15 ms·

> In this context this would mean having the ability and documentation to build or install alternative operating systems on this hardware It doesn't work. Ever

by zmmmmm 1y ago

> In this context this would mean having the ability and documentation to build or install alternative operating systems on this hardware It doesn't work. Everything from banks to Netflix and others are slowly edging out anything where they can't fully verify the chain of control to an entity they can have a legal or contractual relationship with. To be clear, this is fundamental, not incidental. You can't run your own operating system because it's not in Netflix's financial interest for you to do so. Or your banks, or your government. They all benefit from you not having control, so you can't. This is why it's so important to defend the real principles here not just the technical artefacts of them. Netflix shouldn't be able to insist on a particular type of DRM for me to receive their service. Governments shouldn't be able to prevent me from end to end encrypting things. I should be able to opt into all this if I want more security, but it can't be mandatory. However all of these things are not technical, they are principles and rights that we have to argue for.

ls612 1y ago
I mean you’re right but it seems like the equilibrium we’re heading towards is one where the opposite is true and our internet and society looks more like China’s. Principles unfortunately mean little in the face of societal and technological change, the only thing that matters is the resulting incentives.
fastaguy88 1y ago
Really not a libertarian, but why shouldn’t Netflix have the right to choose who they distribute content to? They negotiated conditions with the creators, why shouldn’t they be able to specify the DRM? No one is forcing you to subscribe to Netflix. Or even to buy an iPad.
- ranyume 1y ago
  >why shouldn’t Netflix have the right to choose who they distribute content to? power asymmetry
  - cm2012 1y ago
    There are dozens of sources of online streaming entertainment, and its not exactly a vital good.
    - Gud 1y ago
      Yeah, there are a lot of torrent sites! Netflix doens't want my business anymore, I don't really care.
    - ranyume 1y ago
      There exist dozens of online services where you can store your photos, doesn't mean companies should be allowed to do whatever they want with your photos...
    - OmarAssadi 1y ago
      Sure, Netflix may not be as important as, say, housing, food, or whatever else, but I think there is something to be said about the cultural importance of [at the very least some] film and television. There's a lot of media worth studying, analyzing, and preserving. And in that sense, between the constant churn of catalog items, exclusive content, and the egregious DRM, I think these sorts of streaming services are, unfortunately, kind of harmful.
      - chongli 1y ago
        Doesn't your second paragraph run against the grain of your first? If streaming services like Netflix are harmful then we should avoid using them. Thus it should not be important for our freedom-preserving computers to be able to access Netflix. Now, if you want to do an in-depth study of film and television material as a whole, you're actually better off avoiding Netflix and making use of archives such as public libraries, university libraries, and the Internet Archive.
        OmarAssadi 1y ago
        I mean, I agree that you should be able to avoid things like Netflix and make use of libraries and other archives, but that's sort of the point; there is a ton of media that never even gets a physical release anymore; once one of these platforms goes under, or something enters licensing hell, or whatever else and gets removed, all you can do is hope someone out there with both the know-how and access went out of their way to illegally download a copy, illegally decrypt it, and illegally upload it somewhere. I say "know-how" and "access" because, while I'd still argue decrypting, say, Widevine L3 is not exactly super common knowledge, decrypting things like 4K Netflix content, among other things, generally requires you to have something like a Widevine L1 CDM from one of the Netflix-approved devices, which typically sits in those hardware trusted execution environments, so you need an active valuable exploit or insider leaks from someone at one of the manufacturers. But also on top of all of that, you also need to hope other people kept the upload alive by the time you decide to access it, and then you also often need to have access to various semi-elitist private trackers to consistently be able to even find some of this stuff. The legal issues with DRM here are hardly exclusive to Netflix and other streaming services, but at least in the case of things like Blu-rays or whatever — even if it is technically illegal in most countries to actually make use of virtually any backed-up disc due to AACS — you usually don't have the same time-pressure problem nor the significant technical expertise barrier. >If streaming services like Netflix are harmful then we should avoid using them. Thus it should not be important for our freedom-preserving computers to be able to access Netflix. I generally do avoid them whenever possible, though, yes. And I've explicitly disabled DRM support in Firefox on my computer. But I am just one person and I don't think my behavior reflects the average person, for better or for worse.
- pishpash 1y ago
  It's sort of antitrust adjacent. They are big enough to set market rules on the manner of distribution, like DRM and hardware-software lock-in, which doesn't directly stifle competition in their field (only a little) but in another field, and the results are arguably anti-consumer. That sort of power should not be in the hands of a single company.
- chairmansteve 1y ago
  A non libertarian might ask: Is it good for society?
- bfdm 1y ago
  Because it's bad for consumers to lose choices, even if they don't normally exercise those choices. The choice is the distributed power we have against the consolidated corporate power. We can choose not to let them restrict those choices, for example with interoperability regulations.
- jonahx 1y ago
  The issue is the means of enforcement requires taking away other rights they shouldn't be able to. What if I want to require (for anti-piracy reasons) that to use my software you must also give me complete access to your computer, all the data on it, and all your communications. You might say, "Well, if anyone is stupid enough to make that deal, let them." But it's easy to sugar coat what you're doing, especially with less technical users. I think it's better to say, "That's just not something you are allowed to do. It's trampling on rights more important than your anti-piracy rights." In the same way, you cannot murder someone even if they agree to be murdered (an actual case in Germany).
  - vbezhenar 1y ago
    > What if I want to require (for anti-piracy reasons) that to use my software you must also give me complete access to your computer, all the data on it, and all your communications. That's exactly what happens with anti-cheat kernel modules. As one might expect, ordinary people couldn't care less, as long as it works good enough.
    - estebarb 1y ago
      Except that... we have history of them not working well. For instance, the Sony rootkit https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootkit_scandal https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_roo... We cannot expect those rootkits to be properly supported long term for any security issues they may cause. I would think that the solution is simple: nobody forces them to make their IP available in non hacked computers... If they want a hardened computer to deliver their IP, then they should sell their own hardware. But forcing their blocking into the whole stack is not acceptable. For instance: I cannot see any udemy or netflix content from my computer, because their IP protection blocks the lenovo docking station I use to connect my monitors to my MBP... each part is standard! And somehow nobody tested that scenario. So, no, that tech is barely tested, it must not be forced into any computer.
  - bruce511 1y ago
    Forgive me, but is Netflix asking for that? As I understand it, Netflix wishes to authenticate the device, and DRM their content. I'm not aware of anything beyond that (but I'm also not paying attention. ) Now you may have used the example of what might happen, but then Netfix seems a strange example. Surely Apple and/or Google are more likely players in that example?
- ekianjo 1y ago
  For Netflix sure. I don't care. But when it comes to banking and you are forced to use between two OS or this means no access to your bank digitally, this is a massive problem and restriction to citizens' freedom. Everyone needs a bank to operate, and they need to maximize the options available to use them.
  - tonyhart7 1y ago
    well no one to force you to do banking from smartphones You can do manually like the old days, EXPLICTLY ALLOWING NON GOOGLE/APPLE to do banking in their own mobile phone meaning THERE ARE MILLIONS OF USERS that can fall victim to scammer+cracker how cant you see all of that???? ITS JUST NOT ABOUT YOU edit: please educate first, y'all need to know differences between mobile banking and internet banking You can downvote me all you want, but I don't want to hear lecture from non-security compliant engineer about what to do about security
    - onion2k 1y ago
      Locking down a website to only be available to users on Apple and Windows doesn't make it safer. It just reduces the cost of building it because you don't have to bother testing it on any other platforms. Rather than tell users "Danger, we haven't tested your choice of OS" companies prefer to lock it down. Users on Apple and Windows are not safer because a bank has chosen to block Linux.
      - tonyhart7 1y ago
        [flagged]
        trinix912 1y ago
        Until they decide to force you to use the mobile app as a 2FA for the website. My bank did that, I literally had to buy a new phone because the old one couldn't update their stupid app. It locks you in to the latest N versions of Android/iOS. Before you ask, no, other banks aren't any better where I live. They all stopped using physical 2FA keys years ago. And no, they won't let you come in physically for things that can be done online.
JeremyNT 1y ago
This is the crux of the matter. Maybe conceptually you will be able to run some kind of open operating system with your own code, but it will be unable to access software or services provided by corporate or governmental entities. This has been obvious for some time, and as soon as passkeys started popping up the endgame became clear. Pleading to the government definitely can't save us now though, because they want the control just as much as the corporations do.
