wouldn't disappear. Not to mention that, again, 99% of people will get vendor-locked because in the end nobody wants to run their own instance of a federated social network. > You willingly switched over essentially all human communication to said social networks, despite the obvious warning signs. (2006-2021) Yes, it's been years since I talked someone face to face or on the phone and I cannot send letters anymore. > 4) Finally you showed no resistance to these private companies when they started deciding what content should be allowed or banned, even when it got purely political (2020). No resistance? I mean, it's been quite a lot of discussion and pushback on social networks for their decisions on content. Things move slow, but "no resistance" is quite the understatement. > Now they're getting more brazen. And why shouldn't they? You'll obey. Is this Mr. Robot talking now? But now more seriously, in December the European Electronic Communications Code comes into effect, and while it's true that there's a temporary derogation that allows these CSAM scanners, there's quite a big debate around it and things will change. The main problem with privacy and computer control is a collective one that must be solved through laws. Thinking that individual action and free software will solve it is completely utopic. A majority of the people will delegate control over their computing devices to another entity because most people don't have both knowledge and time to do it, and that entity will always have the option to go rogue. And, unfortunately, regulation takes time. Anyways, one should wonder why, after all these years of these kinds of smug messages, we're in this situation. Maybe the solutions and the way of communicating the problems is wrong, you know.
- fsflover 5y ago
  > "Impossible to leave" is not a matter of closed or open, but it's a matter of social networks in general. You could make Facebook free software and its problems wouldn't disappear. Not true. If you have interoperability between different networks, you can leave. This is how ActivityPub (e.g. Mastodon, PeerTube, PixelFed) works. > Not to mention that, again, 99% of people will get vendor-locked because in the end nobody wants to run their own instance of a federated social network. You just switch to any other instance, because Mastodon doesn't prevent you from doing that. > The main problem with privacy and computer control is a collective one that must be solved through laws. Thinking that individual action and free software will solve it is completely utopic. We need both. You cannot force Facebook to allow interoperability when there is no other social network.
zomgbbq 5y ago
It's over the top comments like this that make me visit ycombinator less and less each week.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  What do you think is over the top with it? The manufacturer just told you he will implement a complete read permission on your device.
whoaisme 5y ago
I would trade all my personal privacy if that meant eliminating pompous drivel producing dolts like you from all aspects of my life.
snarf21 5y ago
Great, so what's the solution? What are you doing to fix it? Do you roll your own silicon? Do you grow your own food (we have no idea what someone could be putting in it)? Are you completely off-grid? Or are you as completely dependent on society writ large as everyone else? Making holier than thou comments about everyone else being sheep isn't helpful or thought provoking. Offer an alternative if it is a bad one (looking at you Mastodon). So here's mine: we need to change the power of digital advertising. Most of the most rent seeking companies generate revenue primarily selling ads to get more people to buy more crap. I want a VAT on all revenue passing through the digital advertising pipeline. My hope is that if these things are less profitable, it will reduce the over-sized impact these companies (social, infotainment [there is no news anymore], search, etc.) have on our economy and life. People are addicted to to fomo and outrage (faux?), I don't that that will ever change but we can try to make it less profitable.
- regnull 5y ago
  The solution is to go back to the original spirit of the Internet, when it was a set of open standards connecting people and organizations. Somehow it got forgotten and now we have a bunch of commercial companies giving you the same stuff in exchange for your privacy and who increasingly control everything you do.
  - OOPMan 5y ago
    Indeed. And, amusingly enough, most of the open standards stuff still exists too.
  - zepto 5y ago
    The spirit of the internet won’t generate secure hardware or a transparent software stack. Also, that spirit existed only in an adversary free environment. You may as well say the solution is for everyone to be nice to each other. The solution is to build new technologies that are privacy preserving, transparent, don’t place trust in a central authority but are resistant to attack. This is possible but nobody has built it yet.
    - 5y ago
ksec 5y ago
First they came for the Communists. And I did not speak out Because I was not a Communist Then they came for the Socialists. And I did not speak out Because I was not a Socialist Then they came for the trade unionists And I did not speak out Because I was not a trade unionist Then they came for the Jews. And I did not speak out Because I was not a Jew Then they came for me. And there was no one left To speak out for me
yibg 5y ago
Probably because for most people they estimate the risk to be low enough (correctly or not). If I was a politically sensitive person in China for instance I’ll definitely be more weary.
sfoley 5y ago
Fuck you.
- dang 5y ago
  Could you please stop posting flamebait and unsubstantive comments? We ban accounts that post like this, obviously. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

by keyme 5y ago

ben_w 5y ago

(1) happened with the first multitasking OS, or possibly when CPUs got microcode; Android and iOS are big increases in freedom in comparison to the first phones. (2) and (3) are bad, but a tangential bad to this: it’s no good having an untainted chat layer if it’s running on an imperfect — anywhere from hostile to merely lowest-bidder solution — OS. (And most of the problems we find in software have been closer to the later than the former). (4) for all their problems, the American ones held off doing that until there was an attempted coup, having previously resisted blocking Trump despite him repeatedly and demonstrably violating their terms.

