6 ms·

Lockdown - The coming war on general-purpose computing

142 points by fedxc 15y ago

maeon3 15y ago
If we don't bake freedom right into these handheld computers. We will wake up as pets on the land our fathers conquered.
programnature 15y ago
Program or be programmed.
- lani 15y ago
  more like 'use it or lose it' ?
lukev 15y ago
While this is something that we have to remain vigilant about (case in point, vigorous opposition to SOPA), I think the cat's much too far out of the bag to actually worry about general-purpose computing itself. To effectively prohibit any general-purpose computer, the government would effectively have to forbid the sale of transistors and solder. What Microsoft, Apple or any particular hardware or software company chooses to do might be objectionable and annoying but it can hardly threaten open computing itself: I can always build my own PC and install linux.
- Joakal 15y ago
  The government can subsidise certain electronics aimed at blocking criminal content. The only thing people can be aware of are less choices as companies exit due to uncompetitive conditions. In Australia, the mandatory Internet Filter failed. But conspicuously, the government is throwing money at ISPs who voluntarily filter. Now most biggest ISPs are adopting it. I predict when companies adopt NBN to leave the one digit megabit era, they'll have to have "appropriate criminal content filters in place" in order to be eligible (Taking a note from UK's internet censorship). tl;dr: The government can use capitalism to kill freedom of choice. Slower, silent yet deadly. Edit: The government could make an Internet User Owns Device Act that dictates that the hardware bought can not be sold with such remote access to removing content on the device. The user has to specifically opt-in for the remote removal service. Essentially, people can own their own devices they bought.
  - aiscott 15y ago
    I'd hardly call the nefarious actions you describe capitalism. Capitalism is private property and free markets. That said, I agree that governments can and do interfere with free markets and property ownership to push their agenda.
    - njharman 15y ago
      Free-market capitalism is only one several capitalist subtypes, a fringe one at that. Also it's "private ownership of capital or means of production" thus ensuring a few masters rule over many wage slaves.
      - aiscott 15y ago
        Good grief. Government ownership of means of production is where few masters rule. Startups and entrepreneurs are what you get with private ownership.
- morganw 15y ago
  > I can always build my own PC If computers where UEFI Secure Boot can be disabled are allowed in your country.
- waqf 15y ago
  The government won't forbid the sale of transistors and solder. They don't have to, for two reasons. Firstly, nobody can build a computer to the standard of a contemporary desktop out of transistors and solder. It simply can't be done, even if you don't care about its size or power consumption. You can build a little 4-bit computer, but that's no use to you. So they don't have to prevent all unsecured computation, they just have to prevent you doing more than, say, a billion cycles of computation. Second, even if the bar is much lower than that — say, you can buy all the chips you need, you just can't buy them preassembled into circuit boards — that's already an effective suppression of general purpose computation. Maybe you personally have the skills and the time to build a computer from those pieces, but I and most people don't. So I've been effectively prevented from computation. I won't write programs and post them on the net, and the online programming communities will dwindle to a small bunch of experts. And once almost nobody builds or uses general-purpose computers, it's much easier for the government to say "We can't think of a legitimate reason you need a computer, therefore, anyone who has one is a terrorist/pirate/communist." QED.
  - sliverstorm 15y ago