- pishpash 1y ago
  Should have made open-source components in some key nodes of the ecosystem popular and profitable. But that was a tall order.
  - nine_k 1y ago
    Open-source software permeates the Internet infrastructure. Netflix is one of the biggest contributors to FreeBSD code. Tons of TVs run OSS-based stack. But once it touches the money-extraction path, like DRM, things expectedly lock up.
- kibwen 1y ago
  > Maybe conceptually you will be able to run some kind of open operating system with your own code Why do you think they would even allow this? If you think that governments don't have the incentives or the means to criminalize running non-approved OSes, or the unauthorized use of non-approved hardware, you're insufficiently cynical.
  - nine_k 1y ago
    It's hard to enforce, and not dangerous enough. Accessing something serious from this unapproved code is the opposite, and is being locked down. Try running your own code on your phone's baseband processor, or boot your own OS with Secure Boot on.
- reddalo 1y ago
  > as soon as passkeys started popping up the endgame became clear That's why I'm 100% against passkeys. I'll never use them and I'll make sure nobody I know does. They're just a lock-in mechanism.
markus_zhang 1y ago
Arguing doesn’t work for principles.
worldwidelies 1y ago
[dead]
BrenBarn 1y ago
I think you're right but I'd say it even more generally: we just can't let companies get so big that they can do these things without facing pushback and competition from other entities.
- redviperpt 1y ago
  You'll find that a lot of 'normal', for lack of better word, support this.
nradov 1y ago
You could just not watch Netflix. Most of the content is kind of crap anyway, low effort filler. And the streaming services have trouble even licensing third-party content at all unless they have robust copy protection. That may be stupid because it drives more consumers to privacy but copyright holders are free to negotiate any licensing terms they want.
- rblatz 1y ago
  Netflix is right in its prime right now, K-Pop Demon Hunters is a smash hit and probably the biggest cultural thing going on right now, it has like 4 songs from it in the top 10. Wednesday is coming back this weekfor the end of season 2. Stranger Things is wrapping up in November,
  - 000ooo000 1y ago
    Odd to hear for me. Netflix Australia has been in steep decline for years now. The only shows I recognise by title or actors in the poster are 15+ years old, or are adorned with 'Leaving Soon'. Everything of value has been poached by a competitor.
    - reddalo 1y ago
      It's the same situation in Italy. Netflix doesn't have any interesting content anymore, only their own originals.
  - gardenhedge 1y ago
    Any other examples? None of those scream prime to me - however I haven't heard of kpop demon hunters
    - CalRobert 1y ago
      Maybe it's the marketing? It's on the main home page every time I open it.
    - rblatz 1y ago
josephg 1y ago
My parents are getting old and they aren't tech savvy. The missing piece here is that I want my parents to have a computer they can safely do their banking on, without leaving them vulnerable to scams and viruses and the like. I like that they have iphones. Doing internet banking on their phone is safer than doing it on their desktop computer. Why is that? The reason is that the desktop PC security model is deeply flawed. In modern desktop operating systems, we protect user A from user B. But any program running on my computer is - for some reason - completely trusted with my data. Any program I run is allowed to silently edit, delete or steal anything I own. Unless you install special software, you can't even tell if any of this is happening. This makes every transitive dependency of every program on your computer a potential attack vector. I want computers to be hackable. But I don't also want my computer to be able to be hacked so easily. Right now, I have to choose between doing banking on my (maybe - hopefully - safe) computer. Or doing banking on my definitely safe iphone. What a horrible choice. Personally I think we need to start making computers that provide the best of both worlds. I want much more control over what code can do on my computer. I also want programs to be able to run in a safe, sandboxed way. But I should be the one in charge of that sandbox. Not Google. Definitely not Apple. But there's currently no desktop environment that provides that ability. I think the argument against locked down computers (like iphones and androids) would be a lot stronger if linux & friends provided a real alternative that was both safe and secure. If big companies are the only ones which provide a safe computing experience, we're asking for trouble.
- nuker 1y ago
  > My parents are getting old and they aren't tech savvy. The missing piece here is that I want my parents to have a computer they can safely do their banking on, without leaving them vulnerable to scams and viruses and the like. Purists always forget this point :) What is best for 99% of people. And dumb Euro bureaucrats.
  - quaintdev 1y ago
    Why not give people the freedom to choose what they want
enos_feedler 1y ago
This is a sad reality. I see 2 paths forward 1) we somehow build the right layers into the internet that we can withstand open hardware. 2) open hardware running any software becomes an education use and hobbyist market only. I could see an edu slice to every corporate entity deploying open and free stuff just as onboarding to paid. Hackable hardware with kiddyflix.
protocolture 1y ago
>It doesn't work. Everything from banks to Netflix and others are slowly edging out anything where they can't fully verify the chain of control to an entity they can have a legal or contractual relationship with. Theres nothing stopping a hardware vendor from being able to delete the system installed keys/certificates, breaking trust to allow you to install your own. Sure netflix might not like it but you still have the right to run your own code and netflix has the right not to trust your OS. >Governments shouldn't be able to prevent me from end to end encrypting things. Agreed.
matheusmoreira 1y ago
> Everything from banks to Netflix and others are slowly edging out anything where they can't fully verify the chain of control to an entity they can have a legal or contractual relationship with. We need to make that illegal. Classify it as discrimination. They should be obligated to treat any client that tries to connect the same as they would treat their own software. Anything else is illegal discrimination against users, a crime comparable to racial discrimination. Anything short of this means they've won. Everything the word "hacker" ever stood for will be destroyed. Throw all FOSS into the trash. None of it matters anymore. What's the point of free software that we can't run? That can't actually do anything useful because it fails remote attestation? Completely useless.
altairprime 1y ago
There’s a scenario where this does work: you can install any operating system on the hardware you own, if you complete a “erase all content and settings” dire scary confirmation screen. - If you want to run something other than iPadOS or Google TV, go for it. (Smart TVs are just tablets with a don’t-touch screen.) - If you want to install spyware on someone’s phone, you can’t; the HSM keys held by their OS are lost when you try to install a patched version and restore from a backup, and their backup doesn’t restore properly because half of it depends on the HSM or the cloud and everything is tagged with the old OS’s signature. - If you want to patch macOS and then deploy it to your fleet, you can; it won’t be Signed By Apple but you’re an enterprise and don’t care about the small losses of functionality from that. - If you want to dual boot, go ahead; the issues with the HSMs not permitting you to host two OSes worth of partitioned keystones can be resolved by regulatory pressure. This satisfies all the terms of “let me install whatever I want”, while allowing the OG App Store to continue operating in Safe Mode for everyday users in a way that can’t be entrapped without the scammer on the phone telling them to delete everything, which destroys the data the scammer wants. My car already allows me to do this. My phone should too.
- Rohansi 1y ago
  > My car already allows me to do this. My phone should too. If you're referring to CarPlay and/or Android Auto you should know that it's not actually running on your car. It's basically RDPing your phone onto your car screen. You can already install RDP apps on your phone and connect to systems that provide more freedom, of course.
  - altairprime 1y ago
    No, I’m talking about the Engine Control Module.
- mike_hearn 1y ago
  Your phone can allow that. Many Android devices allow exactly that. Google Pixel devices do, for instance, exactly because Google's Android team has always agreed with you.
beeflet 1y ago
Maybe we must find individual solutions to each controlling application? Replace netflix with bittorrent, replace banks with bitcoin, etc?
p0w3n3d 1y ago
I agree with your point. And meanwhile in Korea (according to article I've read) to use any bank's website you have to install a spy software in your PC. It looks like every major service vendor is organising a crawling subversion against their users and they really count we won't notice. One of the articles: https://palant.info/2023/01/02/south-koreas-online-security-dead-end/ https://palant.info/2023/01/02/south-koreas-online-security-...
cryptonector 1y ago
There is also the possibility that without a [paid] curator (the vendor, like Google or Apple) we can't have security for how do we ascertain provenance? You might not buy that argument, but the vendor will make it, and it will resonate with the public and/or the politicians. Establishing trust with hardware, firmware, and operating system software is currently an intractable problem. Besides the halting problem and the reflections on trusting trust problem (i.e., supply chain problems) the sheer size of these codebases and object code (since you'll need to confirm that the object code is not altered as in the reflections on trusting trust paper) is just too big for the public to be able to understand it. Sure, maybe we could use AI to review all of this, but... that's expensive if every person has to do it, and... that's got a bootstrapping problem. Basically the walled garden is unlikely to go away anytime soon. It would be easier to change the rules politically to do things like reduce transaction fees, but truly allowing the wide public to run anything they want seems difficult not just politically but technically, because the technical problems will lead to political ones.
