5 ms·

But even if you can somehow make your own hardware, how long until governments start requiring interaction with certain services (health, banking, taxes, etc) b

But even if you can somehow make your own hardware, how long until governments start requiring interaction with certain services (health, banking, taxes, etc) be signed by an _approved_ OS/processor combo? Imagine tax software (comercial or gov provided) refusing to work unless you use an OS with TPM support for "security reasons". Or even worse, what would happen if gov regulations started requiring ISPs to stop working with non-compliant hardware? I.e. something like requiring network devices to attest they are "oficially" approved before allowing to connect? I don't think this will happen any time soon (hopefully) but I can see how even making your own hardware might no be enough.

matheusmoreira 5y ago
That would be oppressive but at least the unfree activities are restricted to the parts of our life where we must deal with authorities. We are still free to do whatever we want with our free computers in all other cases. > Or even worse, what would happen if gov regulations started requiring ISPs to stop working with non-compliant hardware? I.e. something like requiring network devices to attest they are "oficially" approved before allowing to connect? Looks like we're going to need a concept of networking freedom as well. Ideally, this will be solved by ubiquitous mesh networks that the government can't possibly hope to ever regulate or outlaw. Practically... We'll probably end up living in some dystopian cyberpunk hell since the vast majority of the population is too apathetic to join this cause and help run this decentralized infrastructure.
- novok 5y ago
  Ad-hoc radio mesh networks are constrained by physics and math as far as throughput goes, they are not competitive with normal networks. Governments have also shown the ability to regulate radio usage very well the world over.
  - matheusmoreira 5y ago
    > they are not competitive with normal networks It doesn't have to be. The main goal is a free uncensorable network, if we must pay a price in performance for that, so be it. People use extremely old ThinkPads with libreboot because they're the last processors without Intel Management Engine. > Governments have also shown the ability to regulate radio usage very well the world over. Yes, because usually it's only a few people at a time who are interfering in radio communications. Easy to respond to a few isolated incidents. What if it was everyone at the same time? What if every smartphone in the world could create and maintain its own mesh network? In some places there wouldn't even be a need for ISPs. They'd be needed for long distance connections only.
totetsu 5y ago
I think to do your taxes online in Japan you need an NFC card reader and software b that only works in Windows.
- matheusmoreira 5y ago
  In Brazil, we have a Java application that works on any system with a JVM. It's pretty nice. Why exclude citizens based on their choice of operating systems?
  - cesarb 5y ago
    Note also that this was not always the case. Originally, it was a DOS-only application, then a Windows-only application, then for a while we had both the Windows-only application and the Java application, and then finally the Windows-only application was retired. I believe that the creation of the Java version of that application was due to complaints from Linux users, so this is AFAIK a case where citizens used to be excluded based on their choice of operating systems, and convinced the government to allow more choice. Another example is online banking in Brazil; for a while, most banks required the use of an horribly invasive "security plugin" for the browser which ran only on Windows. Nowadays, there's also a Linux version of that invasive software, so users of Linux are no longer excluded from online banking on their computers (it's not perfect because it still requires that invasive software, but it's better than before).
    - matheusmoreira 5y ago
      > the creation of the Java version of that application was due to complaints from Linux users Is this a fact? I too remember something along these lines but I wasn't sure. If that's the case, it's amazing. Those Linux users are still citizens and they pay taxes too, they absolutely deserve to be supported even if they are 0.1% of the population. The government has nor should have any profitability excuse. > for a while, most banks required the use of an horribly invasive "security plugin" for the browser Yes, the Warsaw plugin. It's even on the AUR. https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/warsaw/ https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/warsaw/ I HATE that thing. I tried to reverse engineer it once to see what it does and why it slows everything down so much. I caught it intercepting every single network connection. I actually switched banks to get away from this stupid software. Literally malware.
IvanAchlaqullah 5y ago
> Imagine tax software (comercial or gov provided) refusing to work unless you use an OS with TPM support for "security reasons". > I don't think this will happen any time soon (hopefully) but I can see how even making your own hardware might no be enough. This already happened in Android, at least where I lives (Indonesia). Most of Banks, Government Services, and freaking McDonald's apps will refuse to run if your phone are rooted "for security reason".
- TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
  Honest question: how do those apps know your phone is rooted, and can you still use their websites for equivalent functionality?
  - zbrozek 5y ago
    Google provides attestation and it's a constant cat-and-mouse game that the rooters are usually losing. Websites can't tell, but lots of companies don't provide equivalent functionality via website. I know I can't upload check images for remote deposit unless I use the native banking app.
    - IvanAchlaqullah 5y ago
      It's called SafetyNet [1] What irked me is sometime app developers are abusing it without asking themself "Does this app really need to check for rooted phones at all?" I'm okay if banks apps are using that. But why does fast foods apps need to use that? Most people that I know are paying with cash when they order foods online (and you can't hack paper money with rooted android phones). [1] https://developer.android.com/training/safetynet/attestation https://developer.android.com/training/safetynet/attestation
      - blibble 5y ago
        probably becomes a tick on an auditor's checklist like having to rotate your password every 3 weeks and requiring 4 special characters/...
citizenpaul 5y ago
AT&T fiber basically alreadydoes this. You cannot connect without their crappy routerbox that authenticates to the network every so often. Some people have created work arounds but they all requie the att box be plugged in somewhereand forward its certificates
- hilbert42 5y ago
  "AT&T fiber basically alreadydoes this. You cannot connect without their crappy routerbox that authenticates to the network every so often." If you look at the IT/computing/internet position from a global perspective you'll note that there are many outrageous situations that warrant political action. These issues include copyright overreach, gross privacy breaches by the likes of Google, Facebook, et al, to internet protocols done at the bequest of corporations for their own benefit, to the ever-increasing proprietary nature of both software and hardware including CPUs not to mention hidden proprietary firmware code in vehicles that drivers do not have access to, etc. - much of it done under excuse or the false premise of security. If one matter stands above all else then it is that there's no cohesive political opposition of any notable size that's capable of disrupting the political system/establishment to the extent where politicians must take notice. This is a serious problem and it's a fundamental one. For instane, Cory Doctorow noted that the problems with copyright including copyright reform can't be sorted out as the big players have too much money, power and influence and those of us in opposition are just too few in number to make any difference no matter how just and legitiate our cause may be. In essence, in the grand schema of social and political life, copyright essentially amounts to nought - so it's little wonder copyright reform is left to wither and languish (note, this is my interpretation/summary of what he's been saying on various occasions). Even organizations such as the EFF and influential people such as Tim Berners-Lee and Bruce Schneier have very little influence on their own in the face of huge corporate opposition, MS, Google, Facebook, etc not to mention governments, the NSA, GCHQ, etc. In essence, it's all a lost cause unless we can all coalesce together to form one overarching body of international standing that's politically able to fight the forces of darkness. Unfortunately, I'm pessimistic that this will ever come to pass simply because pretty much all of those involved have demonstrated that they're very independent and headstrong and thus they're unlikely to be sufficiently united to be fully effective in a common political cause (one only has to look at the hundreds of disparate Linux distributions to see that). Nevertheless, it'd be wonderful if I were to be proved wrong. In the same vein, I'd suggest that there's a more fundamental problem at stake here. That's the general apathy and unease about democracy currently held by huge swathes of the citizenry. Modern democracy formed hundreds of years ago when life and times were simpler thus the democratic systems that were set up to deal with them were structured accordingly and there's been precious little change since. This brings us back to issues such as the copyright one I've mentioned. Modern democracy has no simple way of dealing with the many thousands of genuine legitimate causes that have arisen out of the complexities of modern-day life. Modern democracies with their mainly (effectively) two-party systems can't effectively accommodate all the nuances of these complexities and like the parable of The Man, the Boy and the Donkey, they try to please all with botched compromises and end up pleasing none (for example, just witness the many political shemozzles over COVID). In my opinion, the only way to overcome such problems is to review and then agree on new - or even which covenants should bind citizens and The State then take it from there (on some issues where there's no common agreement society may have to divide into groups and individuals be bound by the laws of that group, etc.) Whatever the outcome it's highly unlikely to be resoled in the foreseeable future.

