10 ms·

There are a ton of products on the market that are vastly more dangerous than computers: guns, cars, motorcycles, bicycles, chainsaws, table saws, cigarettes, a

by lapcat 2y ago

There are a ton of products on the market that are vastly more dangerous than computers: guns, cars, motorcycles, bicycles, chainsaws, table saws, cigarettes, alcohol, junk food. Yes, consumers do sometimes harm themselves by using these products. That's the price of freedom. I think it's bizarre that we treat computers as the most dangerous products in the world that for some reason demand paternalism, when none of these other products are locked down by the vendor. The reason that computers are locked down by the vendors is not that computers are somehow more dangerous than other things we buy. The reason is simply that it's technically possible to lock down computers, and vendors have found that it's massively, MASSIVELY profitable to do so. It's all about protecting their profits, not protecting us. We know that the crApp Store is full of scams that steal literally millions of dollars from consumers, and we know that the computer vendors violate our privacy by phoning home with "analytics" covering everything we do on the devices. This is not intended for our benefit but rather for theirs.

mixdup 2y ago
There's a difference between being able to buy something dangerous and being forced to do so
- lapcat 2y ago
  Forced? I'm not sure I understand. My guess is that you're assuming, wrongly, that vendor locked devices are "safe" and unlocked devices are "unsafe". All computers that are connected to the internet are unsafe in some ways. The most dangerous apps on your computer are the vendor's own built-in web browser and messaging app. Also, the vendor-controlled software stores are unsafe cesspools. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. Moreover, the vendors deliberately make it impossible for you to protect yourself. For example, iOS makes it difficult or impossible to inspect the file system directly, and you can't install software such as Little Snitch on iOS that stops 3rd party apps—as well as 1st party apps!—from phoning home. In any case, most computers, including Apple computers, have parental controls and the like, so you can lock down your own device to your heart's content if you don't trust yourself, or you don't trust the family member that you're gifting the device.
  - mixdup 2y ago
    Today, yes, I can lock down the iPhone I give to my son, but if it can be unlocked to run arbitrary software then he can in theory unlock it. Yes, it is on me to continue to monitor the device to make sure he hasn't done it, but the point stands And the assumption you refer to, there are varying definitions for "safe". Is a device with a locked bootloader 100% safe in all use cases and all circumstances? Of course not. But me being able to reasonably trust that someone hasn't put a compromised version of the OS on the device, or, won't be able to put a different firmware on the device to brute force my encrypted contents is a bit of safety in a certain set of circumstances that I want in my device If Apple, or anyone else, were precluded from locking the boot loader yes, I would be forced to buy a device that the FBI or anyone else could in theory poke around on enough to try to get at my data
    - lapcat 2y ago
      > Today, yes, I can lock down the iPhone I give to my son, but if it can be unlocked to run arbitrary software then he can in theory unlock it. Yes, it is on me to continue to monitor the device to make sure he hasn't done it, but the point stands You're scared of the wrong thing. The greater danger isn't arbitrary software but rather your son running up massive App Store charges on IAP of exploitative games and other scams. And if you think Apple will refund you, think again. Locking the device to the crApp Store isn't the solution. To the contrary, the solution is to enable parental controls to prevent access to the crApp Store. > But me being able to reasonably trust that someone hasn't put a compromised version of the OS on the device, or, won't be able to put a different firmware on the device to brute force my encrypted contents is a bit of safety in a certain set of circumstances that I want in my device These are possible without vendor lockdown. Devices can be and are designed so that the consumer can lock the device down and prevent modification, etc. Of course you can't constrain yourself, if you have the credentials to unlock the device, but you can constrain everyone else, whether they're children on the one hand or thieves/attackers on the other.
    - godelski 2y ago
      > but if it can be unlocked to run arbitrary software then he can in theory unlock it. I'm effectively the admin several machines with many users on them. I have root access. I'm not at all concerned that they'll gain root access. Just make yourself admin on your child's phone, I don't see the issue. Apple and Google can even make gaining root access require some technical (but documented) methods. Look at the requirements to gain root on an android phone currently. You should be comfortable going into a terminal and using ADB. I'm not worried about the average user doing this nor even the average smart child. Hell, follow Apple's lead and require a 1hr lockout if you're really concerned about someone getting root on your device. How often will that happen if it requires being connected to a computer for an hour?
- homebrewer 2y ago
  We're heading the opposite way of not being able to buy anything "dangerous" thanks to consumers that you're describing. I've been using a Xiaomi phone that stopped receiving updates in 2020, and have since been running LineageOS, which was made possible by the unlocked bootloader. Xiaomi has since changed its policy and it's basically impossible to unlock the bootloader on newer devices. If not for the "dangerous" unlocking, I would have to run with dozens of severe vulnerabilities right now, all five years worth of them. A decent phone costs large amounts of money here, the hardware on mine is still very good, and so I would have used it regardless. (Yes, I understand that the firmware does not receive updates, but it's still much better than nothing.)
gjsman-1000 2y ago
This is a very popular HN opinion; but not a very popular real world opinion. The average customer wants a device that works consistently, every day, that is easy to use, with a collection of 3rd party apps who won’t steal their life savings. Windows failed to deliver this; the average customer never downloads an Exe from a newer publisher without terror. The average consumer is literally dozens of times more likely to trust a new smartphone app than a new desktop app. We can also see this in the console market. Windows exists; old gaming PCs exist; the locked down console market will be with us forever because even Windows can’t deliver a simple experience that reliably works.
- stavros 2y ago
  And consumers can have that. That doesn't mean I should be unable to unlock my phone and do whatever I want with it.
  - gjsman-1000 2y ago
    The problem is not the ability to unlock your phone. The problem is that 90% of people unlocking their phones will either be for piracy (against the company’s interests), or against the customer's own interests (stalkerware, data extraction, sale of stolen devices). There is a reason malware is over 50 times as prevalent on Android.
    - stavros 2y ago
      Why do I give a shit about the company? I bought the phone, it's mine, I should be able to unlock it. If I catch malware, I'm an adult and I'll live with my choices. > There is a reason malware is over 50 times as prevalent on Android. What's the reason for that bogus-sounding statistic?
      - alias_neo 2y ago
        Let's say for a second it was accurate (It's probably not), perhaps it's because Android has a far higher market share globally, and it's much cheaper and easier to get started writing apps (or malware) for Android than say iOS. You also don't need to buy a single device from Google to get started. You can take the PC you're at and get started right away, and publish that app (or malware) without spending a penny (though I don't recall whether they still charge that nominal fee to get a developer account). Saying 90% of people root for piracy is hilarious, I rooted every Android device I owned until the last one or two, and I've never pirated anything, why did I root? Mainly for customisation and host-based ad-blocking. I can't understand the thought process of these people who think the things you own should be locked down to protect you. We should stop selling screwdrivers too in case someone's granny tries to open their toaster and electrocutes themselves, after all, a screwdriver is the pre-tech root access to all things electrical and electronic. I suspect those same people who argue in favour of locking these devices down would also say "don't by silly, my granny wouldn't open her toaster with a screwdriver, because she's not an engineer".
userbinator 2y ago
Not only profits, but control. Remember the whole CSAM scanning debacle from Apple?
- spacedcowboy 2y ago
  was that when they said “instead of uploading the images to our servers to do the CSAM scan, we’ll do a quick once over in the privacy of your own phone to see if we can allow-list your photo” ? And then the whole world suddenly went apeshit, so Apple basically shrugged, said “fine, we’ll do it just like everyone else and put your photos in the relatively unprotected server domain to do the scan”. Sucks to be you. Understand that at no point was there an option to not do the scan on upload, like all cloud providers, Apple scans for CSAM on any uploaded photos to stay out of any government grey areas.
  - feanaro 2y ago
    A server is someone else's device. Your phone is your own device. So no, doing the scan on your own device and making your device your potential adversary is not better than doing it on the server. You can always choose not to use the server.