    The only devices I am aware of that are regulated to the point of "you must assemble them yourself" are hand grenades and fully automatic weapons. It may just be me, but I don't think our society views general purpose computers as quite that dangerous.
    - lisper 15y ago
      Yet.
    - waqf 15y ago
      I wouldn't say that society views industrial quantities of fertilizer as dangerous, but the FBI keeps track of who's buying it.
      - sliverstorm 15y ago
        Industrial quantities of fertilizer IS dangerous. The Oslo bombing wasn't even that long ago, have you forgotten?
- InclinedPlane 15y ago
  Yes, of course, but that's irrelevant. Drug prohibition doesn't stop drug use either. But it leads to oppression and a vast amount of misery regardless.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
lallysingh 15y ago
Really, what's this trollbait doing on HN's front page?
gaius 15y ago
I am prepared for the coming infocalypse, I have dusted off my old BBC Micro and am re-learning 6502 assembly language.
- rbanffy 15y ago
  Re-learn? I never forgot it. ;-)
- andrewdk 15y ago
  I knew I rescued that Commodore 64 from the side of the road for a reason!
- Natsu 15y ago
  And here I have my trusty 8088 (plus math coprocessor!), maxed out RAM, two 5 1/4" disk drives, CGA monitor, and a gigantic 10 MB hard drive!
- mst 15y ago
  I'd seriously consider dusting off a RISC PC or late model Archimedes instead; ARM26 is a joy to work with compared to 6502 (at least for me) and the RISC OS system is quite beautiful to work with. Plus, I (perhaps naively) figure that there'll be plenty of ARM chips continuing to be shipped in devices where I can somehow get the thing to do what I want, whereas I'm not so sure the 6502 architecture would be so widely useful.
amitparikh 15y ago
The article raises some interesting points, but I think the author makes a major error by misusing the terms 'spyware' and 'malware' multiple times throughout. The term 'spyware', in particular, has a well-defined meaning which indicates that the malicious software is communicating data back to the creator in order to exploit the user unknowingly. The author of this article uses the term to refer to non-general-purpose computers, and I think that's exceptionally misleading. The iPad could be considered a non-general-purpose computer, but most people would not go around labeling it as coming pre-loaded with 'spyware'.
- incomethax 15y ago
  That's exactly what Doctorow is arguing. He says that we don't actually have a way to make a computer capable of only running specific applications, we just have general purpose computers that are loaded with spyware/malware to prevent running every program as an approximation to a specialized computer.
  - amitparikh 15y ago
    Yup. I was just pointing out the misuse of the terminology. Specialized computers certainly are, as you say, just general-purpose computers with restrictive software. But calling all of the restrictive software 'spyware' or 'malware' is unfair to a multitude of devices that are intended to operate in a specialized way. I think it's scare-tactics and a failure of the author to generalize all restrictive software as 'spyware' or 'malware'
    - wladimir 15y ago
      That's only a minute technical distinction. It is spyware, because the only way to prevent users from doing general purpose computing is to spy in them. Spying, in this case, is defined as "remote surveillance and control". For example, forcing a firmware upgrade when a way is found to get around code signing restrictions. It is very simple: If you are not in control of a device, someone else is.
- jclulow 15y ago
colmmacc 15y ago
I wanted to repeat a comment I made in the thread about Cory's talk - as I'd be interested in the answer. Many of today's printers, scanners and image editors already ship with restrictions designed to prevent the counterfeiting of currency. In effect general-purpose digital imaging has already been restricted. What I wonder is how are these restrictions implemented, legally? Do laws or regulations require it? Or is it ad-hoc? Are OEM vendors persuaded or paid to implement it by the proprietors of the pattern matching technology (who in turn sell it to currency mints), or they concerned about vicarious liability if they don't? I'm interested because this may serve as a template for how other restrictions are implemented in future.