- estebarb 1y ago
  Not really. Many countries emit digital signatures that could be used to prove that someone signed something. We would just need to convince countries to use that same infra for companies. So it may be possible to require everything to be properly signed, without requiring everyone to be bound to certain company wishes.
- StopDisinfo910 1y ago
  The digital sovereignty angle will end up quilling the platform lockdown. There is no way countries agree to have American companies getting so much control on key infrastructures especially in the current context.
bee_rider 1y ago
I wouldn’t be totally opposed to having some sort of totally locked down device that I was just used for banking. The bank could even sell them or give them away with the account (doesn’t need high performance). Another though; if we were actually able to pass laws that helped people, one that I’d like to see would be: for a totally locked down proprietary device, everything done with it should be the legal liability of the vendor. If your bank account gets broken into via the device, you can’t audit what happened, you couldn’t have have broken it, so it ought to be their responsibility.
- akvadrako 1y ago
  That's basically how it used to work. Before the app my bank required the use of a card and QR reader with a screen that could authorize transactions
Silhouette 1y ago
This is ultimately a form of collusion and anti-competitive behaviour - practices that we prohibit in other scenarios because we consider them harmful to our society. It's obvious why some large organisations would like more control over our lives. It's not obvious why we should let them have it. Unfortunately for now it seems our representatives are letting them have it so personally I'm rooting for a snake-eating-its-tail moment as a result of Windows 10 losing support. There will inevitably be erosion of security and support for applications on Windows 10 once Microsoft declares it yesterday's OS - as we've seen with past versions of Windows. This time there is the added complication that a lot of perfectly good hardware can't run Windows 11 - largely because of the TPM/verification issue we're discussing. So probably a lot of people who haven't moved to 11 yet aren't going to unless their current computer breaks and they get 11 by default when they buy a replacement. If the charts are correct then 11 only recently overtook 10 in user numbers. After all this time and despite all the pressure from Microsoft and the imminent EOL of Windows 10 over 40% of Windows users are still running that version. (https://gs.statcounter.com/os-version-market-share/windows/desktop/worldwide/ https://gs.statcounter.com/os-version-market-share/windows/d...) So how exactly do the big organisations that want to control the client plan to deal with that over the next few years? Unfortunately unless there is also some sort of intervention to deal with the collusion and market manipulation by vested interests I doubt enough Windows 10 refugees will jump to open platforms when their current devices fail for those open platforms to reach a critical mass of users. If five years from now Windows 10 user levels are negligible and almost all of the former users are now on Windows 11+ by default then the controlled client side probably wins effectively forever. I think it would take something dramatic happening that increased the desktop market share of open alternatives like Linux to say 10+% to avoid this fate. The only likely source of that drama I can see is if Valve's support for gaming on Linux encourages significant numbers of home users to switch and then general public awareness that you don't have to run Windows or macOS increases.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
safety1st 1y ago
I'm going to get wild-eyed now but you can blame Google for that as they're the ones who just announced they'll retroactively ban me from installing software on the computer I bought and own. I don't think you can really solve this problem as long as there's an operating system monopoly, or even duopoly/triopoly. The lure of total control is just too great. Every operating system vendor, hell every intellectual property vendor will always dream of it. A company that becomes powerful enough to put chains on its users will do so. From the British Raj to Standard Oil to IBM and Microsoft, monopolies are some of the most powerful forces in history. There is a case to be made that we were on a similar path with Microsoft until a combination of the Internet and a half-assed but not completely ineffective anti-trust campaign made them hit the brakes, for a while. I think that the solution is to highlight the abuses perpetrated by the biggest tech giants specifically, and advocate for radical government action on multiple levels. #1 to break up these companies. #2, to shackle them and anyone who gets as large as them so that they can't do anything like this again. #3, publicly fund the development of competing, open operating systems. If you are a US citizen then #1 and #2 are the more realistic paths and you should be watching the various anti-trust cases against Big Tech like a hawk, the celebrity du jour is really Amit Mehta who is scheduled to release his Google remedies any day now. You need to make it clear to your representatives that this is your top issue at the ballot box. We need a second American Progressive Era that's seasoned with digital rights and anti-megacorp sentiment and with "doomscroll" and "Luigi" having entered the vernacular I think we could be closer than many here believe. If you are an EU or Chinese citizen you should support the development and adoption in those polities of alternative, Linux-based operating systems. In the way the South Korean government specifically encouraged the growth of Samsung into a company with a global footprint, you should do that for local companies which develop OSes that compete with Apple and Google's. These geographies fundamentally can't do much to influence the American legal system so they should instead lean into public sentiment around nationalism and sovereignty and tie these to software freedom because that is likely the only elemental, emotional force that will capture enough public attention and support. Use state-scale resources to create competition for the American tech giants and establish a balance of power, because they are assuredly your enemies at this point. And lastly for the ten millionth time I'll say it - Stallman predicted this. He saw it all coming. He warned us. He told us what would happen and what we needed to do. It's time to listen and to think big.
cess11 1y ago
Right, so "defend" does a lot of lifting in there. What are you prepared to do to reverse the contemporary tide of tyranny? What have you done to make those in power afraid to move forward with policy founded in loathing of humanity?
euLh7SM5HDFY 1y ago
> Everything from banks to Netflix and others I have unlocked bootloader. That's it, I don't even have enabled root account. One app refuses to work anyway: McDonald’s. I actually can't decide if it is more funny or scary.
- touristtam 1y ago
  I'll be "funny" to publish findings about apps on a very public page and see it being brought to the forefront of the news cycle. A bit of a name and shame type of things, since Corps don't seem to understand any other language.
wolvesechoes 1y ago
> However all of these things are not technical You understand it, but even in this thread you have people proposing solutions like switching from traditional banking to bitcoin, stoping using Netflix and starting torrenting again etc. Tech crowd always tries to solve non-technical problems through technical means, and this is why I don't have much hope.
- staplers 1y ago
  Technical solutions and alternatives can provide enough leverage for the common citizen to force the hand of those in power. It might not fully "solve" the issue, but making it easier to route around will always force those in power to bend somewhat.
  - franga2000 1y ago
    In practice the opposite happens - when new technical workarounds are popularized, more technical solutions are found to prevent them and legislation is proposed to mandate them. Look at Chat Control in the EU: they started with mandating server-side scanning. Nobody liked that so everyone implemented E2EE. Now there's a new law that adds mandatory client-side scanning. Most of my tech-brained friends are saying "whatever, we'll just compile from source or use alternative means of distribution. But is that becomes popular, what's the next step? I'm fully expecting the EU's to then try to mandate the service providers need to ensure their apps aren't tampered with, which can only be done by locking devices down to official means of distribution and implementing end-to-end cryptographic attestation. Then we truly are out of options.
    - krige 1y ago
      > whatever, we'll just compile from source or use alternative means of distribution. google is clamping on this already so yeah
  - the_other 1y ago
    I'm unconvinced. Look at the current wave of attacks on privacy-focused chat + file sharing. The niche tools and workarounds are getting vilified and used as _reasons_ for more elite control.
winter_blue 1y ago
We need legislation mandating that all hardware[a] have at least one fully-functional[b] open source driver for any operating system[c]. And that any device with a microprocessor with writable memory permit custom software to be run on it. [a] whether that's a single device like a fingerprint scanner, or a device like a phone or tablet [b] no crippled or low-performance open source driver [c] any OS, including Windows, Mac, Linux, BSD, or some obscure minor OS as long as such OS is readily available for free or for a reasonable price
benrutter 1y ago
Joining all the other comments agreeing completely with this take. I think it's worth adding that this is fundamental enough to not just be a tech issue. There's a strong legal framework in almost all developed companies for regulating companies where acting in their self interest harms the consumer interest. Without which, lots of things we take for granted (electrical safety certification, usb c, splits between serviceand investment banking). I think the key thing that's missing at the moment is that the types of restrictions OP is mentioning (DRM, blocking encryption) harm both consumer rights and economic development. That's an argument that needs to come from people knowledgable about both the indistry, and the technology. Like a lot of the people reading this post.