    - spacedcowboy 2y ago
      This doesn't follow. Apple only ever scanned images being uploaded to the server. They were only ever going to scan images (even if it was done on the local device) if they were uploaded to the server. On the one hand you have: - do the scan in private, get a pass (I'm assuming we all get a pass), and no-one outside of your phone ever even looks at your images. On the other hand, you: - do the scan on upload. Some random bloke in support gets tasked with looking at 1 in every 10,000 images (or whatever) to make sure the algorithm is working, and your photo of little Bobby doing somersaults in the back garden is now being studied by Jim. If you never uploaded it, it was never scanned, in either case. So yes, you've lost privacy because faux outrage on the internet raised enough eyebrows. Way to go.
golergka 2y ago
Thanks, but no. I'm never buying a device with easy root access for a non technical family member ever again. Freedom is great, and I'm using this freedom to buy something with exactly the capabilities I need.
- frizlab 2y ago
  It’s impressive how many people downvote this actually über reasonable opinion…
  - eesmith 2y ago
    That's because the opinion presents a strawman position. From the linked-to page : > I agree with the premise that consumer devices, such as mobile phones, should be as secure as they can by default. This can even go so far as shipping new devices with locked bootloaders and blocking access to root. .. > But this shouldn’t come at the expense of being able to make an informed choice to unlock these privileges to install any software you want, even if that means adopting a higher level of risk. One does not require "easy root access" to make that informed choice - complicated root access (within reason, as pulling out the soldering iron might be a step too far) should be enough for tasks like installing a new OS because the company no longer supports the hardware.
  - raxxor 2y ago
    Because it isn't at all reasonable. There is no argument to not allow root access. You don't have to use it, perhaps most users would be safer with a conventional user account, but it is not reasonable to outright deny full system right to the owner of a device since there are so many disadvantages connected to that.
    - DoubleGlazing 2y ago
      My thinking is that if I have device that doesn't allow me root access, then what I have is more than likely a device designed to keep making money for the company that made it or wrote the software for it.
godelski 2y ago
It also significantly hampers progress and the utility of tools themselves. This is hacker news after all. What made the computer great was programs. What made the smart phone great (smart) is applications. It's insane to me that these companies are locking down their most valuable assets. The only way this works is if you're omniscient and can make all the programs users could want yourself. This is impossible considering both individuality and entropy (time). Both in the sense that time marches on and the fact that you don't have time nor infinite resources to accomplish all that. I mean we're talking about companies that didn't think to put a flashlight into a phone but it was one of the first apps developed. You could point to a number of high utility apps, but I'm also sure there's many you all use that you're unlikely to find on most people's phones. We can also look at the maker community. Its flourished for centuries, millennia even. People are always innovating, adapting tools to their unique needs and situations. To some degree this is innately human and I'm not embellishing when I say that closed gardens and closed systems are dehumanizing. It limits us from being us. That person obsessed with cars and makes a sleeper Honda civic, that person that turns trash into art, that person that finds a new use for every day objects. Why would you want to take this away? It even hurts their bottom lines! People freely innovate and you get to reap the rewards. People explore, hack, and educate themselves, dreaming of working on your tech because of the environment you created. By locking down you forgo both short term and long term rewards. I also want to add that we should not let any entity claim to be environmentally friendly or climate conscious that does not create open systems. No matter how much recycling they do. Because it is Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. In that order. You can't reuse if your things turn to garbage and reusing certainly plays a major role in reducing.
- medhir 2y ago
  this!!! sustainability is a huge aspect that seems to be getting lost in the broader discussion. locked devices are leading to an incredible amount of e-waste and it's entirely preventable.
femiagbabiaka 2y ago
half of those things have computers in them now
- metalman 2y ago
  my fuel injected chain saw, has a data port, but luckily, my back woods repair shop showed me the computerless,seasonal re-tune procedure that only requires a stop watch, works a charm As to other devices....phones, we need a whole re write of the privacy and publishing laws, to allow each person to regulate themselves. With an ultra basic "standard" set up for the masses who do want to be entertained, while having buying "oportunites" presented to them. But it has to be consentual, and basics like a phone number, email address, and personal/comercial web space, a non alienable birth right.Ban utopian concepts outright, and get back to bieng the quarlsome and somewhat violent species, that we are. I am starting to wonder, is the root cause of all of the ancient civilisations, lying in there own dust, what we are doing now, and the vast echoing silence from the stars, the same.
  - Telemakhos 2y ago
    You've left out one important player here: it's not just about the manufacturers and the masses yearning for entertainment, but also about the surveillance industry. Phones in particular, but computers in general, are increasingly important for surveilling the population in novel ways that AI opens up. Giving people root access on their tracking equipment would jeopardize its surveillance functions, because people might elect to give themselves privacy.
    - metalman 2y ago
      AI is never going to give solid consistent evauluation of humans at the idividual level.And AI might very well prove to be able to assist in the extraction of profits, exponentialy faster than wealth can be created, and eat the floors and foundations it sits on. We long ago passed the threshold of where human masses can be pushed and manipulated into what are then rampaging rioters, by mistake. Remember the deadly waffleiron and kicks stampedes? where marketers, whipped up demand for a totaly inconsequential item, to where people DID kill and die trying to get there first.This is the hint about where the limits of human control lie, and just how usefull MORE information will be.
raxxor 2y ago
If protection of the casual user was an argument, there would be an easy option to unlock your system, be that phones or desktop computers. But on many systems these options do not exist because the vendor likes people dependent on them. This is why devices like chromebooks or all mobile phones are more or less e-waste in the making. In my opinion it is a waste to use any development capacity for these systems apart from consumer devices offering the next shitty app that hopefully always stays optional. We even have dysfunctional laws that require banking apps to only run on these shitty systems. In my opinion, these errors need a quick correction. Also, the most cases of scam still work as they did before and exfiltrating information, e.g. tracking and "diagnostic data" by bad operating systems are an additional security problem.
- throw0101a 2y ago
  > If protection of the casual user was an argument, there would be an easy option to unlock your system, be that phones or desktop computers. Making it easy to unlock could make it easy(er) for scammers to get it unlocked: > I received the same type of call a little later in the day. They were very adamant they were calling from the Bell data centre, on a terrible line and I made them call back three more times while I considered their requests. They wanted to have me download a program that would have given them controI of my laptop. […] * https://forum.bell.ca/t5/Internet/Call-stating-that-an-issue-was-detected-with-my-modem-or-that/td-p/10823 https://forum.bell.ca/t5/Internet/Call-stating-that-an-issue...
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - dns_snek 2y ago
    Easy doesn't mean without any warning, it just means that the device is unlockable by design and without OEM's approval. It would be reasonable to: - factory reset the device before unlocking it to protect existing data (like Android phones require) - display warnings, for example "if someone's asking you to do this, it's probably a scam" - for the owner to be allowed to permanently disable unlocking, e.g. the commonly cited example of someone setting the device up for their elderly parents
miki123211 2y ago
