4 ms·

What if examining the thing you own endangers somebody (including yourself?) should you be allowed to change its behaviors (consider as an example altering your

by bsedlm 5y ago

What if examining the thing you own endangers somebody (including yourself?) should you be allowed to change its behaviors (consider as an example altering your car in an unsafe way)? As computers are now everywhere and have to do with everything, it is becoming a real political issue to decide if people should be allowed to really modify their computers. Smartphones most certainly do not allow it. PCs do, but they're from the hobby dominated earlier phase of the technology. > Buying locked black boxes that change their functionality without my consent after I bought them is a so utterly broken system that I don't have words for it. I just refer to this as our current situation, and it's going to get worse.

josephcsible 5y ago
> What if examining the thing you own endangers somebody (including yourself?) should you be allowed to change its behaviors (consider as an example altering your car in an unsafe way)? Distinguish "allowed" from "able". It's unsafe to drive around with the brake light bulbs removed, but this doesn't mean that auto manufacturers shouldn't let you change your own brake lights.
- bsedlm 5y ago
  The car example is a terrible example. I only used it because it's a well known example. But I'm actually thinking about digital computer techonology. In computers the difference between able and allowed works very differently. Specially in software-only contexts (hardware will likely remain hackable). I'm trying to draw attention to the software-only case (which is also what the article's about). My nightmare scenario is that by some means, things like web-inpsector tools cease to work, or require a licensed regulated permission to be opened or something. A technology like WASM, it seems to me, accomplishes a similar goal without trying to do it. The goal of WASM is completely unrelated to restricting inspect-ability, which in turn reduces the ability to modify, yet it manages to do this, it raises the bar for changing webpages.
- mindcrime 5y ago
  Distinguish "allowed" from "able". It's unsafe to drive around with the brake light bulbs removed, but this doesn't mean that auto manufacturers shouldn't let you change your own brake lights. Right. And maybe even more key is that the manufacturer "allowing" that does not alleviate you from liability for any bad thing that happens as a result of you choosing to drive around without brake lights. There are other ways to cultivate safety, besides manufacturers locking things down and making them an unmodifiable black-box.
  - bsedlm 5y ago
    > There are other ways to cultivate safety, besides manufacturers locking things down and making them an unmodifiable black-box. Yes, but they're more difficult and costly; a blackbox is cheap, easy, and when done a certain way, it will increase profits. Why wouldn't companies do this? (I wish I could answer this)
pessimizer 5y ago
I own any number of things that could be used to endanger others or myself.
6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago
You should be allowed to risk your own danger.

by bsedlm 5y ago

josephcsible 5y ago

> What if examining the thing you own endangers somebody (including yourself?) should you be allowed to change its behaviors (consider as an example altering your car in an unsafe way)? Distinguish "allowed" from "able". It's unsafe to drive around with the brake light bulbs removed, but this doesn't mean that auto manufacturers shouldn't let you change your own brake lights.

bsedlm 5y ago
The car example is a terrible example. I only used it because it's a well known example. But I'm actually thinking about digital computer techonology. In computers the difference between able and allowed works very differently. Specially in software-only contexts (hardware will likely remain hackable). I'm trying to draw attention to the software-only case (which is also what the article's about). My nightmare scenario is that by some means, things like web-inpsector tools cease to work, or require a licensed regulated permission to be opened or something. A technology like WASM, it seems to me, accomplishes a similar goal without trying to do it. The goal of WASM is completely unrelated to restricting inspect-ability, which in turn reduces the ability to modify, yet it manages to do this, it raises the bar for changing webpages.
mindcrime 5y ago
Distinguish "allowed" from "able". It's unsafe to drive around with the brake light bulbs removed, but this doesn't mean that auto manufacturers shouldn't let you change your own brake lights. Right. And maybe even more key is that the manufacturer "allowing" that does not alleviate you from liability for any bad thing that happens as a result of you choosing to drive around without brake lights. There are other ways to cultivate safety, besides manufacturers locking things down and making them an unmodifiable black-box.
- bsedlm 5y ago
  > There are other ways to cultivate safety, besides manufacturers locking things down and making them an unmodifiable black-box. Yes, but they're more difficult and costly; a blackbox is cheap, easy, and when done a certain way, it will increase profits. Why wouldn't companies do this? (I wish I could answer this)

pessimizer 5y ago

I own any number of things that could be used to endanger others or myself.

6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago

You should be allowed to risk your own danger.