5 ms·

Stupidest take I've seen today. There are already myriad unlockable devices. What a bizarre fantasy you have constructed.

by qmr 2y ago

emmelaich 2y ago
Let me clarify .. if you have an unlocked device, then software vendors should be able to ensure that their software is non-functional on such a device. Given that, then anything very useful would be rendered non-functional, resulting in the device probably being useless.
- yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
  Why should a software vendor be allowed to say what I can and can't run on my machine?
  - jmb99 2y ago
    Because it’s their software? It is well within your bank’s rights to deny you access to their online banking system for pretty much any (technical) reason they choose; why are you entitled to run their app on what they deem to be an insecure platform? If you don’t like it, either pick a different bank or deal with not having access to their software. Freedom cuts both ways here; if you want absolute freedom to do whatever you want with your device, why should software vendors not have absolute freedom to choose what platforms their software is permitted to run on? Obviously none of this applies to FOSS.
    - raxxor 2y ago
      They do have that right as long as they do not sabotage the integrity of the system. Personally I would quickly use other software developers and banks. Competition would sort that out quickly. Today banks don't want to be liable for user error that lead to scams. They adhere to such policies out of fear, but they don't help as the most prominent victims of scams are still the same people, open system or not.
    - yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
      > why are you entitled to run their app on what they deem to be an insecure platform? For starters, because they're wrong, and they're wrong in a way that makes their users less secure. Allowing the use of Windows or Android with open CVEs while blocking completely up-to-date Linux or aftermarket Android ROMs clearly shows that this nonsense is contrary to security. > If you don’t like it, either pick a different bank or deal with not having access to their software. And that's the next biggest reason: Customers don't have the same amount of power that the companies have, so it's perfectly reasonable to tilt things in the customer's favor.
- hooverd 2y ago
  [flagged]
- oneshtein 2y ago
  The vendor can install a Trojan horse on every phone, then activate it silently when his customers does something suspicious. It also very useful feature for law enforcement agencies and foreign spies.
  - emmelaich 2y ago
    You have to trust the vendor. You have no choice. You cannot personally tell whether it is trustworthy or not.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]

Stupidest take I've seen today. There are already myriad unlockable devices. What a bizarre fantasy you have constructed.

by qmr 2y ago

Stupidest take I've seen today. There are already myriad unlockable devices. What a bizarre fantasy you have constructed.

emmelaich 2y ago

Let me clarify .. if you have an unlocked device, then software vendors should be able to ensure that their software is non-functional on such a device. Given that, then anything very useful would be rendered non-functional, resulting in the device probably being useless.

yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
Why should a software vendor be allowed to say what I can and can't run on my machine?
- jmb99 2y ago
  Because it’s their software? It is well within your bank’s rights to deny you access to their online banking system for pretty much any (technical) reason they choose; why are you entitled to run their app on what they deem to be an insecure platform? If you don’t like it, either pick a different bank or deal with not having access to their software. Freedom cuts both ways here; if you want absolute freedom to do whatever you want with your device, why should software vendors not have absolute freedom to choose what platforms their software is permitted to run on? Obviously none of this applies to FOSS.
  - raxxor 2y ago
    They do have that right as long as they do not sabotage the integrity of the system. Personally I would quickly use other software developers and banks. Competition would sort that out quickly. Today banks don't want to be liable for user error that lead to scams. They adhere to such policies out of fear, but they don't help as the most prominent victims of scams are still the same people, open system or not.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
    > why are you entitled to run their app on what they deem to be an insecure platform? For starters, because they're wrong, and they're wrong in a way that makes their users less secure. Allowing the use of Windows or Android with open CVEs while blocking completely up-to-date Linux or aftermarket Android ROMs clearly shows that this nonsense is contrary to security. > If you don’t like it, either pick a different bank or deal with not having access to their software. And that's the next biggest reason: Customers don't have the same amount of power that the companies have, so it's perfectly reasonable to tilt things in the customer's favor.
hooverd 2y ago
[flagged]
oneshtein 2y ago
The vendor can install a Trojan horse on every phone, then activate it silently when his customers does something suspicious. It also very useful feature for law enforcement agencies and foreign spies.
- emmelaich 2y ago
  You have to trust the vendor. You have no choice. You cannot personally tell whether it is trustworthy or not.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]