> There are a ton of products on the market that are vastly more dangerous than computers The thing with chainsaws and motorcycles is that they look and feel dangerous, and people have an intuitive understanding of how to approach those dangers. If you ask a random person on the street about safe motorcycle riding, they'll probably tell you about respecting speed limits, wearing protective gear, only doing it when sober, not pulling stunts / showing off etc. I've never been on a motorcycle, have 0 interest in them, and I know those things. Computers don't work that way. People can't distinguish between a real banking app and a fake banking app that looks real, an update pop-up and a fake "you need to update Adobe Flash Player" pop-up on a phishing website etc. I've done plenty of "helping non-technical people out with computers" during my middle / secondary school days. That was when people still used Windows a lot, as opposed to doing everything on their phones. Most computers I've seen back then had some app that hijacked your start page, changed your search engine to something strange, would constantly open random websites with "dpwnload now free wallpapers and ring tones for your mobile now" etc. You didn't even have to fall for a scam to get something like that, plenty of reputable software came with such "add-ons", because that's how you made money back then. I feel like that era of "total freedom" has somehow been erased from our minds, and we're looking at things through rose-tinted glasses. I, for one, vastly prefer the world of personalized ads and invasive surveillance over one where I constantly have to be on alert for my default browser being changed to Google Chrome for the hundredth time this year, just because I decided to update Skype.
- grishka 2y ago
  > You didn't even have to fall for a scam to get something like that, plenty of reputable software came with such "add-ons", because that's how you made money back then. That's why you never blindly clicked "next" in installers. Everyone got one of those IE toolbars accidentally at some point, but it usually only took doing it once to learn the lesson.
- lapcat 2y ago
  > If you ask a random person on the street about safe motorcycle riding, they'll probably tell you about respecting speed limits, wearing protective gear, only doing it when sober, not pulling stunts / showing off etc. I've never been on a motorcycle, have 0 interest in them, and I know those things. How did this matter? People may know these things, but they nonetheless ignore speed limits, don't wear helmets, drive drunk, pull stunts, etc. And the motorcycle manufacturer can't stop them. They have the freedom to harm themselves. > Computers don't work that way. People can't distinguish between a real banking app and a fake banking app that looks real Guess what, people can't distinguish between the real and fake apps in the crApp Store either. Let's stop pretending that it's safe, when we've seen over and over that it's not. > That was when people still used Windows a lot, as opposed to doing everything on their phones. People still use Windows a lot. Smartphones have not replaced desktop computers but rather added to desktop computers. Almost every desktop computer owner also has a smartphone I believe that desktop computer sales are as high now as ever; I know that's true for Apple Macs, specifically. > I feel like that era of "total freedom" has somehow been erased from our minds, and we're looking at things through rose-tinted glasses. It hasn't been erased. The desktop never left. It's been surpassed in volume by smartphones, of course, but let's not pretend that desktops were somehow made obsolete and removed from the Earth. The people who have enough money buy smartphones and desktops. Many even have a smartphone, a desktop/laptop, and a tablet. The choice is not about security, it's about money and form factor. When I leave home, I put a phone in my pocket. When I'm on the couch, I use a laptop. When I'm reading an ebook, I use a tablet.
skywhopper 2y ago
Actually, chainsaws, table saws, cars, motorcycles, and even guns all have safety mechanisms installed by the manufacturers and tampering with them voids the warranty.
- lapcat 2y ago
  Nobody is arguing that computers shouldn't have safety mechanisms. But the manufacturers of those devices don't have remote control over what I do with them. There's no equivalent of a "curated App Store" (and one that requires a 30% cut to the manufacturer, which is the real point behind it). The equivalent would be if you could only use specific brands of replacement chains, blades, tires, or bullets that are approved by the manufacturer, for which the manufacturer gets a cut of the sales of those replacements.
- sudosysgen 2y ago
  Tampering with safety mechanisms on your car voids the warranty on the safety mechanism, not on your whole car. Otherwise using third party mechanics would be impossible.
invalidlogin 2y ago
A chainsaw does not introduce an opportunity for thousands of remote criminals to steal money from your bank account.
- logicchains 2y ago
  But like a gun or a knife it may give local criminals an opportunity to threaten (or worse) you into giving them money from your wallet.
  - kees99 2y ago
    You are 100% spot-on with the "local" thing here. People living in "bad neighborhoods" have to spend more energy and money on locks, fences, security cameras, self-policing as to not go out alone after dark, etc. Problem is, Internet (and international phone system, to a lesser degree) makes everything so much closer, that scammers from half-way around the globe are "local" for all intents as purposes. Thus, online, every neighborhood is a "bad neighborhood".
    - lapcat 2y ago
      > Thus, online, every neighborhood is a "bad neighborhood". This is like the exaggerated crime coverage on the local news. I've lived in the so-called "bad internet neighborhood" for 30 years, and I'm fine. It's not so bad.
      - HPsquared 2y ago
        Just like in a bad neighborhood, there's safety in numbers and keeping a low profile.
- Retr0id 2y ago
  It does introduce an opportunity to lose a limb, though. I think I'd rather have my bank account hacked.
  - 2y ago
m463 2y ago
Why don't they let you firewall your phone?
jmull 2y ago
> There are a ton of products on the market that are vastly more dangerous than computers An irrelevant "whaddabout" argument. It doesn't change that we need security and privacy for our information handling devices, as well as personal control. The real conversation is about how to best balance these.
- mschuster91 2y ago
  > It doesn't change that we need security and privacy for our information handling devices, as well as personal control. I can do online banking on my PC as root user if I so choose, but I cannot do online banking on my phone because my bank's app employs a rooting detector SDK that as of now even Magisk+a host of (questionable) modules can't bypass.
- lapcat 2y ago
  > It doesn't change that we need security and privacy for our information handling devices, as well as personal control. The real conversation is about how to best balance these. An irrelevant false dichotomy argument. There's no inherent conflict between security/privacy and personal control. I would argue that a device which has to phone home to the vendor to get approval for everything results in both less privacy and less personal control.
- PittleyDunkin 2y ago
  > The real conversation is about how to best balance these. How do you even formulate these values so that they're in conflict in the first place?
  - jmull 2y ago
    I guess people are unaware of the various malicious rootkits that have cropped up? If you're serious about this stuff binary thinking is a mistake. It's not a question of whether rooting is possible or impossible. It's a question of under what circumstances it can be done, and under whose control. Also, "conflict" is the wrong word here. It's a question of competing concerns not conflicting ones. We probably want root access to be under the end-user's control, but in such a way that minimizes the ability of malicious parties to exploit it. e.g., one way would be to allow anyone to easily install any root they want, but to disallow software from, say, the Apple app store from running on such "rooted" devices. While that gives end-users control and would mostly prevent malicious actors from getting things they want, it's probably not what most user's would want. They probably want to run all their regular software along side the root software. Another way would be to allowing people to easily install software as root, and allow software from popular app stores to run on it. That gives users max control, but is pretty easy for malicious actors to exploit too. People aren't going to be too happy with this when some coupon clipping app starts emptying people's bank accounts. These are just examples to give the idea of the range of possibilities. The real answer needs to be a lot more nuanced than this. The point is, pretending there aren't issues doesn't get us anywhere. You might as well have no opinion on this.
regnull 2y ago
Before we put all the blame on vendors, I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen, this: the public finds this tradeoff (privacy for entertainment) completely acceptable. With all the outrage, privacy-centric solutions are out there and relatively easy to find, how come they don't get more traction? Including among the HN crowd?
- pseudocomposer 2y ago
  “The least bad option in a market oriented against users and designed to maximize profit” is not the same as “completely acceptable.”
  - MetaWhirledPeas 2y ago
    I believe GP is referring to things like privacy-centric de-Googled Android phones, which definitely are an option. I would not classify those as "least bad" or even bad. GP is correct about Apple products; even among the HN crowd they are likely the most popular devices. I think this is because most readers aren't trying to die on the hill of openness. They're more concerned with software and ubiquity, two areas where Apple is doing very well. You do get many here enthusiastic about open access to your own hardware, but I think we're talking about a Venn diagram; we're not all the same. (I'm an Android user.)
    - pseudocomposer 2y ago
