3 ms·

You're decrying a technology not for its current benefits, but for its future potential unrealized risks. I doubt banking through a VM will ever be disallowed.

• mindslight 5y ago
  It's not a "risk". It is a situation implied by the capabilities of a technology, with straightforward market incentives that will make that situation highly relevant. Your position is akin to asserting that a large asteroid headed directly at earth is merely a "risk" without any specific argument for why the projections are wrong. And unlike abstractly debating this stuff in the early 2000's, we have already seen what has occurred with platform signing keys! Increasingly locked down proprietary OS's, arbitrary top-down restrictions on what software can be run, and everpresent centralized control. All in the name of "security" which really means corporate predictability (aka "authoritarianism"). So really your comment is like another asteroid has already hit and obliterated the moon, as was predicted by the same projections, and yet you're still treating the straightforward implication as a hypothetical. And was your response to my example supposed to be a counterargument? I don't see how general VMs would ever be allowed [0]. But sure assuming they are, go through and replace "VM" with "non signed OS" if you'd like. So I'm supposed to buy and setup MS Windows [1] to access an online bank - simply to appease some out of touch risk assessor? [0] it would mean verifying arbitrary dom0 OS's (eg NixOS) and arbitrary hypervisors (eg libvirt+kvm) [1] for which my current security policy is to disallow it from connecting to the Internet after it has touched any personal information