- mike_hearn 1y ago
  Most politicians would find that argument confusing and not agree with you. I don't think the outcomes of running to government would be what you expect. It could easily backfire. Politics is a spectrum. Some claim that model is oversimplified but it's not. Here you're making a left wing argument that individual bad actors must be regulated for the good of the collective. However, left politicians would look at the situation and see the opposite. They prioritize an authoritarian safety-first victim-first mindset, in which individual freedoms are sacrificed to help the weakest. But companies like Google and Apple are already doing that. And whilst you're trying to hammer this situation into a left wing framing, the number of individuals who care about the freedom to install apps from anonymous developers is very small. Trivial, on the scale of a country. They do not represent the "consumer interest" in any meaningful way. So if you lobbied politicians this way, Google/Apple would lobby back and they'd say, we are exactly what you always demand! We're acting proactively to protect the victims by limiting the freedoms of bad guys for the greater good. And the left would be not only highly receptive to that message, but having suddenly become aware of what is technically possible would likely demand they go much further! We already see this with left wing governments banning VPNs and DNS resolutions so they can better control the internet in order to keep this or that group safe. Which sort of politicians care about the rights of freedom-loving minorities over the safety of the collective? Libertarian politicians do. But they are themselves in a minority, and would not be receptive to an argument framed as "we must regulate the big evil corporations for the greater good", because regulation is always about removing freedoms: in this case, the freedom to design a computing device as you see fit. They probably would be receptive to an argument of the form "it is important to be able to distribute code and communicate anonymously", but prioritizing something so few people care about is exactly why they don't tend to win elections. So there's no direct solution in politics, but the closest approximation is to support politicians who are more libertarian than average. They won't solve the problem but they will at least not make it worse, and might be open to very targeted regulations that can be framed as protecting market competition e.g. requiring unlockable bootloaders can be framed as protecting competition in the operating systems market. Meanwhile you can try and increase the popularity of platforms that prioritize freedom over safety. In practice that means demonstrating some sort of use case that the big vendors disallow, which is valuable, morally positive and requires anonymous app distribution.
kdmtctl 1y ago
They do not benefit from having control, they risk if they don't. This is fundamental. I do love freedom but such freedom will come with a disclaimer. You do want to use a bank app unsigned and you do not want the bank to check your latest SIM card replacement. You understand and assess the risk and will not discriminate the bank for any loss occurred. Same with Netflix and piracy. This is fair.
wvh 1y ago
What I like about your comment is that it points out that all technical work-arounds are moot if people as a whole are not willing to stand up with pitchforks and torches to defend their freedoms. It will always come down to that. A handful of tech-savvy users with rooted devices and open-source software will not make a difference to the giant crushing machine that is the system. And I'm afraid most of us are part of the system, rage-clicking away most of our days, distracted, jaded perhaps, like it historically has always been.
- safety1st 1y ago
  Only competition can provide a solution. We have lost sight of this principle even though all Western democracies are built on the idea of separation of powers, and making it hard for any one faction of elites to gain full control and ruin things for everyone else. Make them fight with each other, let them get a piece of the pie, but never all of it. That's why we have multiple branches of government, multiple parties etc. That's why we have markets with many firms instead of monopolies. There has never been a utopian past and there will never be a utopian future. The past was riddled with despotism and many things that the average man or woman today would consider horrific. The basic principle of democratic society is to prevent those things from recurring by pitting elite factions against each other. Similarly business elites who wield high technology to gain their wealth must also compete and if there is any sign of them cooperating too closely for too long, we need to break them up or shut them down. When Apple and Google agree, cooperate, and adopt the same policies - we are all doomed. It must never happen and we must furthermore break them up if they try, which they are now doing.
  - samrus 1y ago
    This doesnt work if the market incentives themselves encourage these rent seeking actions. We have given capitalists more and more power pver the last few decades and instead making things better, its just allowed them to nueter the government regulations that would have prevented them from fucking common people over. The market can not solve for this the same way it cant solve for education or the military. This needs laws
raxxorraxor 1y ago
It is of high financial interest of Netflix. I killed my subscription because they couldn't support my sensibly configured browser. I often recommend people to kill their subscription as well because of this fact. Netflix just isn't oriented to improve their service for their users and it shows. It won't hit any of their KPI or metrics, but their shitty behavior has a real effect. That said, most other alternatives suck as well. Killed Paramount almost immediately, can't remember why I left Disney. I think there were similar issues.
deadbabe 1y ago
Let’s say we do all that. How do you explain to a common layperson exactly what has been achieved? What is the ultimate benefit?
anonzzzies 1y ago
How feasible is it currently (I never tried as I don't want or need it yet) to run Android under Linux for your banking/gov apps? I can accessibility tooling to control them, so only in those cases, I could communicate with the android layer. I don't care about Netflix etc (I know many people do) but I must he able to login to banking and gov.
sharperguy 1y ago
While you have a point there is another aspect to this: If our current situation were already different, netflix and banks would not be able to pull these things in the first place. E.g. if using open free platforms was already the norm, netflix requiring a verified OS would just result in netflix becoming unusable for most people rather than just killing a couple edgecases used by a relatively small number of people. And so it would no longer be in their financial interest. It's why we've had desktops for so long without this happening, although the pieces are finally being put in place to make it a reality.
JustExAWS 1y ago
So you want the “freedom” of being able to run the hardware you want. But you don’t think Netflix should have the “freedom” to decide where there software should run? You don’t have the right to other people’s content - especially for rental content in the case of Netflix. Even if you don’t agree with that, do you really think that Google should allow Google Wallet run on hardware where they can’t verify the security? No one in the payment chain would trust Android devices. Credit card terminals and every one else has to fall under compliance regulations. The banks are liable for fraud. Are you okay to say if use unverified hardware to use banking services they aren’t liable for any losses?
pontifier 1y ago
I'm attempting to revive/create a streaming service to compete with Netflix et al. without any DRM. This would leverage physical media to eliminate requirements from copyright holders about how you might access something you actually own. There are challenges, and I'm almost certain to be sued, but it's a fight I believe is needed.
fsflover 1y ago
> This is why it's so important to defend the real principles here not just the technical artefacts of them. You're not wrong, but technical artefacts can be an important step in the right direction. I came to my bank, showed them my Librem 5 phone and asked where I can download an app for it. It was a much clearer message than "but Android isn't free!" (which is of course true). I do the same with governmental services. It also makes it much easier to explain to ordinary people that the choice must not be artificially restricted to just two megacorps.
lwhi 1y ago
We need an open web, with open principles and to prevent any commercial enterprise from dominating our social / tech sphere via monopolisation or methods of proprietary control. This isn't a surprise. A vocal minority have been saying the same ad infinitum. The need hasn't changed, and won't change; however there's a strong likelihood we'll get to a point where action isn't possible because we've passed the point of no return.
arcbyte 1y ago
Perhaps we should pick a page from the example of radio and force all video content to be openly reproducible for a forced flat fee.
thunfischtoast 1y ago
I agree, but your points becomes stronger when you leave Netflix away. Netflix is a private entertainment company, and when I don't like their conditions I can always quit. Banks on the other hand have so much more control over my life. With their apps being locked to the two major mobile OS I have many hoops to go through when I want to use an alternative one. It's not impossible yet, but it becomes very cumbersome to do so.
tiahura 1y ago
I prefer to live in a society where adults are free to come to their own arrangements with other adults. Not one where those with a penchant for authoritarianism set terms for others. Sometimes this system may have warts like not getting to watch Netflix on your Switch, but that seems like a small price to pay for respecting individual autonomy.
james_marks 1y ago
> Netflix shouldn't be able to insist on a particular type of DRM for me to receive their service. Maybe it’s just a bad example, but why would this be true? As a private company delivering entertainment, they can have any restrictions they want as a condition to selling to you.