matheusmoreira 5y ago

That would be oppressive but at least the unfree activities are restricted to the parts of our life where we must deal with authorities. We are still free to do whatever we want with our free computers in all other cases. > Or even worse, what would happen if gov regulations started requiring ISPs to stop working with non-compliant hardware? I.e. something like requiring network devices to attest they are "oficially" approved before allowing to connect? Looks like we're going to need a concept of networking freedom as well. Ideally, this will be solved by ubiquitous mesh networks that the government can't possibly hope to ever regulate or outlaw. Practically... We'll probably end up living in some dystopian cyberpunk hell since the vast majority of the population is too apathetic to join this cause and help run this decentralized infrastructure.

novok 5y ago
Ad-hoc radio mesh networks are constrained by physics and math as far as throughput goes, they are not competitive with normal networks. Governments have also shown the ability to regulate radio usage very well the world over.
- matheusmoreira 5y ago
  > they are not competitive with normal networks It doesn't have to be. The main goal is a free uncensorable network, if we must pay a price in performance for that, so be it. People use extremely old ThinkPads with libreboot because they're the last processors without Intel Management Engine. > Governments have also shown the ability to regulate radio usage very well the world over. Yes, because usually it's only a few people at a time who are interfering in radio communications. Easy to respond to a few isolated incidents. What if it was everyone at the same time? What if every smartphone in the world could create and maintain its own mesh network? In some places there wouldn't even be a need for ISPs. They'd be needed for long distance connections only.

totetsu 5y ago

I think to do your taxes online in Japan you need an NFC card reader and software b that only works in Windows.

matheusmoreira 5y ago
In Brazil, we have a Java application that works on any system with a JVM. It's pretty nice. Why exclude citizens based on their choice of operating systems?
- cesarb 5y ago
  Note also that this was not always the case. Originally, it was a DOS-only application, then a Windows-only application, then for a while we had both the Windows-only application and the Java application, and then finally the Windows-only application was retired. I believe that the creation of the Java version of that application was due to complaints from Linux users, so this is AFAIK a case where citizens used to be excluded based on their choice of operating systems, and convinced the government to allow more choice. Another example is online banking in Brazil; for a while, most banks required the use of an horribly invasive "security plugin" for the browser which ran only on Windows. Nowadays, there's also a Linux version of that invasive software, so users of Linux are no longer excluded from online banking on their computers (it's not perfect because it still requires that invasive software, but it's better than before).
  - matheusmoreira 5y ago
    > the creation of the Java version of that application was due to complaints from Linux users Is this a fact? I too remember something along these lines but I wasn't sure. If that's the case, it's amazing. Those Linux users are still citizens and they pay taxes too, they absolutely deserve to be supported even if they are 0.1% of the population. The government has nor should have any profitability excuse. > for a while, most banks required the use of an horribly invasive "security plugin" for the browser Yes, the Warsaw plugin. It's even on the AUR. https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/warsaw/ https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/warsaw/ I HATE that thing. I tried to reverse engineer it once to see what it does and why it slows everything down so much. I caught it intercepting every single network connection. I actually switched banks to get away from this stupid software. Literally malware.

IvanAchlaqullah 5y ago

> Imagine tax software (comercial or gov provided) refusing to work unless you use an OS with TPM support for "security reasons". > I don't think this will happen any time soon (hopefully) but I can see how even making your own hardware might no be enough. This already happened in Android, at least where I lives (Indonesia). Most of Banks, Government Services, and freaking McDonald's apps will refuse to run if your phone are rooted "for security reason".

TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
Honest question: how do those apps know your phone is rooted, and can you still use their websites for equivalent functionality?
- zbrozek 5y ago
  Google provides attestation and it's a constant cat-and-mouse game that the rooters are usually losing. Websites can't tell, but lots of companies don't provide equivalent functionality via website. I know I can't upload check images for remote deposit unless I use the native banking app.
  - IvanAchlaqullah 5y ago
    It's called SafetyNet [1] What irked me is sometime app developers are abusing it without asking themself "Does this app really need to check for rooted phones at all?" I'm okay if banks apps are using that. But why does fast foods apps need to use that? Most people that I know are paying with cash when they order foods online (and you can't hack paper money with rooted android phones). [1] https://developer.android.com/training/safetynet/attestation https://developer.android.com/training/safetynet/attestation
    - blibble 5y ago
      probably becomes a tick on an auditor's checklist like having to rotate your password every 3 weeks and requiring 4 special characters/...

citizenpaul 5y ago

AT&T fiber basically alreadydoes this. You cannot connect without their crappy routerbox that authenticates to the network every so often. Some people have created work arounds but they all requie the att box be plugged in somewhereand forward its certificates

hilbert42 5y ago
"AT&T fiber basically alreadydoes this. You cannot connect without their crappy routerbox that authenticates to the network every so often." If you look at the IT/computing/internet position from a global perspective you'll note that there are many outrageous situations that warrant political action. These issues include copyright overreach, gross privacy breaches by the likes of Google, Facebook, et al, to internet protocols done at the bequest of corporations for their own benefit, to the ever-increasing proprietary nature of both software and hardware including CPUs not to mention hidden proprietary firmware code in vehicles that drivers do not have access to, etc. - much of it done under excuse or the false premise of security. If one matter stands above all else then it is that there's no cohesive political opposition of any notable size that's capable of disrupting the political system/establishment to the extent where politicians must take notice. This is a serious problem and it's a fundamental one. For instane, Cory Doctorow noted that the problems with copyright including copyright reform can't be sorted out as the big players have too much money, power and influence and those of us in opposition are just too few in number to make any difference no matter how just and legitiate our cause may be. In essence, in the grand schema of social and political life, copyright essentially amounts to nought - so it's little wonder copyright reform is left to wither and languish (note, this is my interpretation/summary of what he's been saying on various occasions). Even organizations such as the EFF and influential people such as Tim Berners-Lee and Bruce Schneier have very little influence on their own in the face of huge corporate opposition, MS, Google, Facebook, etc not to mention governments, the NSA, GCHQ, etc. In essence, it's all a lost cause unless we can all coalesce together to form one overarching body of international standing that's politically able to fight the forces of darkness. Unfortunately, I'm pessimistic that this will ever come to pass simply because pretty much all of those involved have demonstrated that they're very independent and headstrong and thus they're unlikely to be sufficiently united to be fully effective in a common political cause (one only has to look at the hundreds of disparate Linux distributions to see that). Nevertheless, it'd be wonderful if I were to be proved wrong. In the same vein, I'd suggest that there's a more fundamental problem at stake here. That's the general apathy and unease about democracy currently held by huge swathes of the citizenry. Modern democracy formed hundreds of years ago when life and times were simpler thus the democratic systems that were set up to deal with them were structured accordingly and there's been precious little change since. This brings us back to issues such as the copyright one I've mentioned. Modern democracy has no simple way of dealing with the many thousands of genuine legitimate causes that have arisen out of the complexities of modern-day life. Modern democracies with their mainly (effectively) two-party systems can't effectively accommodate all the nuances of these complexities and like the parable of The Man, the Boy and the Donkey, they try to please all with botched compromises and end up pleasing none (for example, just witness the many political shemozzles over COVID). In my opinion, the only way to overcome such problems is to review and then agree on new - or even which covenants should bind citizens and The State then take it from there (on some issues where there's no common agreement society may have to divide into groups and individuals be bound by the laws of that group, etc.) Whatever the outcome it's highly unlikely to be resoled in the foreseeable future.