majewsky 5y ago
Re (1): That's technically true, but missing the point when viewed holistically. Those first feature phones were mostly just used to make quick calls to arrange an appointment or discuss one or two things. They were not a platform to mediate a majority chunk of our social lifes like today's phones are.
- ben_w 5y ago
  That also seems to miss the point, as for most of the stuff you’re describing the phone is a thin client and the computation is on a server, and that would still be true even if the phones themselves ran only GPL-licenced code and came with pre-installed compilers and IDEs.

franciscop 5y ago

I don't think this is a fair characterization; it should not be most people's life goal to fight for their privacy against big companies. Some people make it theirs, and that's fine, but I think it's def not something to expect from most people, in the same way that you don't expect everyone to be actively fighting for clean tap water or drivable roads. Instead, we as a collective decided to offload these tasks to the government and make broad decisions through voting. This allows us to focus on other things (at work, with our actual job, at home, you can focus with what matters for you, whatever that might be). For instance, I tried to avoid Facebook for a while and it was working well, I just missed few acquaintances but could keep in touch with the people who matter for me. Then suddenly they acquired Whatsapp. What am I to do? Ask my grandmother and everyone in between to switch to Telegram? Instead, I'm quite happy as a European about the GDPR and how the EU is regulating companies in these regards. It's definitely not yet there, but IMHO we are going in the right direction.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

gorgoiler 5y ago

> closed social networks It’s not clear that governments would give the open social networks an easier ride either. It could be argued that distributed FOSS developers are easier to pressurise into adding back doors, unless we officially make EFF our HR/Legal department. The other problem is workers have a right to be paid. The alternatives are FOSS and/or distributed social media. Who in good conscience would ask a tech worker to give away their labour for free, in the name of everyone else’s freedom? In a world of $4k rent, who amongst us will do UX, frontend, backend, DevOps, UO, and Security for 7 billion people, for anything but the top market rate? The real alternative is to attack the actual problem: state overreach. Don’t attack people for using SnapChat — get them to upend the government’s subservience to intrusive law enforcement.

feanaro 5y ago
> It could be argued that distributed FOSS developers are easier to pressurise into adding back doors, unless we officially make EFF our HR/Legal department. How could this be argued?
fsflover 5y ago
> It could be argued that distributed FOSS developers are easier to pressurise into adding back doors All millions of them at the same time?
- Fnoord 5y ago
  Of course not. You'd only need a few important ones, and all you'd have to do is compromise them in one way or another. This can be done via coercion, via money, or by physically or virtually breaking into their system(s). For example, if money can be an incentive, you can stimulate a FOSS dev to add a NOBUS vulnerability in code. Also, since all the code is public, organizations like NSA can do in-house fuzzing, keeping the findings to themselves.
  - feanaro 5y ago
    And any other researcher can fuzz the code themselves too and make their findings public.

no_time 5y ago

You could go back even further if you wanted. Possibly to the first handwritten letter delivered by a third party. That's where all the potential for censorship and tampering started. Truth is even if our tools evolve, our chains evolve faster.

simonh 5y ago
Case in point being the Black Chamber run by the Thurn und Taxis post in Brussels in the 16th Century. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230298125_11 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230298125_11 Signals intelligence intercept and analysis centres have been called Black Chambers for a long time, including the first such group in the US, predecessor to the NSA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Chamber https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Chamber

durovo 5y ago

If it seems like this scanning is working as advertised, this will be a great marketing stunt for Apple. Actual predators will stop using Apple products out of fear of getting caught and they will be forced to use Android. Now any person who owns an Android is a potential predator. Also, if you are trying to jailbreak your iPhone, you are a potential predator.