by zmmmmm 1y ago

ls612 1y ago

I mean you’re right but it seems like the equilibrium we’re heading towards is one where the opposite is true and our internet and society looks more like China’s. Principles unfortunately mean little in the face of societal and technological change, the only thing that matters is the resulting incentives.

fastaguy88 1y ago

Really not a libertarian, but why shouldn’t Netflix have the right to choose who they distribute content to? They negotiated conditions with the creators, why shouldn’t they be able to specify the DRM? No one is forcing you to subscribe to Netflix. Or even to buy an iPad.

ranyume 1y ago
>why shouldn’t Netflix have the right to choose who they distribute content to? power asymmetry
- cm2012 1y ago
  There are dozens of sources of online streaming entertainment, and its not exactly a vital good.
  - Gud 1y ago
    Yeah, there are a lot of torrent sites! Netflix doens't want my business anymore, I don't really care.
  - ranyume 1y ago
    There exist dozens of online services where you can store your photos, doesn't mean companies should be allowed to do whatever they want with your photos...
  - OmarAssadi 1y ago
    Sure, Netflix may not be as important as, say, housing, food, or whatever else, but I think there is something to be said about the cultural importance of [at the very least some] film and television. There's a lot of media worth studying, analyzing, and preserving. And in that sense, between the constant churn of catalog items, exclusive content, and the egregious DRM, I think these sorts of streaming services are, unfortunately, kind of harmful.
    - chongli 1y ago
      Doesn't your second paragraph run against the grain of your first? If streaming services like Netflix are harmful then we should avoid using them. Thus it should not be important for our freedom-preserving computers to be able to access Netflix. Now, if you want to do an in-depth study of film and television material as a whole, you're actually better off avoiding Netflix and making use of archives such as public libraries, university libraries, and the Internet Archive.
      - OmarAssadi 1y ago
        I mean, I agree that you should be able to avoid things like Netflix and make use of libraries and other archives, but that's sort of the point; there is a ton of media that never even gets a physical release anymore; once one of these platforms goes under, or something enters licensing hell, or whatever else and gets removed, all you can do is hope someone out there with both the know-how and access went out of their way to illegally download a copy, illegally decrypt it, and illegally upload it somewhere. I say "know-how" and "access" because, while I'd still argue decrypting, say, Widevine L3 is not exactly super common knowledge, decrypting things like 4K Netflix content, among other things, generally requires you to have something like a Widevine L1 CDM from one of the Netflix-approved devices, which typically sits in those hardware trusted execution environments, so you need an active valuable exploit or insider leaks from someone at one of the manufacturers. But also on top of all of that, you also need to hope other people kept the upload alive by the time you decide to access it, and then you also often need to have access to various semi-elitist private trackers to consistently be able to even find some of this stuff. The legal issues with DRM here are hardly exclusive to Netflix and other streaming services, but at least in the case of things like Blu-rays or whatever — even if it is technically illegal in most countries to actually make use of virtually any backed-up disc due to AACS — you usually don't have the same time-pressure problem nor the significant technical expertise barrier. >If streaming services like Netflix are harmful then we should avoid using them. Thus it should not be important for our freedom-preserving computers to be able to access Netflix. I generally do avoid them whenever possible, though, yes. And I've explicitly disabled DRM support in Firefox on my computer. But I am just one person and I don't think my behavior reflects the average person, for better or for worse.
pishpash 1y ago
It's sort of antitrust adjacent. They are big enough to set market rules on the manner of distribution, like DRM and hardware-software lock-in, which doesn't directly stifle competition in their field (only a little) but in another field, and the results are arguably anti-consumer. That sort of power should not be in the hands of a single company.
chairmansteve 1y ago
A non libertarian might ask: Is it good for society?
bfdm 1y ago
Because it's bad for consumers to lose choices, even if they don't normally exercise those choices. The choice is the distributed power we have against the consolidated corporate power. We can choose not to let them restrict those choices, for example with interoperability regulations.
jonahx 1y ago
The issue is the means of enforcement requires taking away other rights they shouldn't be able to. What if I want to require (for anti-piracy reasons) that to use my software you must also give me complete access to your computer, all the data on it, and all your communications. You might say, "Well, if anyone is stupid enough to make that deal, let them." But it's easy to sugar coat what you're doing, especially with less technical users. I think it's better to say, "That's just not something you are allowed to do. It's trampling on rights more important than your anti-piracy rights." In the same way, you cannot murder someone even if they agree to be murdered (an actual case in Germany).
- vbezhenar 1y ago
  > What if I want to require (for anti-piracy reasons) that to use my software you must also give me complete access to your computer, all the data on it, and all your communications. That's exactly what happens with anti-cheat kernel modules. As one might expect, ordinary people couldn't care less, as long as it works good enough.
  - estebarb 1y ago
    Except that... we have history of them not working well. For instance, the Sony rootkit https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootkit_scandal https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_roo... We cannot expect those rootkits to be properly supported long term for any security issues they may cause. I would think that the solution is simple: nobody forces them to make their IP available in non hacked computers... If they want a hardened computer to deliver their IP, then they should sell their own hardware. But forcing their blocking into the whole stack is not acceptable. For instance: I cannot see any udemy or netflix content from my computer, because their IP protection blocks the lenovo docking station I use to connect my monitors to my MBP... each part is standard! And somehow nobody tested that scenario. So, no, that tech is barely tested, it must not be forced into any computer.
- bruce511 1y ago
  Forgive me, but is Netflix asking for that? As I understand it, Netflix wishes to authenticate the device, and DRM their content. I'm not aware of anything beyond that (but I'm also not paying attention. ) Now you may have used the example of what might happen, but then Netfix seems a strange example. Surely Apple and/or Google are more likely players in that example?
ekianjo 1y ago
For Netflix sure. I don't care. But when it comes to banking and you are forced to use between two OS or this means no access to your bank digitally, this is a massive problem and restriction to citizens' freedom. Everyone needs a bank to operate, and they need to maximize the options available to use them.
- tonyhart7 1y ago
  well no one to force you to do banking from smartphones You can do manually like the old days, EXPLICTLY ALLOWING NON GOOGLE/APPLE to do banking in their own mobile phone meaning THERE ARE MILLIONS OF USERS that can fall victim to scammer+cracker how cant you see all of that???? ITS JUST NOT ABOUT YOU edit: please educate first, y'all need to know differences between mobile banking and internet banking You can downvote me all you want, but I don't want to hear lecture from non-security compliant engineer about what to do about security
  - onion2k 1y ago
    Locking down a website to only be available to users on Apple and Windows doesn't make it safer. It just reduces the cost of building it because you don't have to bother testing it on any other platforms. Rather than tell users "Danger, we haven't tested your choice of OS" companies prefer to lock it down. Users on Apple and Windows are not safer because a bank has chosen to block Linux.
    - tonyhart7 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - trinix912 1y ago
        Until they decide to force you to use the mobile app as a 2FA for the website. My bank did that, I literally had to buy a new phone because the old one couldn't update their stupid app. It locks you in to the latest N versions of Android/iOS. Before you ask, no, other banks aren't any better where I live. They all stopped using physical 2FA keys years ago. And no, they won't let you come in physically for things that can be done online.

