3 ms·

>the question is whether the security benefit is worth the loss of freedom. At least as far as Benjamin Franklin would tell you: No.

stevefan1999 4y ago
Absolutely agree on here as Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
- mjg59 4y ago
  The freedom to choose which software runs on your computer is also the freedom to choose that certain software shouldn't run on your computer. The freedom to make that decision should be left up to the individuals rather than being imposed on them, but making an explicit choice that my computer should only run specific firmware builds is an expression of freedom, not a rejection of it.
  - account42 4y ago
    Except that describes a fantasy reality and not our reality where the user has no say and even if you are lucky enough to be able to run the software that you want it won't have access to the keys demanded by third parties like the media industry. The mere existence of "trusted comuting" is a threat to free computing.
- simonh 4y ago
  The key term there is “essential liberty”, by which he meant political rights. Choosing to delegate management of a computer’s firmware to a third party firstly isn’t giving away any political rights, and is a rational choice in some circumstances. It’s a choice I might make for some computers I own or operate, and not others. Suggesting that this choice has anything to do with what Franklin was talking about is nonsense on stilts.
  - salawat 4y ago
    Yes, delegating firmware management unaudited is giving away political rights. You do not know what is in there. The ones who write the code make the rules. The ones who make the rules, wield power. Those that are attracted to the exercise of power, inevitably abuse it. Trying to handwave that "computer says no" couldn't possibly be abused to political ends is literally shoving your head in the sand. DRM would not be a thing if computing was fundamentally apolitical.
    - simonh 4y ago
      > The ones who write the code make the rules… Any code I didn’t write myself, from the ground up using no third party components, in a language I developed, ‘could’ possibly be abused in this way. Even then, do I have to also write the microcode in the chip as well, and supervise the fab? This extreme absolutist stance is completely non viable. I certainly don’t see how I could live life taking that level of extreme paranoid seriously, or how anyone could in an advanced technological society. The whole point of laws and government is to outsource such concerns. That’s why free speech, the rule of law and democracy matter so much. Those are the essential freedoms he was talking about. Everything else is based on those, because with those you don’t need to trust the vendor, because your legal rights will be protected. So sure, essential freedoms are exactly that, essential, but extending that to absurd lengths is fuzzy thinking that obscures what’s actually important by confusing it with things that aren’t practically attainable generally anyway.
KyeRussell 4y ago
[flagged]
- paulmd 4y ago
  Americans are very uncritically accepting of their system of government in general. It gets taught as this "wow, our system of checks and balances, isn't it amazing!?" and by and large is never criticized or substantially analyzed as to whether it's a system that produces good outcomes. It simply is. The largest criticism imo is that it biases against action. Every dimensionality of the population gets represented (popular, geographic, regional, etc) and if any segment of the population disagrees, the whole process can be dragged to a halt. And as the Polish Sejm showed hundreds of years ago... the liberum veto is a terrible idea politically. And everyone knows that, but, what is the threshold at which it becomes a bad idea? 90% consensus? 70%? Pure majority? The US system requires very high consensus as some issues show - there are some issues with >90% popular support that still cannot get passed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberum_veto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberum_veto Consensus building is good but at the same time there always needs to be someone in the drivers' seat, the idea of "split government" in the sense of the executive and legislature being opposed is fundamentally and innately a bad idea that people just uncritically accept because that's how it is. Again, the executive being the leader of the coalition that controls the legislature is a good way to do that - and then we can work on making the legislature represent the population fairly in the desired ways. Most of the problems with the US really boil down to "bias against action" and "split government" and "the senate in its entire conception". And federalism really is not great when taken to the degree that the US takes it, either, but again that's something where it's taught as "wow, federalism, how great!" and its downsides are never mentioned. Having regions of the country where human rights are 100 years in the past is pretty bad. Gay marriage wasn't constitutionally protected until like 10 years ago, and it was by court decree, not actual constitutional process. Texas just goes around killing people, some absurd % of the executions happen there and the evidentiary bar is quite low. Social services tend to be similarly scant in these regions and again, it’s not a good thing that states can just choose not to fund (or to place arbitrary restrictions on) senior care or other funding for vulnerable populations. Federalism is supposed to be backstopped by a minimum bar that in practice doesn’t exist in the states, in human rights or social services or many other areas. Unfortunately, a lot of this was historically necessary to get the US built - you wouldn't have gotten the slave states onboard if they didn't have disproportionate representation and mechanisms for dragging abolitionism to a halt. And it's produced one civil war and a half-dozen-odd constitutional crises over the centuries. But that part gets separated away from the “design choices”, and people only hear the positive. It's not that they're all inherently bad either but they're deliberate design-decisions that have consequences both positive and negative, they are "tech debt" from politicians who wanted to move quickly and break things, and now they're these sacred cows. And in hindsight some of those design-decisions have been ones that had immensely negative consequences and can't be easily undone... but they were necessary at the time.