- GigabyteCoin 15y ago
  It's done today purely out of cost restrictions. Why build a printer that you can plug a monitor into, power some usb devices, and also connect a keyboard and mouse to? It would be entirely pointless and too expensive for a manufacturer to do that.
  - Retric 15y ago
    Your missing his point. Printers have anti counter-fitting measures built in and it costs more money to build them that way. http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/surveillance/2008-07-13-printer_N.htm http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/surveillance/2008-07-13-pr... It's mostly a non issue, but there are always edge cases. For example there is software that let's you print backup data that can latter be scanned in which was somewhat hampered by this technology. 600DPI * 600DPI * 24 bits * 8.5inch * 11 inch = ~100mb a page which is not all that amazing today, but still useful in the early 90's.
    - sliverstorm 15y ago
      I'm glad to hear someone else who isn't freaking out over it. You would not believe some of the tin foil hats that come out when discussing these measures.
    - finnw 15y ago
J3L2404 15y ago
Cory is a tremendous fiction writer, but this particular article isn't. Sure the government passes bad laws. They always will. How did prohibition work out? A talented hacker has much more power than any official. If people want 'locked' systems that can't be hacked it shouldn't ruffle your feathers. They're not hackers. If you close the door on reality it will come in the window every time. The sky is always falling. The end is always near.
- adrianN 15y ago
  But unlike during the prohibition, the vast majority of the people doesn't really care about whether they can run arbitrary programs on their computer. Most are content if it runs Facebook. A sizeable portion would probably even like computers that are as realiable as a dishwasher because they run only certified programs.
phelmig 15y ago
I saw Cory's talk at the 28c3 in Berlin. There is a video available here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg You might agree not on everything but I think it's a great talk to give non-technical people an idea what might happen.
- umarmung 15y ago
  This is a fantastic talk, thank you for the link! It covers much more than even the Lockdown article and the questions from the audience at the end are both interesting and lead to even more interesting responses.
jamesbritt 15y ago
Previous discussion: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3400449 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3400449
sown 15y ago
If this happens, does this mean that manufacturers or vendors will have to practically give away computers? They're already so cheap that even the slightest tech-savvy consumer will just go ahead and pay a tiny, small premium for the ability to do whatever.
codehalo 15y ago
Whether hardware is locked down or not, it will soon become quite obvious that it is the internet that has all the value. Be it an open, a general or proprietary device, they will ALL see their value diminish without and within the network. This network cannot be unborn.
- SkyMarshal 15y ago
  >This network cannot be unborn. People keep repeating that, like an article of faith. I really wouldn't put it past the smart folks at NSA or wherever to figure out a way to gradually turn the Internet into Cable TV. I don't think the Internet's current ability to "interpret censorship as damage an route around it" is something we should take completely for granted.
nicktelford 15y ago
I find it somewhat ironic that DRM, SOPA and all the other various techniques designed to prevent copyright infringement are being championed by the politicians of a country who's attitude towards firearms control is "guns don't kill people, people kill people". Movies don't download themselves, people download them.