JeremyNT 1y ago

This is the crux of the matter. Maybe conceptually you will be able to run some kind of open operating system with your own code, but it will be unable to access software or services provided by corporate or governmental entities. This has been obvious for some time, and as soon as passkeys started popping up the endgame became clear. Pleading to the government definitely can't save us now though, because they want the control just as much as the corporations do.

pishpash 1y ago
Should have made open-source components in some key nodes of the ecosystem popular and profitable. But that was a tall order.
- nine_k 1y ago
  Open-source software permeates the Internet infrastructure. Netflix is one of the biggest contributors to FreeBSD code. Tons of TVs run OSS-based stack. But once it touches the money-extraction path, like DRM, things expectedly lock up.
kibwen 1y ago
> Maybe conceptually you will be able to run some kind of open operating system with your own code Why do you think they would even allow this? If you think that governments don't have the incentives or the means to criminalize running non-approved OSes, or the unauthorized use of non-approved hardware, you're insufficiently cynical.
- nine_k 1y ago
  It's hard to enforce, and not dangerous enough. Accessing something serious from this unapproved code is the opposite, and is being locked down. Try running your own code on your phone's baseband processor, or boot your own OS with Secure Boot on.
reddalo 1y ago
> as soon as passkeys started popping up the endgame became clear That's why I'm 100% against passkeys. I'll never use them and I'll make sure nobody I know does. They're just a lock-in mechanism.

markus_zhang 1y ago

Arguing doesn’t work for principles.

worldwidelies 1y ago

[dead]

BrenBarn 1y ago

I think you're right but I'd say it even more generally: we just can't let companies get so big that they can do these things without facing pushback and competition from other entities.

redviperpt 1y ago
You'll find that a lot of 'normal', for lack of better word, support this.

nradov 1y ago

You could just not watch Netflix. Most of the content is kind of crap anyway, low effort filler. And the streaming services have trouble even licensing third-party content at all unless they have robust copy protection. That may be stupid because it drives more consumers to privacy but copyright holders are free to negotiate any licensing terms they want.

rblatz 1y ago
Netflix is right in its prime right now, K-Pop Demon Hunters is a smash hit and probably the biggest cultural thing going on right now, it has like 4 songs from it in the top 10. Wednesday is coming back this weekfor the end of season 2. Stranger Things is wrapping up in November,
- 000ooo000 1y ago
  Odd to hear for me. Netflix Australia has been in steep decline for years now. The only shows I recognise by title or actors in the poster are 15+ years old, or are adorned with 'Leaving Soon'. Everything of value has been poached by a competitor.
  - reddalo 1y ago
    It's the same situation in Italy. Netflix doesn't have any interesting content anymore, only their own originals.
- gardenhedge 1y ago
  Any other examples? None of those scream prime to me - however I haven't heard of kpop demon hunters
  - CalRobert 1y ago
    Maybe it's the marketing? It's on the main home page every time I open it.
  - rblatz 1y ago

josephg 1y ago

My parents are getting old and they aren't tech savvy. The missing piece here is that I want my parents to have a computer they can safely do their banking on, without leaving them vulnerable to scams and viruses and the like. I like that they have iphones. Doing internet banking on their phone is safer than doing it on their desktop computer. Why is that? The reason is that the desktop PC security model is deeply flawed. In modern desktop operating systems, we protect user A from user B. But any program running on my computer is - for some reason - completely trusted with my data. Any program I run is allowed to silently edit, delete or steal anything I own. Unless you install special software, you can't even tell if any of this is happening. This makes every transitive dependency of every program on your computer a potential attack vector. I want computers to be hackable. But I don't also want my computer to be able to be hacked so easily. Right now, I have to choose between doing banking on my (maybe - hopefully - safe) computer. Or doing banking on my definitely safe iphone. What a horrible choice. Personally I think we need to start making computers that provide the best of both worlds. I want much more control over what code can do on my computer. I also want programs to be able to run in a safe, sandboxed way. But I should be the one in charge of that sandbox. Not Google. Definitely not Apple. But there's currently no desktop environment that provides that ability. I think the argument against locked down computers (like iphones and androids) would be a lot stronger if linux & friends provided a real alternative that was both safe and secure. If big companies are the only ones which provide a safe computing experience, we're asking for trouble.

nuker 1y ago
> My parents are getting old and they aren't tech savvy. The missing piece here is that I want my parents to have a computer they can safely do their banking on, without leaving them vulnerable to scams and viruses and the like. Purists always forget this point :) What is best for 99% of people. And dumb Euro bureaucrats.
- quaintdev 1y ago
  Why not give people the freedom to choose what they want

enos_feedler 1y ago

This is a sad reality. I see 2 paths forward 1) we somehow build the right layers into the internet that we can withstand open hardware. 2) open hardware running any software becomes an education use and hobbyist market only. I could see an edu slice to every corporate entity deploying open and free stuff just as onboarding to paid. Hackable hardware with kiddyflix.

protocolture 1y ago

>It doesn't work. Everything from banks to Netflix and others are slowly edging out anything where they can't fully verify the chain of control to an entity they can have a legal or contractual relationship with. Theres nothing stopping a hardware vendor from being able to delete the system installed keys/certificates, breaking trust to allow you to install your own. Sure netflix might not like it but you still have the right to run your own code and netflix has the right not to trust your OS. >Governments shouldn't be able to prevent me from end to end encrypting things. Agreed.

matheusmoreira 1y ago

> Everything from banks to Netflix and others are slowly edging out anything where they can't fully verify the chain of control to an entity they can have a legal or contractual relationship with. We need to make that illegal. Classify it as discrimination. They should be obligated to treat any client that tries to connect the same as they would treat their own software. Anything else is illegal discrimination against users, a crime comparable to racial discrimination. Anything short of this means they've won. Everything the word "hacker" ever stood for will be destroyed. Throw all FOSS into the trash. None of it matters anymore. What's the point of free software that we can't run? That can't actually do anything useful because it fails remote attestation? Completely useless.

altairprime 1y ago

There’s a scenario where this does work: you can install any operating system on the hardware you own, if you complete a “erase all content and settings” dire scary confirmation screen. - If you want to run something other than iPadOS or Google TV, go for it. (Smart TVs are just tablets with a don’t-touch screen.) - If you want to install spyware on someone’s phone, you can’t; the HSM keys held by their OS are lost when you try to install a patched version and restore from a backup, and their backup doesn’t restore properly because half of it depends on the HSM or the cloud and everything is tagged with the old OS’s signature. - If you want to patch macOS and then deploy it to your fleet, you can; it won’t be Signed By Apple but you’re an enterprise and don’t care about the small losses of functionality from that. - If you want to dual boot, go ahead; the issues with the HSMs not permitting you to host two OSes worth of partitioned keystones can be resolved by regulatory pressure. This satisfies all the terms of “let me install whatever I want”, while allowing the OG App Store to continue operating in Safe Mode for everyday users in a way that can’t be entrapped without the scammer on the phone telling them to delete everything, which destroys the data the scammer wants. My car already allows me to do this. My phone should too.

Rohansi 1y ago
> My car already allows me to do this. My phone should too. If you're referring to CarPlay and/or Android Auto you should know that it's not actually running on your car. It's basically RDPing your phone onto your car screen. You can already install RDP apps on your phone and connect to systems that provide more freedom, of course.
- altairprime 1y ago
  No, I’m talking about the Engine Control Module.
mike_hearn 1y ago
Your phone can allow that. Many Android devices allow exactly that. Google Pixel devices do, for instance, exactly because Google's Android team has always agreed with you.

beeflet 1y ago

Maybe we must find individual solutions to each controlling application? Replace netflix with bittorrent, replace banks with bitcoin, etc?

p0w3n3d 1y ago

I agree with your point. And meanwhile in Korea (according to article I've read) to use any bank's website you have to install a spy software in your PC. It looks like every major service vendor is organising a crawling subversion against their users and they really count we won't notice. One of the articles: https://palant.info/2023/01/02/south-koreas-online-security-dead-end/ https://palant.info/2023/01/02/south-koreas-online-security-...

cryptonector 1y ago

There is also the possibility that without a [paid] curator (the vendor, like Google or Apple) we can't have security for how do we ascertain provenance? You might not buy that argument, but the vendor will make it, and it will resonate with the public and/or the politicians. Establishing trust with hardware, firmware, and operating system software is currently an intractable problem. Besides the halting problem and the reflections on trusting trust problem (i.e., supply chain problems) the sheer size of these codebases and object code (since you'll need to confirm that the object code is not altered as in the reflections on trusting trust paper) is just too big for the public to be able to understand it. Sure, maybe we could use AI to review all of this, but... that's expensive if every person has to do it, and... that's got a bootstrapping problem. Basically the walled garden is unlikely to go away anytime soon. It would be easier to change the rules politically to do things like reduce transaction fees, but truly allowing the wide public to run anything they want seems difficult not just politically but technically, because the technical problems will lead to political ones.

