5 ms·

Is it possible to let owners use their hardware as they wish, without having large companies control what they deem "safe"? I'm not the user of my phone, I'm i

Is it possible to let owners use their hardware as they wish, without having large companies control what they deem "safe"? I'm not the user of my phone, I'm its owner.

thrown-0825-1 1y ago
A nice sentiment, hasnt been true for a while though
lblume 1y ago
Sure. But the societal losses of a vast amount of people getting scammed might in general be more important your individual wish for freedom to run anything you want on your device. I think there are important tradeoffs to be made, and that we have to acknowledge that many people in society less technically skilled might suffer from serious consequences in your proposed model of computation.
- userbinator 1y ago
  I say let them be scammed. Idiocy only grows if it's not resisted. People don't learn if they don't see the consequences. Otherwise it'll just make society head into an authoritarian socialist hellhole... not that it wasn't already going in that direction.
  - saagarjha 1y ago
    People don't necessarily learn if they see consequences.
    - userbinator 1y ago
      They definitely won't learn if they don't see consequences.
      - saagarjha 1y ago
        No, this is not true. It's definitely possible to educate people about security without them getting hacked.
  - scarface_74 1y ago
    Yes there is a clear part from not being able to install what you want on your phone - even though you are free to buy a phone that you can - and authoritarianism. Did you know that you also can’t drive just anything on the highway and in some places you have to get your car inspected every year before you can drive it?
    - matt_kantor 1y ago
      A key part of your analogy is "on the highway", where I am a danger to other people and public infrastructure. I'm allowed to build a wacky unsafe DIY car and drive it around my own property without getting permission from the government. In many scenarios I don't even need a driver's license. Bringing the analogy back around, maybe one could argue that if I let my phone get hacked such that it becomes part of a botnet or something then it is a danger to other people, but that's not the typical example. Usually these policies claim to be about protecting me from myself while using a device I own.
      - scarface_74 1y ago
        Yes and you are allowed to use Graphene and whatever “whacky” other open source alternative non Google Android OS’s that HN users always brag about.
    - Der_Einzige 1y ago
      Become ungovernable. Works for the french
    - userbinator 1y ago
      in some places ...but not in others. Which is why those who still have the freedom will continue fighting for it.
- logicchains 1y ago
  >But the societal losses of a vast amount of people getting scammed might in general be more important your individual wish for freedom to run anything you want on your device The societal losses of a vast amount of people having no private, uncensored means of communication, which this is leading to, are orders of magnitude greater. The largest cause of early death in the past century was governments murdering their own citizens, and the more power governments have over their citizens, the easier it becomes for this to happen again.
  - lblume 1y ago
    > The largest cause of early death in the past century was governments murdering their own citizens Sounds like an interesting claim, mind sharing your source / calculation?
- kikonen 1y ago
  People get scammed over phonecalls all the time and we're not opening up for debate my freedom to accept calls from unknown users. Because why would you? Doing that is like using a nuke to kill a fly. This reeks as a powergrab that restricts my freedom disguised with the classic "for the greater good". Same as the new UK age verification laws
  - mike_hearn 1y ago
    > we're not opening up for debate my freedom to accept calls from unknown users That debate was had already and was lost. Phone scammers get blocked by telcos all the time.
    - kikonen 1y ago
      I guess the analogy is not perfect since when making a phone call you're using the network (which you're "renting"). In that sense the callers are blocked from using that network, which makes sense (this would be equiv from being banned from uploading malicious apk to an app store I guess) What I am saying is that I have not been stopped from taking calls from unknown numbers just because the call might be a scam. Likewise I don't wanna be stopped from installing an apk just because it might be a scam.
- unsungNovelty 1y ago
  What this does is punish good users. Not stop scams. They will move on to something else or find solutions to this. Same as the privacy invading tech/E2EE for "national security/protecting children online". You think banning VPN or E2EE apps is going to stop bad actors? NO! As always it effects normal users for control/power or money. How many times does this same thing get played over and over again? It's the same script you know?
bluesign 1y ago
You are owner of the hardware, user of the software.
- anfilt 1y ago
  Okay, but as the owner then I should at the very least be allowed to load my own signing keys for the boot-rom to load other software. Like what if I want to run/port linux to the device. A locked down boot-loader deprives me of full enjoyment of the use of my tangible property.
  - bluesign 1y ago
    That is totally fair.
    - salawat 1y ago
      ...but we're conspicuously not implementing that feature. So take it, leave it, or build your own phone. By the way, if you do go down the route of building your own phone, pedophiles, drug dealers, and terrorists will use it, and you're now on the hook to do something about it. ...Back to square one.
      - prmoustache 1y ago
        That silly pedophile point is getting old. Most victims of pedophiles are part of their own family or social circles. In a majority of cases no phone or even the internet is involved to commit the crime. We could ban the internet completely and minors wouldn't be any safer.
      - immibis 1y ago
        In Catalonia they're now arresting people with GraphemeOS on suspicion of being drug dealers because only drug dealers would use secure phones. Which is a great advertisement for GrapheneOS.
        1y ago
EasyMark 1y ago
Of course it is. Phone makers could make so that you have to jump through several hoops to get to the "side loading" portion as a compromise. Instead Android is going down the Samsung and iPhone route to cripple the device into making it nearly impossible to root by a mere mortal curious person. Allowing a hard to get to side load switch fixes 99.9% of the issue and still allows for freedom. Google is actively choosing here to do the walled garden like Apple iPhone for profit