      Actually, I was disagreeing with the GP specifically about Apple products. I'm an Apple user, but very much because they're the "least bad" option. De-Googled Android phones still have awful audio latency (I'm a musician who makes a music app on the side), very limited messaging and notification features, and integrate poorly with desktop OSes. For how I use my devices, open or no, Android simply isn't a viable option. The thing about all this is, Apple's products being well-integrated and well-designed doesn't require them to be locked down the way they are. The EU move to force them to use USB-C/Thunderbolt over Lightning is a perfect example of this. It unilaterally improved things for users, and iPhone 14 vs. 15 sales reflected that pretty clearly. So I'd especially describe Apple as the "least bad" rather than "completely acceptable." They're specifically what I had in mind saying that.
jshen 2y ago
Only computers let bad people drain bank accounts at scale.
- lapcat 2y ago
  Please cite the statistics on the volume of bank account draining before you claim that it happens "at scale".
  - spacedcowboy 2y ago
    I mean, the nigerian prince scam is almost a meme these days…
    - lapcat 2y ago
      A meme is not a statistic. Exactly how many people have fallen for the scam, out of all computer users. And how exactly does device vendor lockdown stop this particular scam?
      - spacedcowboy 2y ago
        > Exactly how many people have fallen for the scam, out of all computer users Who the fuck knows ? And how is that even remotely a useful question to ask - it's not answerable, those who commit the scam are the only people with the figures, and there's no "register of fuckers who scam other people" where they have to tell you how well they do. > how exactly does device vendor lockdown stop this particular scam Premise 1: All (for a suitable definition of "all") computer users are clueless when it comes to internet security Premise 2: You are not trying to help any given individual's security, because some of them violate premise #1. You are trying to raise the bar for the clueless hurting themselves. Premise 3: It is not about "personal freedom". It is about preventing the clueless (by no fault of their own, this shit is complicated) becoming drones and mules for attacks on others. It is an attempt to increase the greater good at the expense of placing restrictions on what any individual can do on their own phone. Those restrictions can be mitigated mainly by coughing up $100/year, which is a sufficient bar to prevent bad guys from doing it en-masse, but not so high as to prevent the people who want to do stuff from doing it. Stopping people doing stupid stuff because they don't know any better is the goal, and that inevitably gets more and more restrictive as time progresses, because an arms race is instituted between the truly evil arseholes who prey on the clueless, and the manufacturers who don't want their produces seen as vehicles leading the clueless to the slaughter. Personally I don't give a crap. The iPhone is fine for me as-is, I can install my own software on my own phone, and sure it costs $100/year. That's not a big deal IMHO, in terms of outgoings it barely registers above the noise floor. YMMV.
eviks 2y ago
> think it's bizarre that we treat computers as the most dangerous products in the world We do not? You don't even need a license to buy /operate a computer unlike with some other examples on your list
- lapcat 2y ago
  By "we" I meant online commenters debating the issue of tech company device lockdown. I didn't mean "the law". To the contrary, the submitted article author was proposing that we pass laws giving greater individual consumer rights over their devices. But the big tech companies have been viciously fighting against consumer rights, such as the right to repair.
  - eviks 2y ago
    This is also strange as the commenters don't propose the measures that would correspond to viewing computers as more dangerous than guns (lockdown aren't that), but unlike with the law, I don't have a good simple illustration of that.
    - lapcat 2y ago
      > lockdown aren't that Vendor lockdown is that. Defenders of vendor lockdown argue that computer users need to be protected paternalistically from themselves. For some reason we accept that for computers, but nobody would accept refrigerators and ovens that only allow you to eat healthy foods, nobody would accept homebuilders controlling the doors of your house and having to approve anyone who comes in, etc. Why do computers get this special treatment of vendor lockdown, but not any other product?
      - eviks 2y ago
        Wow, ok, if you think this is on par with the lockdowns that the commenters support for guns (which I've previously proxied as ~ existing restrictions), then I'm not sure what to say > Why do computers get this special treatment of vendor lockdown, but not any other product? Of course they don't, plenty of other products are treated much more seriously by "us" (supporting lockdowns that limit your own use without supervision), some of them you've already listed
PittleyDunkin 2y ago
> Yes, consumers do sometimes harm themselves by using these products. That's the price of freedom. "Freedom" is also a terrible argument for this. What does it even mean? Freedom from what? Freedom to do what? It's such a meaningless word you're going to lose half your audience just by bringing it up.
- diggan 2y ago
  "Freedom - the condition of being free; the power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraints" When the context is "digital devices", it becomes pretty clear what it means. You should be free to use it however you want, without externally imposed restraints. Locking down the device so much so users cannot run applications they've written themselves without the approval of the company who made it, isn't "freedom" as the required approval from the company breaks the "without externally imposed restraints" part.
  - PittleyDunkin 2y ago
    > "Freedom - the condition of being free; the power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraints" Yea, this is a nice thought if you don't live in society. However, it falls apart pretty rapidly once you realize "your freedom to stops at my freedom from". So it's a non-starter.
    - diggan 2y ago
      > Yea, this is a nice thought if you don't live in society Well, democracies are societies, and you have much freedom in (most of) those. Not sure where you live, but if possible, you can always try to vacation in one to experience it yourself :) > "your freedom to stops at my freedom from" I don't understand what this means, nor how it relates to having root access on your digital devices. Could you possibly explain this again? I want to understand.
      - amelius 2y ago
        Probably means something like: if you eat this donut then I cannot eat it, ergo your freedom and my freedom are at odds.
1vuio0pswjnm7 2y ago
"The reason that computers are locked down by the vendors is not that computers are somehow more dangerous than other things we buy " It makes sense to allow the _buyer_ to responsibly lock out others. This is common in other products that could be dangerous. But allowing the _seller_ to lock out others, e.g., competitors or the buyer, is a recipe for malfeasance, at the buyer's expense. Interestingly, with computers and pre-installed software, there is no option to lock out the sellers such as Apple or the companies that partner with sellers and pre-install software on the computers, such as Microsoft, Google, etc. "It's all about protecting their profits, not protecting us." It is interesting that the "protections" are not optional. It assumed _every_ buyer wants the protections from others _and also from themselves_ enabled by default, and also for protections from so-called "tech" companies to be _disabled_ by default. A remarkable coincidence. Perhaps if buyers were given the option to login as single user and change the default protections some (not all) might disable phoning home to Silicon Valley or Redmond. They might block unwanted access to their computers by so-called "tech" companies who sell them out as ad targets. The so-called "tech" companies and their customers (advertisers) from other peoples' computers might be locked out. Indeed letting buyers lock out whomever they choose might diminish the profits of so-called "tech" companies. In the past HN commenters often sidestepped the question of these "protections" as self-serving and argued that so-called "tech" companies serve the "majority" of computer users and in fact these "protections" are what computer users want even though these users were never asked or given the choice to opt-out. If that were true then allowing a "minority" of users to control the protections themselves, i.e., operate as root, would only affect a minority of profits.
likeabatterycar 2y ago
> I think it's bizarre that we treat computers as the most dangerous products in the world that for some reason demand paternalism, when none of these other products are locked down by the vendor. That's because there are people behind every product, and the people behind computers tend to be the paternalistic, nanny-state type. Just read through the histrionics in any HN thread about leaf blowers, they want every landscaper locked up and their tools of the trade taken away. Someone once suggested they should be forced to use rakes. Imagine if some landscaper insisted what laptop you should use. As you wouldn't expect to find many in-the-Army buzz-cut guys roaming the Google campus as you would at a gun company, you wouldn't expect some blue-haired face-pierced sales engineer selling you table saws. It's a cultural thing, nothing more.
cpuguy83 2y ago
Locking them down also makes supporting them *FAR* simpler.
amelius 2y ago
Computers can be dangerous, but the solution is not to let the vendor control security. It is to allow third parties to provide security products.
pjmlp 2y ago
And there are plenty of laws in many countries on how to use them, seatbelts, helmets, chain gloves, plastic cover, minimum age, access exam,... Failure to obey them, might get jail time on those countries if caught disobeying, or an hefty fine, not counting what misuse might bring in, regardless of the country.