estebarb 1y ago
Not really. Many countries emit digital signatures that could be used to prove that someone signed something. We would just need to convince countries to use that same infra for companies. So it may be possible to require everything to be properly signed, without requiring everyone to be bound to certain company wishes.
StopDisinfo910 1y ago
The digital sovereignty angle will end up quilling the platform lockdown. There is no way countries agree to have American companies getting so much control on key infrastructures especially in the current context.

bee_rider 1y ago

I wouldn’t be totally opposed to having some sort of totally locked down device that I was just used for banking. The bank could even sell them or give them away with the account (doesn’t need high performance). Another though; if we were actually able to pass laws that helped people, one that I’d like to see would be: for a totally locked down proprietary device, everything done with it should be the legal liability of the vendor. If your bank account gets broken into via the device, you can’t audit what happened, you couldn’t have have broken it, so it ought to be their responsibility.

akvadrako 1y ago
That's basically how it used to work. Before the app my bank required the use of a card and QR reader with a screen that could authorize transactions

Silhouette 1y ago

This is ultimately a form of collusion and anti-competitive behaviour - practices that we prohibit in other scenarios because we consider them harmful to our society. It's obvious why some large organisations would like more control over our lives. It's not obvious why we should let them have it. Unfortunately for now it seems our representatives are letting them have it so personally I'm rooting for a snake-eating-its-tail moment as a result of Windows 10 losing support. There will inevitably be erosion of security and support for applications on Windows 10 once Microsoft declares it yesterday's OS - as we've seen with past versions of Windows. This time there is the added complication that a lot of perfectly good hardware can't run Windows 11 - largely because of the TPM/verification issue we're discussing. So probably a lot of people who haven't moved to 11 yet aren't going to unless their current computer breaks and they get 11 by default when they buy a replacement. If the charts are correct then 11 only recently overtook 10 in user numbers. After all this time and despite all the pressure from Microsoft and the imminent EOL of Windows 10 over 40% of Windows users are still running that version. (https://gs.statcounter.com/os-version-market-share/windows/desktop/worldwide/ https://gs.statcounter.com/os-version-market-share/windows/d...) So how exactly do the big organisations that want to control the client plan to deal with that over the next few years? Unfortunately unless there is also some sort of intervention to deal with the collusion and market manipulation by vested interests I doubt enough Windows 10 refugees will jump to open platforms when their current devices fail for those open platforms to reach a critical mass of users. If five years from now Windows 10 user levels are negligible and almost all of the former users are now on Windows 11+ by default then the controlled client side probably wins effectively forever. I think it would take something dramatic happening that increased the desktop market share of open alternatives like Linux to say 10+% to avoid this fate. The only likely source of that drama I can see is if Valve's support for gaming on Linux encourages significant numbers of home users to switch and then general public awareness that you don't have to run Windows or macOS increases.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

safety1st 1y ago

I'm going to get wild-eyed now but you can blame Google for that as they're the ones who just announced they'll retroactively ban me from installing software on the computer I bought and own. I don't think you can really solve this problem as long as there's an operating system monopoly, or even duopoly/triopoly. The lure of total control is just too great. Every operating system vendor, hell every intellectual property vendor will always dream of it. A company that becomes powerful enough to put chains on its users will do so. From the British Raj to Standard Oil to IBM and Microsoft, monopolies are some of the most powerful forces in history. There is a case to be made that we were on a similar path with Microsoft until a combination of the Internet and a half-assed but not completely ineffective anti-trust campaign made them hit the brakes, for a while. I think that the solution is to highlight the abuses perpetrated by the biggest tech giants specifically, and advocate for radical government action on multiple levels. #1 to break up these companies. #2, to shackle them and anyone who gets as large as them so that they can't do anything like this again. #3, publicly fund the development of competing, open operating systems. If you are a US citizen then #1 and #2 are the more realistic paths and you should be watching the various anti-trust cases against Big Tech like a hawk, the celebrity du jour is really Amit Mehta who is scheduled to release his Google remedies any day now. You need to make it clear to your representatives that this is your top issue at the ballot box. We need a second American Progressive Era that's seasoned with digital rights and anti-megacorp sentiment and with "doomscroll" and "Luigi" having entered the vernacular I think we could be closer than many here believe. If you are an EU or Chinese citizen you should support the development and adoption in those polities of alternative, Linux-based operating systems. In the way the South Korean government specifically encouraged the growth of Samsung into a company with a global footprint, you should do that for local companies which develop OSes that compete with Apple and Google's. These geographies fundamentally can't do much to influence the American legal system so they should instead lean into public sentiment around nationalism and sovereignty and tie these to software freedom because that is likely the only elemental, emotional force that will capture enough public attention and support. Use state-scale resources to create competition for the American tech giants and establish a balance of power, because they are assuredly your enemies at this point. And lastly for the ten millionth time I'll say it - Stallman predicted this. He saw it all coming. He warned us. He told us what would happen and what we needed to do. It's time to listen and to think big.

cess11 1y ago

Right, so "defend" does a lot of lifting in there. What are you prepared to do to reverse the contemporary tide of tyranny? What have you done to make those in power afraid to move forward with policy founded in loathing of humanity?

euLh7SM5HDFY 1y ago

> Everything from banks to Netflix and others I have unlocked bootloader. That's it, I don't even have enabled root account. One app refuses to work anyway: McDonald’s. I actually can't decide if it is more funny or scary.

touristtam 1y ago
I'll be "funny" to publish findings about apps on a very public page and see it being brought to the forefront of the news cycle. A bit of a name and shame type of things, since Corps don't seem to understand any other language.

wolvesechoes 1y ago

> However all of these things are not technical You understand it, but even in this thread you have people proposing solutions like switching from traditional banking to bitcoin, stoping using Netflix and starting torrenting again etc. Tech crowd always tries to solve non-technical problems through technical means, and this is why I don't have much hope.

staplers 1y ago
Technical solutions and alternatives can provide enough leverage for the common citizen to force the hand of those in power. It might not fully "solve" the issue, but making it easier to route around will always force those in power to bend somewhat.
- franga2000 1y ago
  In practice the opposite happens - when new technical workarounds are popularized, more technical solutions are found to prevent them and legislation is proposed to mandate them. Look at Chat Control in the EU: they started with mandating server-side scanning. Nobody liked that so everyone implemented E2EE. Now there's a new law that adds mandatory client-side scanning. Most of my tech-brained friends are saying "whatever, we'll just compile from source or use alternative means of distribution. But is that becomes popular, what's the next step? I'm fully expecting the EU's to then try to mandate the service providers need to ensure their apps aren't tampered with, which can only be done by locking devices down to official means of distribution and implementing end-to-end cryptographic attestation. Then we truly are out of options.
  - krige 1y ago
    > whatever, we'll just compile from source or use alternative means of distribution. google is clamping on this already so yeah
- the_other 1y ago
  I'm unconvinced. Look at the current wave of attacks on privacy-focused chat + file sharing. The niche tools and workarounds are getting vilified and used as _reasons_ for more elite control.

winter_blue 1y ago

We need legislation mandating that all hardware[a] have at least one fully-functional[b] open source driver for any operating system[c]. And that any device with a microprocessor with writable memory permit custom software to be run on it. [a] whether that's a single device like a fingerprint scanner, or a device like a phone or tablet [b] no crippled or low-performance open source driver [c] any OS, including Windows, Mac, Linux, BSD, or some obscure minor OS as long as such OS is readily available for free or for a reasonable price

benrutter 1y ago

Joining all the other comments agreeing completely with this take. I think it's worth adding that this is fundamental enough to not just be a tech issue. There's a strong legal framework in almost all developed companies for regulating companies where acting in their self interest harms the consumer interest. Without which, lots of things we take for granted (electrical safety certification, usb c, splits between serviceand investment banking). I think the key thing that's missing at the moment is that the types of restrictions OP is mentioning (DRM, blocking encryption) harm both consumer rights and economic development. That's an argument that needs to come from people knowledgable about both the indistry, and the technology. Like a lot of the people reading this post.