Is it possible to let owners use their hardware as they wish, without having large companies control what they deem "safe"? I'm not the user of my phone, I'm its owner.

thrown-0825-1 1y ago

A nice sentiment, hasnt been true for a while though

lblume 1y ago

Sure. But the societal losses of a vast amount of people getting scammed might in general be more important your individual wish for freedom to run anything you want on your device. I think there are important tradeoffs to be made, and that we have to acknowledge that many people in society less technically skilled might suffer from serious consequences in your proposed model of computation.

userbinator 1y ago
I say let them be scammed. Idiocy only grows if it's not resisted. People don't learn if they don't see the consequences. Otherwise it'll just make society head into an authoritarian socialist hellhole... not that it wasn't already going in that direction.
- saagarjha 1y ago
  People don't necessarily learn if they see consequences.
  - userbinator 1y ago
    They definitely won't learn if they don't see consequences.
    - saagarjha 1y ago
      No, this is not true. It's definitely possible to educate people about security without them getting hacked.
- scarface_74 1y ago
  Yes there is a clear part from not being able to install what you want on your phone - even though you are free to buy a phone that you can - and authoritarianism. Did you know that you also can’t drive just anything on the highway and in some places you have to get your car inspected every year before you can drive it?
  - matt_kantor 1y ago
    A key part of your analogy is "on the highway", where I am a danger to other people and public infrastructure. I'm allowed to build a wacky unsafe DIY car and drive it around my own property without getting permission from the government. In many scenarios I don't even need a driver's license. Bringing the analogy back around, maybe one could argue that if I let my phone get hacked such that it becomes part of a botnet or something then it is a danger to other people, but that's not the typical example. Usually these policies claim to be about protecting me from myself while using a device I own.
    - scarface_74 1y ago
      Yes and you are allowed to use Graphene and whatever “whacky” other open source alternative non Google Android OS’s that HN users always brag about.
  - Der_Einzige 1y ago
    Become ungovernable. Works for the french
  - userbinator 1y ago
    in some places ...but not in others. Which is why those who still have the freedom will continue fighting for it.
logicchains 1y ago
>But the societal losses of a vast amount of people getting scammed might in general be more important your individual wish for freedom to run anything you want on your device The societal losses of a vast amount of people having no private, uncensored means of communication, which this is leading to, are orders of magnitude greater. The largest cause of early death in the past century was governments murdering their own citizens, and the more power governments have over their citizens, the easier it becomes for this to happen again.
- lblume 1y ago
  > The largest cause of early death in the past century was governments murdering their own citizens Sounds like an interesting claim, mind sharing your source / calculation?
kikonen 1y ago
People get scammed over phonecalls all the time and we're not opening up for debate my freedom to accept calls from unknown users. Because why would you? Doing that is like using a nuke to kill a fly. This reeks as a powergrab that restricts my freedom disguised with the classic "for the greater good". Same as the new UK age verification laws
- mike_hearn 1y ago
  > we're not opening up for debate my freedom to accept calls from unknown users That debate was had already and was lost. Phone scammers get blocked by telcos all the time.
  - kikonen 1y ago
    I guess the analogy is not perfect since when making a phone call you're using the network (which you're "renting"). In that sense the callers are blocked from using that network, which makes sense (this would be equiv from being banned from uploading malicious apk to an app store I guess) What I am saying is that I have not been stopped from taking calls from unknown numbers just because the call might be a scam. Likewise I don't wanna be stopped from installing an apk just because it might be a scam.
unsungNovelty 1y ago
What this does is punish good users. Not stop scams. They will move on to something else or find solutions to this. Same as the privacy invading tech/E2EE for "national security/protecting children online". You think banning VPN or E2EE apps is going to stop bad actors? NO! As always it effects normal users for control/power or money. How many times does this same thing get played over and over again? It's the same script you know?

bluesign 1y ago

You are owner of the hardware, user of the software.

anfilt 1y ago
Okay, but as the owner then I should at the very least be allowed to load my own signing keys for the boot-rom to load other software. Like what if I want to run/port linux to the device. A locked down boot-loader deprives me of full enjoyment of the use of my tangible property.
- bluesign 1y ago
  That is totally fair.
  - salawat 1y ago
    ...but we're conspicuously not implementing that feature. So take it, leave it, or build your own phone. By the way, if you do go down the route of building your own phone, pedophiles, drug dealers, and terrorists will use it, and you're now on the hook to do something about it. ...Back to square one.
    - prmoustache 1y ago
      That silly pedophile point is getting old. Most victims of pedophiles are part of their own family or social circles. In a majority of cases no phone or even the internet is involved to commit the crime. We could ban the internet completely and minors wouldn't be any safer.
    - immibis 1y ago
      In Catalonia they're now arresting people with GraphemeOS on suspicion of being drug dealers because only drug dealers would use secure phones. Which is a great advertisement for GrapheneOS.
      - 1y ago

EasyMark 1y ago

Of course it is. Phone makers could make so that you have to jump through several hoops to get to the "side loading" portion as a compromise. Instead Android is going down the Samsung and iPhone route to cripple the device into making it nearly impossible to root by a mere mortal curious person. Allowing a hard to get to side load switch fixes 99.9% of the issue and still allows for freedom. Google is actively choosing here to do the walled garden like Apple iPhone for profit