go_prodev 5y ago
The twitter comments also mentioned scanning for political propaganda etc. This could work against Apple if normal folks don't want all their stuff scanned on behalf of unnamed agencies.
aethertron 5y ago
Some 'predators' are dumb. They'll keep using iPhones, get caught, and have their mugshots posted in the press. Great PR for the policy makers who decided this. Such stories will be shoved in the faces of the privacy advocates who were against it, to the detriment of their credibility.
- Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
  Yeah, and a lot of shortsighted people (even here) will be happy, because they are not 'predators'. Of course, they won't be shown photos of victims of brutal dictatorships like Russia, Belarus, China, etc. They love it that phone manufacturer keeps their phone free of malware.
  - fsflover 5y ago
    > They love it that phone manufacturer keeps their phone free of malware. They love it that phone manufacturer tells their phone free of malware. Fixed that for you. See: Pegasus.
  - aethertron 5y ago
    I'd argue that this update is spyware and malware. Policy-makers are counting on normies being accepting of law-enforcement malware if the crimes targeted are serious enough.

f6v 5y ago

Is this anything new, though? The communications haven't been E2E protected ever since people started using phones.

dangerface 5y ago
Because E2E didn't exist when the phone was invented but there have been significant improvements since then.
- _jal 5y ago
  Not POTS, but cell phones could have been E2E at least since cellular switched to digital.
  - gruez 5y ago
    The first digital phones ran on 56 bit (symmetric?) encryption. They certainty weren't powerful enough to run public key cryptography at safe key sizes, which is needed for secure e2e.
    - _jal 5y ago
      Not at key sizes considered safe today, but 384 bit RSA was considered secure for some uses around then. The RSA-155 Challenge (512 bits) was not beaten until 1999.
eitland 5y ago
No, but stock phones haven't always been spying on users client side.

xyzal 5y ago

The fact that even the 'smart' people from HN can't wait for their new M1 laptop to arrive convinced me that humans are a lost cause.

paulcarroty 5y ago
Not too lost 'cause you can run Linux on M1.
- amelius 5y ago
  Until the manufacturer decides otherwise.
  - ricardobeat 5y ago
    Like every other system since UEFI came out a decade ago. Do you use a Librem phone/laptop yourself?
    - Nullabillity 5y ago
      Most other manufacturers aren't in the business of pushing their own OS.
      - lijogdfljk 5y ago
        Fwiw, Apple's incentive seems to be hardware from the outside more than Software, imo. They tend to sell the hardware by the software for a lot of people, but given that they're so concerned with keeping their software on their hardware i suspect they don't have much reason to push their software over your software. What would concern me is if we see a big revenue stream from their software. Then i'd question them not wanting Linux on their machines. But imo you already gave them what they want when you buy an M1. I don't see a reason why they care beyond that.
        amelius 5y ago

disgruntledphd2 5y ago

This sort of scanning has existed for well over a decade, and was originally developed by Microsoft (search PhotoDNA). The only thing that's changed here is that there is more encryption around, and so legal guidelines are being written to facilitate this, which has been happening for a long, long time. (I don't disagree with your overall point, and child porn is definitely the thin edge of the wedge, but this isn't new and presumably shouldn't be too surprising for any current/former megacorp as they all have systems like this).

nolok 5y ago
That's a very strong frog slowly boiling attitude. "It's been happening for a long time already, the only difference now is a 0.1 degree increase", says the frog while being boiled alive.
- russh 5y ago
  First they came for kiddie porn, and I did not speak out -because I had no kiddie porn. Then they came for Pepe the frog memes. I did not speak out -because I was held in solitary confinement pending trial and successful completion of the re-education camp.
tux3 5y ago
Nothing is ever new. You can always find some vague prototype of an idea that failed to become ubiquitous ten years ago. When I read that this shouldn't be surprising, it has an aftertaste of "Dropbox is not interesting/surprising because ftpfs+CVS have existed for well over a decade"
- disgruntledphd2 5y ago
  > Nothing is ever new. You can always find some vague prototype of an idea that failed to become ubiquitous ten years ago. This has been standard practice for well over a decade amongst all big internet platforms. Like, one can argue that regardless, people's messages should not be readable for any reason, but that's gonna be a tough one to get through a court of law. The obvious difference here is that backdooring encryption is an all or nothing affair, which may require new thinking (it definitely does). But the ship around this particular form of backdooring has most definitely sailed. Like, the only reason Apple is new to this game is because they haven't been in the storage/media sharing business for as long as their competitors.