142 points by fedxc 15y ago

If we don't bake freedom right into these handheld computers. We will wake up as pets on the land our fathers conquered.

programnature 15y ago

Program or be programmed.

lani 15y ago
more like 'use it or lose it' ?

lukev 15y ago

While this is something that we have to remain vigilant about (case in point, vigorous opposition to SOPA), I think the cat's much too far out of the bag to actually worry about general-purpose computing itself. To effectively prohibit any general-purpose computer, the government would effectively have to forbid the sale of transistors and solder. What Microsoft, Apple or any particular hardware or software company chooses to do might be objectionable and annoying but it can hardly threaten open computing itself: I can always build my own PC and install linux.

Joakal 15y ago
The government can subsidise certain electronics aimed at blocking criminal content. The only thing people can be aware of are less choices as companies exit due to uncompetitive conditions. In Australia, the mandatory Internet Filter failed. But conspicuously, the government is throwing money at ISPs who voluntarily filter. Now most biggest ISPs are adopting it. I predict when companies adopt NBN to leave the one digit megabit era, they'll have to have "appropriate criminal content filters in place" in order to be eligible (Taking a note from UK's internet censorship). tl;dr: The government can use capitalism to kill freedom of choice. Slower, silent yet deadly. Edit: The government could make an Internet User Owns Device Act that dictates that the hardware bought can not be sold with such remote access to removing content on the device. The user has to specifically opt-in for the remote removal service. Essentially, people can own their own devices they bought.
- aiscott 15y ago
  I'd hardly call the nefarious actions you describe capitalism. Capitalism is private property and free markets. That said, I agree that governments can and do interfere with free markets and property ownership to push their agenda.
  - njharman 15y ago
    Free-market capitalism is only one several capitalist subtypes, a fringe one at that. Also it's "private ownership of capital or means of production" thus ensuring a few masters rule over many wage slaves.
    - aiscott 15y ago
      Good grief. Government ownership of means of production is where few masters rule. Startups and entrepreneurs are what you get with private ownership.
morganw 15y ago
> I can always build my own PC If computers where UEFI Secure Boot can be disabled are allowed in your country.
waqf 15y ago
The government won't forbid the sale of transistors and solder. They don't have to, for two reasons. Firstly, nobody can build a computer to the standard of a contemporary desktop out of transistors and solder. It simply can't be done, even if you don't care about its size or power consumption. You can build a little 4-bit computer, but that's no use to you. So they don't have to prevent all unsecured computation, they just have to prevent you doing more than, say, a billion cycles of computation. Second, even if the bar is much lower than that — say, you can buy all the chips you need, you just can't buy them preassembled into circuit boards — that's already an effective suppression of general purpose computation. Maybe you personally have the skills and the time to build a computer from those pieces, but I and most people don't. So I've been effectively prevented from computation. I won't write programs and post them on the net, and the online programming communities will dwindle to a small bunch of experts. And once almost nobody builds or uses general-purpose computers, it's much easier for the government to say "We can't think of a legitimate reason you need a computer, therefore, anyone who has one is a terrorist/pirate/communist." QED.
- sliverstorm 15y ago
  The only devices I am aware of that are regulated to the point of "you must assemble them yourself" are hand grenades and fully automatic weapons. It may just be me, but I don't think our society views general purpose computers as quite that dangerous.
  - lisper 15y ago
    Yet.
  - waqf 15y ago
    I wouldn't say that society views industrial quantities of fertilizer as dangerous, but the FBI keeps track of who's buying it.
    - sliverstorm 15y ago
      Industrial quantities of fertilizer IS dangerous. The Oslo bombing wasn't even that long ago, have you forgotten?
InclinedPlane 15y ago
Yes, of course, but that's irrelevant. Drug prohibition doesn't stop drug use either. But it leads to oppression and a vast amount of misery regardless.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

lallysingh 15y ago

Really, what's this trollbait doing on HN's front page?

gaius 15y ago

I am prepared for the coming infocalypse, I have dusted off my old BBC Micro and am re-learning 6502 assembly language.

rbanffy 15y ago
Re-learn? I never forgot it. ;-)
andrewdk 15y ago
I knew I rescued that Commodore 64 from the side of the road for a reason!
Natsu 15y ago
And here I have my trusty 8088 (plus math coprocessor!), maxed out RAM, two 5 1/4" disk drives, CGA monitor, and a gigantic 10 MB hard drive!
mst 15y ago
I'd seriously consider dusting off a RISC PC or late model Archimedes instead; ARM26 is a joy to work with compared to 6502 (at least for me) and the RISC OS system is quite beautiful to work with. Plus, I (perhaps naively) figure that there'll be plenty of ARM chips continuing to be shipped in devices where I can somehow get the thing to do what I want, whereas I'm not so sure the 6502 architecture would be so widely useful.

amitparikh 15y ago

The article raises some interesting points, but I think the author makes a major error by misusing the terms 'spyware' and 'malware' multiple times throughout. The term 'spyware', in particular, has a well-defined meaning which indicates that the malicious software is communicating data back to the creator in order to exploit the user unknowingly. The author of this article uses the term to refer to non-general-purpose computers, and I think that's exceptionally misleading. The iPad could be considered a non-general-purpose computer, but most people would not go around labeling it as coming pre-loaded with 'spyware'.

