4 ms·
In principle, your are correct and one should act accordingly. In practice, it's an arms race. Plug some more sensors and hardware enclave on the next smartpho
by 3np 4y ago
In principle, your are correct and one should act accordingly.
In practice, it's an arms race. Plug some more sensors and hardware enclave on the next smartphone generation and flame up the zero-trust hype and it'll be a while until you can covertly unlock your spouse's phone or steal your flatmates custodied crypto even as a well-funded hacker.
The colletaral damage of individual autonomy as end-user devices, apps, and services are dragged along and slowly becoming the only gateways into the financial system and large parts of the private and public social room is rather quite unfortunate.
- adrianmonk 4y agoWell, now you get into DRM and its kin. Which is really a conflict of values. If party A (the owner/user) has control of the hardware, there are certain things it enables, like doing what you want with the hardware you paid for. If party B (the vendor/manufacturer) has control of the hardware, it enables other things like participating in games with stronger anti-cheat mechanisms or quicker authentication when doing a payment. Some of these things have value to only one party, and some of them might have value to both. You're never going to make everybody happy when values conflict. Plus it gets extra complicated because values vary. Maybe one end user cares less about control and more about convenience, and another end user is the opposite.