by lapcat 2y ago

mixdup 2y ago

There's a difference between being able to buy something dangerous and being forced to do so

lapcat 2y ago
Forced? I'm not sure I understand. My guess is that you're assuming, wrongly, that vendor locked devices are "safe" and unlocked devices are "unsafe". All computers that are connected to the internet are unsafe in some ways. The most dangerous apps on your computer are the vendor's own built-in web browser and messaging app. Also, the vendor-controlled software stores are unsafe cesspools. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. Moreover, the vendors deliberately make it impossible for you to protect yourself. For example, iOS makes it difficult or impossible to inspect the file system directly, and you can't install software such as Little Snitch on iOS that stops 3rd party apps—as well as 1st party apps!—from phoning home. In any case, most computers, including Apple computers, have parental controls and the like, so you can lock down your own device to your heart's content if you don't trust yourself, or you don't trust the family member that you're gifting the device.
- mixdup 2y ago
  Today, yes, I can lock down the iPhone I give to my son, but if it can be unlocked to run arbitrary software then he can in theory unlock it. Yes, it is on me to continue to monitor the device to make sure he hasn't done it, but the point stands And the assumption you refer to, there are varying definitions for "safe". Is a device with a locked bootloader 100% safe in all use cases and all circumstances? Of course not. But me being able to reasonably trust that someone hasn't put a compromised version of the OS on the device, or, won't be able to put a different firmware on the device to brute force my encrypted contents is a bit of safety in a certain set of circumstances that I want in my device If Apple, or anyone else, were precluded from locking the boot loader yes, I would be forced to buy a device that the FBI or anyone else could in theory poke around on enough to try to get at my data
  - lapcat 2y ago
    > Today, yes, I can lock down the iPhone I give to my son, but if it can be unlocked to run arbitrary software then he can in theory unlock it. Yes, it is on me to continue to monitor the device to make sure he hasn't done it, but the point stands You're scared of the wrong thing. The greater danger isn't arbitrary software but rather your son running up massive App Store charges on IAP of exploitative games and other scams. And if you think Apple will refund you, think again. Locking the device to the crApp Store isn't the solution. To the contrary, the solution is to enable parental controls to prevent access to the crApp Store. > But me being able to reasonably trust that someone hasn't put a compromised version of the OS on the device, or, won't be able to put a different firmware on the device to brute force my encrypted contents is a bit of safety in a certain set of circumstances that I want in my device These are possible without vendor lockdown. Devices can be and are designed so that the consumer can lock the device down and prevent modification, etc. Of course you can't constrain yourself, if you have the credentials to unlock the device, but you can constrain everyone else, whether they're children on the one hand or thieves/attackers on the other.
  - godelski 2y ago
    > but if it can be unlocked to run arbitrary software then he can in theory unlock it. I'm effectively the admin several machines with many users on them. I have root access. I'm not at all concerned that they'll gain root access. Just make yourself admin on your child's phone, I don't see the issue. Apple and Google can even make gaining root access require some technical (but documented) methods. Look at the requirements to gain root on an android phone currently. You should be comfortable going into a terminal and using ADB. I'm not worried about the average user doing this nor even the average smart child. Hell, follow Apple's lead and require a 1hr lockout if you're really concerned about someone getting root on your device. How often will that happen if it requires being connected to a computer for an hour?
homebrewer 2y ago
We're heading the opposite way of not being able to buy anything "dangerous" thanks to consumers that you're describing. I've been using a Xiaomi phone that stopped receiving updates in 2020, and have since been running LineageOS, which was made possible by the unlocked bootloader. Xiaomi has since changed its policy and it's basically impossible to unlock the bootloader on newer devices. If not for the "dangerous" unlocking, I would have to run with dozens of severe vulnerabilities right now, all five years worth of them. A decent phone costs large amounts of money here, the hardware on mine is still very good, and so I would have used it regardless. (Yes, I understand that the firmware does not receive updates, but it's still much better than nothing.)

gjsman-1000 2y ago

This is a very popular HN opinion; but not a very popular real world opinion. The average customer wants a device that works consistently, every day, that is easy to use, with a collection of 3rd party apps who won’t steal their life savings. Windows failed to deliver this; the average customer never downloads an Exe from a newer publisher without terror. The average consumer is literally dozens of times more likely to trust a new smartphone app than a new desktop app. We can also see this in the console market. Windows exists; old gaming PCs exist; the locked down console market will be with us forever because even Windows can’t deliver a simple experience that reliably works.

stavros 2y ago
And consumers can have that. That doesn't mean I should be unable to unlock my phone and do whatever I want with it.
- gjsman-1000 2y ago
  The problem is not the ability to unlock your phone. The problem is that 90% of people unlocking their phones will either be for piracy (against the company’s interests), or against the customer's own interests (stalkerware, data extraction, sale of stolen devices). There is a reason malware is over 50 times as prevalent on Android.
  - stavros 2y ago
    Why do I give a shit about the company? I bought the phone, it's mine, I should be able to unlock it. If I catch malware, I'm an adult and I'll live with my choices. > There is a reason malware is over 50 times as prevalent on Android. What's the reason for that bogus-sounding statistic?
    - alias_neo 2y ago
      Let's say for a second it was accurate (It's probably not), perhaps it's because Android has a far higher market share globally, and it's much cheaper and easier to get started writing apps (or malware) for Android than say iOS. You also don't need to buy a single device from Google to get started. You can take the PC you're at and get started right away, and publish that app (or malware) without spending a penny (though I don't recall whether they still charge that nominal fee to get a developer account). Saying 90% of people root for piracy is hilarious, I rooted every Android device I owned until the last one or two, and I've never pirated anything, why did I root? Mainly for customisation and host-based ad-blocking. I can't understand the thought process of these people who think the things you own should be locked down to protect you. We should stop selling screwdrivers too in case someone's granny tries to open their toaster and electrocutes themselves, after all, a screwdriver is the pre-tech root access to all things electrical and electronic. I suspect those same people who argue in favour of locking these devices down would also say "don't by silly, my granny wouldn't open her toaster with a screwdriver, because she's not an engineer".

userbinator 2y ago

Not only profits, but control. Remember the whole CSAM scanning debacle from Apple?

spacedcowboy 2y ago
was that when they said “instead of uploading the images to our servers to do the CSAM scan, we’ll do a quick once over in the privacy of your own phone to see if we can allow-list your photo” ? And then the whole world suddenly went apeshit, so Apple basically shrugged, said “fine, we’ll do it just like everyone else and put your photos in the relatively unprotected server domain to do the scan”. Sucks to be you. Understand that at no point was there an option to not do the scan on upload, like all cloud providers, Apple scans for CSAM on any uploaded photos to stay out of any government grey areas.
- feanaro 2y ago
  A server is someone else's device. Your phone is your own device. So no, doing the scan on your own device and making your device your potential adversary is not better than doing it on the server. You can always choose not to use the server.
  - spacedcowboy 2y ago
    This doesn't follow. Apple only ever scanned images being uploaded to the server. They were only ever going to scan images (even if it was done on the local device) if they were uploaded to the server. On the one hand you have: - do the scan in private, get a pass (I'm assuming we all get a pass), and no-one outside of your phone ever even looks at your images. On the other hand, you: - do the scan on upload. Some random bloke in support gets tasked with looking at 1 in every 10,000 images (or whatever) to make sure the algorithm is working, and your photo of little Bobby doing somersaults in the back garden is now being studied by Jim. If you never uploaded it, it was never scanned, in either case. So yes, you've lost privacy because faux outrage on the internet raised enough eyebrows. Way to go.