gjulianm 5y ago

I honestly don't like too much these smug takes > 1) You willingly delegated the decision of what code is allowed to run on your devices to the manufacturer (2009). Smart voices warned you of today's present even then. 99% of the population will delegate the decision of what code is allowed to run to someone, be it the manufacturer, the government, some guy on the Internet or whatever. For that 99% of the population, by the way, it's actually more beneficial to have restrictions on what software can be installed to avoid malware. > 2) You willingly got yourself irrevocably vendor-locked by participating in their closed social networks, so that it's almost impossible to leave (2006). "Impossible to leave" is not a matter of closed or open, but it's a matter of social networks in general. You could make Facebook free software and its problems wouldn't disappear. Not to mention that, again, 99% of people will get vendor-locked because in the end nobody wants to run their own instance of a federated social network. > You willingly switched over essentially all human communication to said social networks, despite the obvious warning signs. (2006-2021) Yes, it's been years since I talked someone face to face or on the phone and I cannot send letters anymore. > 4) Finally you showed no resistance to these private companies when they started deciding what content should be allowed or banned, even when it got purely political (2020). No resistance? I mean, it's been quite a lot of discussion and pushback on social networks for their decisions on content. Things move slow, but "no resistance" is quite the understatement. > Now they're getting more brazen. And why shouldn't they? You'll obey. Is this Mr. Robot talking now? But now more seriously, in December the European Electronic Communications Code comes into effect, and while it's true that there's a temporary derogation that allows these CSAM scanners, there's quite a big debate around it and things will change. The main problem with privacy and computer control is a collective one that must be solved through laws. Thinking that individual action and free software will solve it is completely utopic. A majority of the people will delegate control over their computing devices to another entity because most people don't have both knowledge and time to do it, and that entity will always have the option to go rogue. And, unfortunately, regulation takes time. Anyways, one should wonder why, after all these years of these kinds of smug messages, we're in this situation. Maybe the solutions and the way of communicating the problems is wrong, you know.

fsflover 5y ago
> "Impossible to leave" is not a matter of closed or open, but it's a matter of social networks in general. You could make Facebook free software and its problems wouldn't disappear. Not true. If you have interoperability between different networks, you can leave. This is how ActivityPub (e.g. Mastodon, PeerTube, PixelFed) works. > Not to mention that, again, 99% of people will get vendor-locked because in the end nobody wants to run their own instance of a federated social network. You just switch to any other instance, because Mastodon doesn't prevent you from doing that. > The main problem with privacy and computer control is a collective one that must be solved through laws. Thinking that individual action and free software will solve it is completely utopic. We need both. You cannot force Facebook to allow interoperability when there is no other social network.

zomgbbq 5y ago

It's over the top comments like this that make me visit ycombinator less and less each week.

raxxorrax 5y ago
What do you think is over the top with it? The manufacturer just told you he will implement a complete read permission on your device.

whoaisme 5y ago

I would trade all my personal privacy if that meant eliminating pompous drivel producing dolts like you from all aspects of my life.

snarf21 5y ago

Great, so what's the solution? What are you doing to fix it? Do you roll your own silicon? Do you grow your own food (we have no idea what someone could be putting in it)? Are you completely off-grid? Or are you as completely dependent on society writ large as everyone else? Making holier than thou comments about everyone else being sheep isn't helpful or thought provoking. Offer an alternative if it is a bad one (looking at you Mastodon). So here's mine: we need to change the power of digital advertising. Most of the most rent seeking companies generate revenue primarily selling ads to get more people to buy more crap. I want a VAT on all revenue passing through the digital advertising pipeline. My hope is that if these things are less profitable, it will reduce the over-sized impact these companies (social, infotainment [there is no news anymore], search, etc.) have on our economy and life. People are addicted to to fomo and outrage (faux?), I don't that that will ever change but we can try to make it less profitable.

regnull 5y ago
The solution is to go back to the original spirit of the Internet, when it was a set of open standards connecting people and organizations. Somehow it got forgotten and now we have a bunch of commercial companies giving you the same stuff in exchange for your privacy and who increasingly control everything you do.
- OOPMan 5y ago
  Indeed. And, amusingly enough, most of the open standards stuff still exists too.
- zepto 5y ago
  The spirit of the internet won’t generate secure hardware or a transparent software stack. Also, that spirit existed only in an adversary free environment. You may as well say the solution is for everyone to be nice to each other. The solution is to build new technologies that are privacy preserving, transparent, don’t place trust in a central authority but are resistant to attack. This is possible but nobody has built it yet.
  - 5y ago

ksec 5y ago

First they came for the Communists. And I did not speak out Because I was not a Communist Then they came for the Socialists. And I did not speak out Because I was not a Socialist Then they came for the trade unionists And I did not speak out Because I was not a trade unionist Then they came for the Jews. And I did not speak out Because I was not a Jew Then they came for me. And there was no one left To speak out for me

yibg 5y ago

Probably because for most people they estimate the risk to be low enough (correctly or not). If I was a politically sensitive person in China for instance I’ll definitely be more weary.

sfoley 5y ago

Fuck you.

dang 5y ago
Could you please stop posting flamebait and unsubstantive comments? We ban accounts that post like this, obviously. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html