incomethax 15y ago
That's exactly what Doctorow is arguing. He says that we don't actually have a way to make a computer capable of only running specific applications, we just have general purpose computers that are loaded with spyware/malware to prevent running every program as an approximation to a specialized computer.
- amitparikh 15y ago
  Yup. I was just pointing out the misuse of the terminology. Specialized computers certainly are, as you say, just general-purpose computers with restrictive software. But calling all of the restrictive software 'spyware' or 'malware' is unfair to a multitude of devices that are intended to operate in a specialized way. I think it's scare-tactics and a failure of the author to generalize all restrictive software as 'spyware' or 'malware'
  - wladimir 15y ago
    That's only a minute technical distinction. It is spyware, because the only way to prevent users from doing general purpose computing is to spy in them. Spying, in this case, is defined as "remote surveillance and control". For example, forcing a firmware upgrade when a way is found to get around code signing restrictions. It is very simple: If you are not in control of a device, someone else is.
jclulow 15y ago

colmmacc 15y ago

I wanted to repeat a comment I made in the thread about Cory's talk - as I'd be interested in the answer. Many of today's printers, scanners and image editors already ship with restrictions designed to prevent the counterfeiting of currency. In effect general-purpose digital imaging has already been restricted. What I wonder is how are these restrictions implemented, legally? Do laws or regulations require it? Or is it ad-hoc? Are OEM vendors persuaded or paid to implement it by the proprietors of the pattern matching technology (who in turn sell it to currency mints), or they concerned about vicarious liability if they don't? I'm interested because this may serve as a template for how other restrictions are implemented in future.

GigabyteCoin 15y ago
It's done today purely out of cost restrictions. Why build a printer that you can plug a monitor into, power some usb devices, and also connect a keyboard and mouse to? It would be entirely pointless and too expensive for a manufacturer to do that.
- Retric 15y ago
  Your missing his point. Printers have anti counter-fitting measures built in and it costs more money to build them that way. http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/surveillance/2008-07-13-printer_N.htm http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/surveillance/2008-07-13-pr... It's mostly a non issue, but there are always edge cases. For example there is software that let's you print backup data that can latter be scanned in which was somewhat hampered by this technology. 600DPI * 600DPI * 24 bits * 8.5inch * 11 inch = ~100mb a page which is not all that amazing today, but still useful in the early 90's.
  - sliverstorm 15y ago
    I'm glad to hear someone else who isn't freaking out over it. You would not believe some of the tin foil hats that come out when discussing these measures.
  - finnw 15y ago

J3L2404 15y ago

Cory is a tremendous fiction writer, but this particular article isn't. Sure the government passes bad laws. They always will. How did prohibition work out? A talented hacker has much more power than any official. If people want 'locked' systems that can't be hacked it shouldn't ruffle your feathers. They're not hackers. If you close the door on reality it will come in the window every time. The sky is always falling. The end is always near.

adrianN 15y ago
But unlike during the prohibition, the vast majority of the people doesn't really care about whether they can run arbitrary programs on their computer. Most are content if it runs Facebook. A sizeable portion would probably even like computers that are as realiable as a dishwasher because they run only certified programs.

phelmig 15y ago

I saw Cory's talk at the 28c3 in Berlin. There is a video available here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg You might agree not on everything but I think it's a great talk to give non-technical people an idea what might happen.

umarmung 15y ago
This is a fantastic talk, thank you for the link! It covers much more than even the Lockdown article and the questions from the audience at the end are both interesting and lead to even more interesting responses.

jamesbritt 15y ago

Previous discussion: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3400449 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3400449

sown 15y ago

If this happens, does this mean that manufacturers or vendors will have to practically give away computers? They're already so cheap that even the slightest tech-savvy consumer will just go ahead and pay a tiny, small premium for the ability to do whatever.

codehalo 15y ago

Whether hardware is locked down or not, it will soon become quite obvious that it is the internet that has all the value. Be it an open, a general or proprietary device, they will ALL see their value diminish without and within the network. This network cannot be unborn.

SkyMarshal 15y ago
>This network cannot be unborn. People keep repeating that, like an article of faith. I really wouldn't put it past the smart folks at NSA or wherever to figure out a way to gradually turn the Internet into Cable TV. I don't think the Internet's current ability to "interpret censorship as damage an route around it" is something we should take completely for granted.

nicktelford 15y ago

I find it somewhat ironic that DRM, SOPA and all the other various techniques designed to prevent copyright infringement are being championed by the politicians of a country who's attitude towards firearms control is "guns don't kill people, people kill people". Movies don't download themselves, people download them.