golergka 2y ago

Thanks, but no. I'm never buying a device with easy root access for a non technical family member ever again. Freedom is great, and I'm using this freedom to buy something with exactly the capabilities I need.

frizlab 2y ago
It’s impressive how many people downvote this actually über reasonable opinion…
- eesmith 2y ago
  That's because the opinion presents a strawman position. From the linked-to page : > I agree with the premise that consumer devices, such as mobile phones, should be as secure as they can by default. This can even go so far as shipping new devices with locked bootloaders and blocking access to root. .. > But this shouldn’t come at the expense of being able to make an informed choice to unlock these privileges to install any software you want, even if that means adopting a higher level of risk. One does not require "easy root access" to make that informed choice - complicated root access (within reason, as pulling out the soldering iron might be a step too far) should be enough for tasks like installing a new OS because the company no longer supports the hardware.
- raxxor 2y ago
  Because it isn't at all reasonable. There is no argument to not allow root access. You don't have to use it, perhaps most users would be safer with a conventional user account, but it is not reasonable to outright deny full system right to the owner of a device since there are so many disadvantages connected to that.
  - DoubleGlazing 2y ago
    My thinking is that if I have device that doesn't allow me root access, then what I have is more than likely a device designed to keep making money for the company that made it or wrote the software for it.

godelski 2y ago

It also significantly hampers progress and the utility of tools themselves. This is hacker news after all. What made the computer great was programs. What made the smart phone great (smart) is applications. It's insane to me that these companies are locking down their most valuable assets. The only way this works is if you're omniscient and can make all the programs users could want yourself. This is impossible considering both individuality and entropy (time). Both in the sense that time marches on and the fact that you don't have time nor infinite resources to accomplish all that. I mean we're talking about companies that didn't think to put a flashlight into a phone but it was one of the first apps developed. You could point to a number of high utility apps, but I'm also sure there's many you all use that you're unlikely to find on most people's phones. We can also look at the maker community. Its flourished for centuries, millennia even. People are always innovating, adapting tools to their unique needs and situations. To some degree this is innately human and I'm not embellishing when I say that closed gardens and closed systems are dehumanizing. It limits us from being us. That person obsessed with cars and makes a sleeper Honda civic, that person that turns trash into art, that person that finds a new use for every day objects. Why would you want to take this away? It even hurts their bottom lines! People freely innovate and you get to reap the rewards. People explore, hack, and educate themselves, dreaming of working on your tech because of the environment you created. By locking down you forgo both short term and long term rewards. I also want to add that we should not let any entity claim to be environmentally friendly or climate conscious that does not create open systems. No matter how much recycling they do. Because it is Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. In that order. You can't reuse if your things turn to garbage and reusing certainly plays a major role in reducing.

medhir 2y ago
this!!! sustainability is a huge aspect that seems to be getting lost in the broader discussion. locked devices are leading to an incredible amount of e-waste and it's entirely preventable.

femiagbabiaka 2y ago

half of those things have computers in them now

metalman 2y ago
my fuel injected chain saw, has a data port, but luckily, my back woods repair shop showed me the computerless,seasonal re-tune procedure that only requires a stop watch, works a charm As to other devices....phones, we need a whole re write of the privacy and publishing laws, to allow each person to regulate themselves. With an ultra basic "standard" set up for the masses who do want to be entertained, while having buying "oportunites" presented to them. But it has to be consentual, and basics like a phone number, email address, and personal/comercial web space, a non alienable birth right.Ban utopian concepts outright, and get back to bieng the quarlsome and somewhat violent species, that we are. I am starting to wonder, is the root cause of all of the ancient civilisations, lying in there own dust, what we are doing now, and the vast echoing silence from the stars, the same.
- Telemakhos 2y ago
  You've left out one important player here: it's not just about the manufacturers and the masses yearning for entertainment, but also about the surveillance industry. Phones in particular, but computers in general, are increasingly important for surveilling the population in novel ways that AI opens up. Giving people root access on their tracking equipment would jeopardize its surveillance functions, because people might elect to give themselves privacy.
  - metalman 2y ago
    AI is never going to give solid consistent evauluation of humans at the idividual level.And AI might very well prove to be able to assist in the extraction of profits, exponentialy faster than wealth can be created, and eat the floors and foundations it sits on. We long ago passed the threshold of where human masses can be pushed and manipulated into what are then rampaging rioters, by mistake. Remember the deadly waffleiron and kicks stampedes? where marketers, whipped up demand for a totaly inconsequential item, to where people DID kill and die trying to get there first.This is the hint about where the limits of human control lie, and just how usefull MORE information will be.

raxxor 2y ago

If protection of the casual user was an argument, there would be an easy option to unlock your system, be that phones or desktop computers. But on many systems these options do not exist because the vendor likes people dependent on them. This is why devices like chromebooks or all mobile phones are more or less e-waste in the making. In my opinion it is a waste to use any development capacity for these systems apart from consumer devices offering the next shitty app that hopefully always stays optional. We even have dysfunctional laws that require banking apps to only run on these shitty systems. In my opinion, these errors need a quick correction. Also, the most cases of scam still work as they did before and exfiltrating information, e.g. tracking and "diagnostic data" by bad operating systems are an additional security problem.

throw0101a 2y ago
> If protection of the casual user was an argument, there would be an easy option to unlock your system, be that phones or desktop computers. Making it easy to unlock could make it easy(er) for scammers to get it unlocked: > I received the same type of call a little later in the day. They were very adamant they were calling from the Bell data centre, on a terrible line and I made them call back three more times while I considered their requests. They wanted to have me download a program that would have given them controI of my laptop. […] * https://forum.bell.ca/t5/Internet/Call-stating-that-an-issue-was-detected-with-my-modem-or-that/td-p/10823 https://forum.bell.ca/t5/Internet/Call-stating-that-an-issue...
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- dns_snek 2y ago
  Easy doesn't mean without any warning, it just means that the device is unlockable by design and without OEM's approval. It would be reasonable to: - factory reset the device before unlocking it to protect existing data (like Android phones require) - display warnings, for example "if someone's asking you to do this, it's probably a scam" - for the owner to be allowed to permanently disable unlocking, e.g. the commonly cited example of someone setting the device up for their elderly parents

miki123211 2y ago

> There are a ton of products on the market that are vastly more dangerous than computers The thing with chainsaws and motorcycles is that they look and feel dangerous, and people have an intuitive understanding of how to approach those dangers. If you ask a random person on the street about safe motorcycle riding, they'll probably tell you about respecting speed limits, wearing protective gear, only doing it when sober, not pulling stunts / showing off etc. I've never been on a motorcycle, have 0 interest in them, and I know those things. Computers don't work that way. People can't distinguish between a real banking app and a fake banking app that looks real, an update pop-up and a fake "you need to update Adobe Flash Player" pop-up on a phishing website etc. I've done plenty of "helping non-technical people out with computers" during my middle / secondary school days. That was when people still used Windows a lot, as opposed to doing everything on their phones. Most computers I've seen back then had some app that hijacked your start page, changed your search engine to something strange, would constantly open random websites with "dpwnload now free wallpapers and ring tones for your mobile now" etc. You didn't even have to fall for a scam to get something like that, plenty of reputable software came with such "add-ons", because that's how you made money back then. I feel like that era of "total freedom" has somehow been erased from our minds, and we're looking at things through rose-tinted glasses. I, for one, vastly prefer the world of personalized ads and invasive surveillance over one where I constantly have to be on alert for my default browser being changed to Google Chrome for the hundredth time this year, just because I decided to update Skype.