stevefan1999 4y ago

Absolutely agree on here as Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

mjg59 4y ago
The freedom to choose which software runs on your computer is also the freedom to choose that certain software shouldn't run on your computer. The freedom to make that decision should be left up to the individuals rather than being imposed on them, but making an explicit choice that my computer should only run specific firmware builds is an expression of freedom, not a rejection of it.
- account42 4y ago
  Except that describes a fantasy reality and not our reality where the user has no say and even if you are lucky enough to be able to run the software that you want it won't have access to the keys demanded by third parties like the media industry. The mere existence of "trusted comuting" is a threat to free computing.
simonh 4y ago
The key term there is “essential liberty”, by which he meant political rights. Choosing to delegate management of a computer’s firmware to a third party firstly isn’t giving away any political rights, and is a rational choice in some circumstances. It’s a choice I might make for some computers I own or operate, and not others. Suggesting that this choice has anything to do with what Franklin was talking about is nonsense on stilts.
- salawat 4y ago
  Yes, delegating firmware management unaudited is giving away political rights. You do not know what is in there. The ones who write the code make the rules. The ones who make the rules, wield power. Those that are attracted to the exercise of power, inevitably abuse it. Trying to handwave that "computer says no" couldn't possibly be abused to political ends is literally shoving your head in the sand. DRM would not be a thing if computing was fundamentally apolitical.
  - simonh 4y ago
    > The ones who write the code make the rules… Any code I didn’t write myself, from the ground up using no third party components, in a language I developed, ‘could’ possibly be abused in this way. Even then, do I have to also write the microcode in the chip as well, and supervise the fab? This extreme absolutist stance is completely non viable. I certainly don’t see how I could live life taking that level of extreme paranoid seriously, or how anyone could in an advanced technological society. The whole point of laws and government is to outsource such concerns. That’s why free speech, the rule of law and democracy matter so much. Those are the essential freedoms he was talking about. Everything else is based on those, because with those you don’t need to trust the vendor, because your legal rights will be protected. So sure, essential freedoms are exactly that, essential, but extending that to absurd lengths is fuzzy thinking that obscures what’s actually important by confusing it with things that aren’t practically attainable generally anyway.

KyeRussell 4y ago

[flagged]

paulmd 4y ago
Americans are very uncritically accepting of their system of government in general. It gets taught as this "wow, our system of checks and balances, isn't it amazing!?" and by and large is never criticized or substantially analyzed as to whether it's a system that produces good outcomes. It simply is. The largest criticism imo is that it biases against action. Every dimensionality of the population gets represented (popular, geographic, regional, etc) and if any segment of the population disagrees, the whole process can be dragged to a halt. And as the Polish Sejm showed hundreds of years ago... the liberum veto is a terrible idea politically. And everyone knows that, but, what is the threshold at which it becomes a bad idea? 90% consensus? 70%? Pure majority? The US system requires very high consensus as some issues show - there are some issues with >90% popular support that still cannot get passed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberum_veto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberum_veto Consensus building is good but at the same time there always needs to be someone in the drivers' seat, the idea of "split government" in the sense of the executive and legislature being opposed is fundamentally and innately a bad idea that people just uncritically accept because that's how it is. Again, the executive being the leader of the coalition that controls the legislature is a good way to do that - and then we can work on making the legislature represent the population fairly in the desired ways. Most of the problems with the US really boil down to "bias against action" and "split government" and "the senate in its entire conception". And federalism really is not great when taken to the degree that the US takes it, either, but again that's something where it's taught as "wow, federalism, how great!" and its downsides are never mentioned. Having regions of the country where human rights are 100 years in the past is pretty bad. Gay marriage wasn't constitutionally protected until like 10 years ago, and it was by court decree, not actual constitutional process. Texas just goes around killing people, some absurd % of the executions happen there and the evidentiary bar is quite low. Social services tend to be similarly scant in these regions and again, it’s not a good thing that states can just choose not to fund (or to place arbitrary restrictions on) senior care or other funding for vulnerable populations. Federalism is supposed to be backstopped by a minimum bar that in practice doesn’t exist in the states, in human rights or social services or many other areas. Unfortunately, a lot of this was historically necessary to get the US built - you wouldn't have gotten the slave states onboard if they didn't have disproportionate representation and mechanisms for dragging abolitionism to a halt. And it's produced one civil war and a half-dozen-odd constitutional crises over the centuries. But that part gets separated away from the “design choices”, and people only hear the positive. It's not that they're all inherently bad either but they're deliberate design-decisions that have consequences both positive and negative, they are "tech debt" from politicians who wanted to move quickly and break things, and now they're these sacred cows. And in hindsight some of those design-decisions have been ones that had immensely negative consequences and can't be easily undone... but they were necessary at the time.