mike_hearn 1y ago
Most politicians would find that argument confusing and not agree with you. I don't think the outcomes of running to government would be what you expect. It could easily backfire. Politics is a spectrum. Some claim that model is oversimplified but it's not. Here you're making a left wing argument that individual bad actors must be regulated for the good of the collective. However, left politicians would look at the situation and see the opposite. They prioritize an authoritarian safety-first victim-first mindset, in which individual freedoms are sacrificed to help the weakest. But companies like Google and Apple are already doing that. And whilst you're trying to hammer this situation into a left wing framing, the number of individuals who care about the freedom to install apps from anonymous developers is very small. Trivial, on the scale of a country. They do not represent the "consumer interest" in any meaningful way. So if you lobbied politicians this way, Google/Apple would lobby back and they'd say, we are exactly what you always demand! We're acting proactively to protect the victims by limiting the freedoms of bad guys for the greater good. And the left would be not only highly receptive to that message, but having suddenly become aware of what is technically possible would likely demand they go much further! We already see this with left wing governments banning VPNs and DNS resolutions so they can better control the internet in order to keep this or that group safe. Which sort of politicians care about the rights of freedom-loving minorities over the safety of the collective? Libertarian politicians do. But they are themselves in a minority, and would not be receptive to an argument framed as "we must regulate the big evil corporations for the greater good", because regulation is always about removing freedoms: in this case, the freedom to design a computing device as you see fit. They probably would be receptive to an argument of the form "it is important to be able to distribute code and communicate anonymously", but prioritizing something so few people care about is exactly why they don't tend to win elections. So there's no direct solution in politics, but the closest approximation is to support politicians who are more libertarian than average. They won't solve the problem but they will at least not make it worse, and might be open to very targeted regulations that can be framed as protecting market competition e.g. requiring unlockable bootloaders can be framed as protecting competition in the operating systems market. Meanwhile you can try and increase the popularity of platforms that prioritize freedom over safety. In practice that means demonstrating some sort of use case that the big vendors disallow, which is valuable, morally positive and requires anonymous app distribution.

kdmtctl 1y ago

They do not benefit from having control, they risk if they don't. This is fundamental. I do love freedom but such freedom will come with a disclaimer. You do want to use a bank app unsigned and you do not want the bank to check your latest SIM card replacement. You understand and assess the risk and will not discriminate the bank for any loss occurred. Same with Netflix and piracy. This is fair.

wvh 1y ago

What I like about your comment is that it points out that all technical work-arounds are moot if people as a whole are not willing to stand up with pitchforks and torches to defend their freedoms. It will always come down to that. A handful of tech-savvy users with rooted devices and open-source software will not make a difference to the giant crushing machine that is the system. And I'm afraid most of us are part of the system, rage-clicking away most of our days, distracted, jaded perhaps, like it historically has always been.

safety1st 1y ago
Only competition can provide a solution. We have lost sight of this principle even though all Western democracies are built on the idea of separation of powers, and making it hard for any one faction of elites to gain full control and ruin things for everyone else. Make them fight with each other, let them get a piece of the pie, but never all of it. That's why we have multiple branches of government, multiple parties etc. That's why we have markets with many firms instead of monopolies. There has never been a utopian past and there will never be a utopian future. The past was riddled with despotism and many things that the average man or woman today would consider horrific. The basic principle of democratic society is to prevent those things from recurring by pitting elite factions against each other. Similarly business elites who wield high technology to gain their wealth must also compete and if there is any sign of them cooperating too closely for too long, we need to break them up or shut them down. When Apple and Google agree, cooperate, and adopt the same policies - we are all doomed. It must never happen and we must furthermore break them up if they try, which they are now doing.
- samrus 1y ago
  This doesnt work if the market incentives themselves encourage these rent seeking actions. We have given capitalists more and more power pver the last few decades and instead making things better, its just allowed them to nueter the government regulations that would have prevented them from fucking common people over. The market can not solve for this the same way it cant solve for education or the military. This needs laws

raxxorraxor 1y ago

It is of high financial interest of Netflix. I killed my subscription because they couldn't support my sensibly configured browser. I often recommend people to kill their subscription as well because of this fact. Netflix just isn't oriented to improve their service for their users and it shows. It won't hit any of their KPI or metrics, but their shitty behavior has a real effect. That said, most other alternatives suck as well. Killed Paramount almost immediately, can't remember why I left Disney. I think there were similar issues.

deadbabe 1y ago

Let’s say we do all that. How do you explain to a common layperson exactly what has been achieved? What is the ultimate benefit?

anonzzzies 1y ago

How feasible is it currently (I never tried as I don't want or need it yet) to run Android under Linux for your banking/gov apps? I can accessibility tooling to control them, so only in those cases, I could communicate with the android layer. I don't care about Netflix etc (I know many people do) but I must he able to login to banking and gov.

sharperguy 1y ago

While you have a point there is another aspect to this: If our current situation were already different, netflix and banks would not be able to pull these things in the first place. E.g. if using open free platforms was already the norm, netflix requiring a verified OS would just result in netflix becoming unusable for most people rather than just killing a couple edgecases used by a relatively small number of people. And so it would no longer be in their financial interest. It's why we've had desktops for so long without this happening, although the pieces are finally being put in place to make it a reality.

JustExAWS 1y ago

So you want the “freedom” of being able to run the hardware you want. But you don’t think Netflix should have the “freedom” to decide where there software should run? You don’t have the right to other people’s content - especially for rental content in the case of Netflix. Even if you don’t agree with that, do you really think that Google should allow Google Wallet run on hardware where they can’t verify the security? No one in the payment chain would trust Android devices. Credit card terminals and every one else has to fall under compliance regulations. The banks are liable for fraud. Are you okay to say if use unverified hardware to use banking services they aren’t liable for any losses?

pontifier 1y ago

I'm attempting to revive/create a streaming service to compete with Netflix et al. without any DRM. This would leverage physical media to eliminate requirements from copyright holders about how you might access something you actually own. There are challenges, and I'm almost certain to be sued, but it's a fight I believe is needed.

fsflover 1y ago

> This is why it's so important to defend the real principles here not just the technical artefacts of them. You're not wrong, but technical artefacts can be an important step in the right direction. I came to my bank, showed them my Librem 5 phone and asked where I can download an app for it. It was a much clearer message than "but Android isn't free!" (which is of course true). I do the same with governmental services. It also makes it much easier to explain to ordinary people that the choice must not be artificially restricted to just two megacorps.

lwhi 1y ago

We need an open web, with open principles and to prevent any commercial enterprise from dominating our social / tech sphere via monopolisation or methods of proprietary control. This isn't a surprise. A vocal minority have been saying the same ad infinitum. The need hasn't changed, and won't change; however there's a strong likelihood we'll get to a point where action isn't possible because we've passed the point of no return.

arcbyte 1y ago

Perhaps we should pick a page from the example of radio and force all video content to be openly reproducible for a forced flat fee.

thunfischtoast 1y ago

I agree, but your points becomes stronger when you leave Netflix away. Netflix is a private entertainment company, and when I don't like their conditions I can always quit. Banks on the other hand have so much more control over my life. With their apps being locked to the two major mobile OS I have many hoops to go through when I want to use an alternative one. It's not impossible yet, but it becomes very cumbersome to do so.

tiahura 1y ago

I prefer to live in a society where adults are free to come to their own arrangements with other adults. Not one where those with a penchant for authoritarianism set terms for others. Sometimes this system may have warts like not getting to watch Netflix on your Switch, but that seems like a small price to pay for respecting individual autonomy.

james_marks 1y ago

> Netflix shouldn't be able to insist on a particular type of DRM for me to receive their service. Maybe it’s just a bad example, but why would this be true? As a private company delivering entertainment, they can have any restrictions they want as a condition to selling to you.