grishka 2y ago
> You didn't even have to fall for a scam to get something like that, plenty of reputable software came with such "add-ons", because that's how you made money back then. That's why you never blindly clicked "next" in installers. Everyone got one of those IE toolbars accidentally at some point, but it usually only took doing it once to learn the lesson.
lapcat 2y ago
> If you ask a random person on the street about safe motorcycle riding, they'll probably tell you about respecting speed limits, wearing protective gear, only doing it when sober, not pulling stunts / showing off etc. I've never been on a motorcycle, have 0 interest in them, and I know those things. How did this matter? People may know these things, but they nonetheless ignore speed limits, don't wear helmets, drive drunk, pull stunts, etc. And the motorcycle manufacturer can't stop them. They have the freedom to harm themselves. > Computers don't work that way. People can't distinguish between a real banking app and a fake banking app that looks real Guess what, people can't distinguish between the real and fake apps in the crApp Store either. Let's stop pretending that it's safe, when we've seen over and over that it's not. > That was when people still used Windows a lot, as opposed to doing everything on their phones. People still use Windows a lot. Smartphones have not replaced desktop computers but rather added to desktop computers. Almost every desktop computer owner also has a smartphone I believe that desktop computer sales are as high now as ever; I know that's true for Apple Macs, specifically. > I feel like that era of "total freedom" has somehow been erased from our minds, and we're looking at things through rose-tinted glasses. It hasn't been erased. The desktop never left. It's been surpassed in volume by smartphones, of course, but let's not pretend that desktops were somehow made obsolete and removed from the Earth. The people who have enough money buy smartphones and desktops. Many even have a smartphone, a desktop/laptop, and a tablet. The choice is not about security, it's about money and form factor. When I leave home, I put a phone in my pocket. When I'm on the couch, I use a laptop. When I'm reading an ebook, I use a tablet.

skywhopper 2y ago

Actually, chainsaws, table saws, cars, motorcycles, and even guns all have safety mechanisms installed by the manufacturers and tampering with them voids the warranty.

lapcat 2y ago
Nobody is arguing that computers shouldn't have safety mechanisms. But the manufacturers of those devices don't have remote control over what I do with them. There's no equivalent of a "curated App Store" (and one that requires a 30% cut to the manufacturer, which is the real point behind it). The equivalent would be if you could only use specific brands of replacement chains, blades, tires, or bullets that are approved by the manufacturer, for which the manufacturer gets a cut of the sales of those replacements.
sudosysgen 2y ago
Tampering with safety mechanisms on your car voids the warranty on the safety mechanism, not on your whole car. Otherwise using third party mechanics would be impossible.

invalidlogin 2y ago

A chainsaw does not introduce an opportunity for thousands of remote criminals to steal money from your bank account.

logicchains 2y ago
But like a gun or a knife it may give local criminals an opportunity to threaten (or worse) you into giving them money from your wallet.
- kees99 2y ago
  You are 100% spot-on with the "local" thing here. People living in "bad neighborhoods" have to spend more energy and money on locks, fences, security cameras, self-policing as to not go out alone after dark, etc. Problem is, Internet (and international phone system, to a lesser degree) makes everything so much closer, that scammers from half-way around the globe are "local" for all intents as purposes. Thus, online, every neighborhood is a "bad neighborhood".
  - lapcat 2y ago
    > Thus, online, every neighborhood is a "bad neighborhood". This is like the exaggerated crime coverage on the local news. I've lived in the so-called "bad internet neighborhood" for 30 years, and I'm fine. It's not so bad.
    - HPsquared 2y ago
      Just like in a bad neighborhood, there's safety in numbers and keeping a low profile.
Retr0id 2y ago
It does introduce an opportunity to lose a limb, though. I think I'd rather have my bank account hacked.
- 2y ago

m463 2y ago

Why don't they let you firewall your phone?

jmull 2y ago

> There are a ton of products on the market that are vastly more dangerous than computers An irrelevant "whaddabout" argument. It doesn't change that we need security and privacy for our information handling devices, as well as personal control. The real conversation is about how to best balance these.

mschuster91 2y ago
> It doesn't change that we need security and privacy for our information handling devices, as well as personal control. I can do online banking on my PC as root user if I so choose, but I cannot do online banking on my phone because my bank's app employs a rooting detector SDK that as of now even Magisk+a host of (questionable) modules can't bypass.
lapcat 2y ago
> It doesn't change that we need security and privacy for our information handling devices, as well as personal control. The real conversation is about how to best balance these. An irrelevant false dichotomy argument. There's no inherent conflict between security/privacy and personal control. I would argue that a device which has to phone home to the vendor to get approval for everything results in both less privacy and less personal control.
PittleyDunkin 2y ago
> The real conversation is about how to best balance these. How do you even formulate these values so that they're in conflict in the first place?
- jmull 2y ago
  I guess people are unaware of the various malicious rootkits that have cropped up? If you're serious about this stuff binary thinking is a mistake. It's not a question of whether rooting is possible or impossible. It's a question of under what circumstances it can be done, and under whose control. Also, "conflict" is the wrong word here. It's a question of competing concerns not conflicting ones. We probably want root access to be under the end-user's control, but in such a way that minimizes the ability of malicious parties to exploit it. e.g., one way would be to allow anyone to easily install any root they want, but to disallow software from, say, the Apple app store from running on such "rooted" devices. While that gives end-users control and would mostly prevent malicious actors from getting things they want, it's probably not what most user's would want. They probably want to run all their regular software along side the root software. Another way would be to allowing people to easily install software as root, and allow software from popular app stores to run on it. That gives users max control, but is pretty easy for malicious actors to exploit too. People aren't going to be too happy with this when some coupon clipping app starts emptying people's bank accounts. These are just examples to give the idea of the range of possibilities. The real answer needs to be a lot more nuanced than this. The point is, pretending there aren't issues doesn't get us anywhere. You might as well have no opinion on this.

regnull 2y ago

Before we put all the blame on vendors, I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen, this: the public finds this tradeoff (privacy for entertainment) completely acceptable. With all the outrage, privacy-centric solutions are out there and relatively easy to find, how come they don't get more traction? Including among the HN crowd?

pseudocomposer 2y ago
“The least bad option in a market oriented against users and designed to maximize profit” is not the same as “completely acceptable.”
- MetaWhirledPeas 2y ago
  I believe GP is referring to things like privacy-centric de-Googled Android phones, which definitely are an option. I would not classify those as "least bad" or even bad. GP is correct about Apple products; even among the HN crowd they are likely the most popular devices. I think this is because most readers aren't trying to die on the hill of openness. They're more concerned with software and ubiquity, two areas where Apple is doing very well. You do get many here enthusiastic about open access to your own hardware, but I think we're talking about a Venn diagram; we're not all the same. (I'm an Android user.)
  - pseudocomposer 2y ago
    Actually, I was disagreeing with the GP specifically about Apple products. I'm an Apple user, but very much because they're the "least bad" option. De-Googled Android phones still have awful audio latency (I'm a musician who makes a music app on the side), very limited messaging and notification features, and integrate poorly with desktop OSes. For how I use my devices, open or no, Android simply isn't a viable option. The thing about all this is, Apple's products being well-integrated and well-designed doesn't require them to be locked down the way they are. The EU move to force them to use USB-C/Thunderbolt over Lightning is a perfect example of this. It unilaterally improved things for users, and iPhone 14 vs. 15 sales reflected that pretty clearly. So I'd especially describe Apple as the "least bad" rather than "completely acceptable." They're specifically what I had in mind saying that.

