3 ms·

> Yes, the technology is not inherently evil, but some applications of it are. We shouldn't put bans on the tech, but we should put bans on usages of it which t

> Yes, the technology is not inherently evil, but some applications of it are. We shouldn't put bans on the tech, but we should put bans on usages of it which takes away personal freedom. IMO, any technology that can be used to take control of devices away from their owners is inherently evil and should be banned outright, even if there are other uses of it that would be legitimate.

surajrmal 2y ago
Not a single device you own gives you full control. If you have a wifi or LTE modem attached to your device, chances are it runs some firmware you cannot override for legal reasons as you would be at risk of breaking some laws by doing so. It feels like folks draw the line based on what runs on the primary CPU (in particular the kernel), but this is strangely arbitrary. There are all sorts of technologies that will slowly make this appear to work while simply shrinking what you are capable of doing from the kernel you run (eg trustzone, hypervisors you don't control, etc). From the perspective of hardware makers this is just more firmware which everyone is already seemingly okay with. There are too many (non drm even) forces in the industry pushing us in this direction as it solves seemingly real problems (anti-cheat in games, ensuring your bank credentials and biometric data cannot be stolen, work accounts cannot be compromised, etc). There is simply too much risk and therefore money to be lost by giving users control over these things.
- josephcsible 2y ago
  > chances are it runs some firmware you cannot override for legal reasons as you would be at risk of breaking some laws by doing so. I don't want things I own to try to enforce laws against me. > There is simply too much risk and therefore money to be lost by giving users control over these things. I know the megacorps will never want to give us control of our stuff. I'm saying that I wish they had to.

surajrmal 2y ago

Not a single device you own gives you full control. If you have a wifi or LTE modem attached to your device, chances are it runs some firmware you cannot override for legal reasons as you would be at risk of breaking some laws by doing so. It feels like folks draw the line based on what runs on the primary CPU (in particular the kernel), but this is strangely arbitrary. There are all sorts of technologies that will slowly make this appear to work while simply shrinking what you are capable of doing from the kernel you run (eg trustzone, hypervisors you don't control, etc). From the perspective of hardware makers this is just more firmware which everyone is already seemingly okay with. There are too many (non drm even) forces in the industry pushing us in this direction as it solves seemingly real problems (anti-cheat in games, ensuring your bank credentials and biometric data cannot be stolen, work accounts cannot be compromised, etc). There is simply too much risk and therefore money to be lost by giving users control over these things.

josephcsible 2y ago
> chances are it runs some firmware you cannot override for legal reasons as you would be at risk of breaking some laws by doing so. I don't want things I own to try to enforce laws against me. > There is simply too much risk and therefore money to be lost by giving users control over these things. I know the megacorps will never want to give us control of our stuff. I'm saying that I wish they had to.