jshen 2y ago

Only computers let bad people drain bank accounts at scale.

lapcat 2y ago
Please cite the statistics on the volume of bank account draining before you claim that it happens "at scale".
- spacedcowboy 2y ago
  I mean, the nigerian prince scam is almost a meme these days…
  - lapcat 2y ago
    A meme is not a statistic. Exactly how many people have fallen for the scam, out of all computer users. And how exactly does device vendor lockdown stop this particular scam?
    - spacedcowboy 2y ago
      > Exactly how many people have fallen for the scam, out of all computer users Who the fuck knows ? And how is that even remotely a useful question to ask - it's not answerable, those who commit the scam are the only people with the figures, and there's no "register of fuckers who scam other people" where they have to tell you how well they do. > how exactly does device vendor lockdown stop this particular scam Premise 1: All (for a suitable definition of "all") computer users are clueless when it comes to internet security Premise 2: You are not trying to help any given individual's security, because some of them violate premise #1. You are trying to raise the bar for the clueless hurting themselves. Premise 3: It is not about "personal freedom". It is about preventing the clueless (by no fault of their own, this shit is complicated) becoming drones and mules for attacks on others. It is an attempt to increase the greater good at the expense of placing restrictions on what any individual can do on their own phone. Those restrictions can be mitigated mainly by coughing up $100/year, which is a sufficient bar to prevent bad guys from doing it en-masse, but not so high as to prevent the people who want to do stuff from doing it. Stopping people doing stupid stuff because they don't know any better is the goal, and that inevitably gets more and more restrictive as time progresses, because an arms race is instituted between the truly evil arseholes who prey on the clueless, and the manufacturers who don't want their produces seen as vehicles leading the clueless to the slaughter. Personally I don't give a crap. The iPhone is fine for me as-is, I can install my own software on my own phone, and sure it costs $100/year. That's not a big deal IMHO, in terms of outgoings it barely registers above the noise floor. YMMV.

eviks 2y ago

> think it's bizarre that we treat computers as the most dangerous products in the world We do not? You don't even need a license to buy /operate a computer unlike with some other examples on your list

lapcat 2y ago
By "we" I meant online commenters debating the issue of tech company device lockdown. I didn't mean "the law". To the contrary, the submitted article author was proposing that we pass laws giving greater individual consumer rights over their devices. But the big tech companies have been viciously fighting against consumer rights, such as the right to repair.
- eviks 2y ago
  This is also strange as the commenters don't propose the measures that would correspond to viewing computers as more dangerous than guns (lockdown aren't that), but unlike with the law, I don't have a good simple illustration of that.
  - lapcat 2y ago
    > lockdown aren't that Vendor lockdown is that. Defenders of vendor lockdown argue that computer users need to be protected paternalistically from themselves. For some reason we accept that for computers, but nobody would accept refrigerators and ovens that only allow you to eat healthy foods, nobody would accept homebuilders controlling the doors of your house and having to approve anyone who comes in, etc. Why do computers get this special treatment of vendor lockdown, but not any other product?
    - eviks 2y ago
      Wow, ok, if you think this is on par with the lockdowns that the commenters support for guns (which I've previously proxied as ~ existing restrictions), then I'm not sure what to say > Why do computers get this special treatment of vendor lockdown, but not any other product? Of course they don't, plenty of other products are treated much more seriously by "us" (supporting lockdowns that limit your own use without supervision), some of them you've already listed

PittleyDunkin 2y ago

> Yes, consumers do sometimes harm themselves by using these products. That's the price of freedom. "Freedom" is also a terrible argument for this. What does it even mean? Freedom from what? Freedom to do what? It's such a meaningless word you're going to lose half your audience just by bringing it up.

diggan 2y ago
"Freedom - the condition of being free; the power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraints" When the context is "digital devices", it becomes pretty clear what it means. You should be free to use it however you want, without externally imposed restraints. Locking down the device so much so users cannot run applications they've written themselves without the approval of the company who made it, isn't "freedom" as the required approval from the company breaks the "without externally imposed restraints" part.
- PittleyDunkin 2y ago
  > "Freedom - the condition of being free; the power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraints" Yea, this is a nice thought if you don't live in society. However, it falls apart pretty rapidly once you realize "your freedom to stops at my freedom from". So it's a non-starter.
  - diggan 2y ago
    > Yea, this is a nice thought if you don't live in society Well, democracies are societies, and you have much freedom in (most of) those. Not sure where you live, but if possible, you can always try to vacation in one to experience it yourself :) > "your freedom to stops at my freedom from" I don't understand what this means, nor how it relates to having root access on your digital devices. Could you possibly explain this again? I want to understand.
    - amelius 2y ago
      Probably means something like: if you eat this donut then I cannot eat it, ergo your freedom and my freedom are at odds.

1vuio0pswjnm7 2y ago

"The reason that computers are locked down by the vendors is not that computers are somehow more dangerous than other things we buy " It makes sense to allow the _buyer_ to responsibly lock out others. This is common in other products that could be dangerous. But allowing the _seller_ to lock out others, e.g., competitors or the buyer, is a recipe for malfeasance, at the buyer's expense. Interestingly, with computers and pre-installed software, there is no option to lock out the sellers such as Apple or the companies that partner with sellers and pre-install software on the computers, such as Microsoft, Google, etc. "It's all about protecting their profits, not protecting us." It is interesting that the "protections" are not optional. It assumed _every_ buyer wants the protections from others _and also from themselves_ enabled by default, and also for protections from so-called "tech" companies to be _disabled_ by default. A remarkable coincidence. Perhaps if buyers were given the option to login as single user and change the default protections some (not all) might disable phoning home to Silicon Valley or Redmond. They might block unwanted access to their computers by so-called "tech" companies who sell them out as ad targets. The so-called "tech" companies and their customers (advertisers) from other peoples' computers might be locked out. Indeed letting buyers lock out whomever they choose might diminish the profits of so-called "tech" companies. In the past HN commenters often sidestepped the question of these "protections" as self-serving and argued that so-called "tech" companies serve the "majority" of computer users and in fact these "protections" are what computer users want even though these users were never asked or given the choice to opt-out. If that were true then allowing a "minority" of users to control the protections themselves, i.e., operate as root, would only affect a minority of profits.

likeabatterycar 2y ago

> I think it's bizarre that we treat computers as the most dangerous products in the world that for some reason demand paternalism, when none of these other products are locked down by the vendor. That's because there are people behind every product, and the people behind computers tend to be the paternalistic, nanny-state type. Just read through the histrionics in any HN thread about leaf blowers, they want every landscaper locked up and their tools of the trade taken away. Someone once suggested they should be forced to use rakes. Imagine if some landscaper insisted what laptop you should use. As you wouldn't expect to find many in-the-Army buzz-cut guys roaming the Google campus as you would at a gun company, you wouldn't expect some blue-haired face-pierced sales engineer selling you table saws. It's a cultural thing, nothing more.

cpuguy83 2y ago

Locking them down also makes supporting them *FAR* simpler.

amelius 2y ago

Computers can be dangerous, but the solution is not to let the vendor control security. It is to allow third parties to provide security products.

pjmlp 2y ago

And there are plenty of laws in many countries on how to use them, seatbelts, helmets, chain gloves, plastic cover, minimum age, access exam,... Failure to obey them, might get jail time on those countries if caught disobeying, or an hefty fine, not counting what misuse might bring in, regardless of the country.