6 ms·

> At the limit, sure, maybe there are tradeoffs between freedom and security. But there's lots of technical solutions that we could build right now that give a

> At the limit, sure, maybe there are tradeoffs between freedom and security. But there's lots of technical solutions that we could build right now that give a lot more safety without losing any freedom at all. Everything you have suggested in this post takes away freedom. There is no solution that doesn't take away freedom / your control. There is always a trade off. > Like sandboxing applications by default. Applications should by default run on my computer with the same permissions as a browser tab. Occasionally applications need more access than that. But that should require explicit privilege escalation rather than being granted to all programs by default. (Why do I need to trust that spotify and davinci resolve won't install keyloggers on my computer? Our computers are so insecure!) This already exists on Linux. I run Discord/Slack in Flatpak. Out of the box the folders and clipboard permissions are restricted. Only the ~/Downloads folder on my PC is accessible to Discord/Slack. You can't drag and drop things into these apps. Which makes sharing content a PITA. If you don't want to worry about things like keyloggers, you should run an open source OS and use open source programs where you can verify that there are no key loggers. You should also make sure you find out what firmware your keyboard is using (many keyboards themselves have complex micro controllers on them that can be programmed).

josephg 1y ago
> Everything you have suggested in this post takes away freedom. There is no solution that doesn't take away freedom / your control. There is always a trade off. Huh? In what way does application sandboxing take away my freedom? What can I do today that I can't do with a sandbox-everything-by-default model? In my mind, it gives me (the user) more freedom because I can run any program I want without fear. > I run Discord/Slack in Flatpak. Out of the box the folders and clipboard permissions are restricted. Only the ~/Downloads folder on my PC is accessible to Discord/Slack. You can't drag and drop things into these apps. Which makes sharing content a PITA. Cool! Yeah this is the sort of thing I want to see more of. The drag & drop problem is technically solvable - it just sounds like they haven't solved it yet. (Capabilities would be a great solution for this.. just sayin!)
- extraisland 1y ago
  > Huh? In what way does application sandboxing take away my freedom? What can I do today that I can't do with a sandbox-everything-by-default model? I've just explained that sand-boxing causes issues with file access, clipboard sharing etc. Every hoop you add in makes it more difficult for the user to gain back control, even if that is modifying permissions yourself. Most people will just remove permissions out of annoyance. If you remove control, you remove people's freedom. > In my mind, it gives me (the user) more freedom because I can run any program I want without fear. Any security mechanism has a weakness or it will be bypassed by other means. So all this will give you a false sense of security. The moment you think you are safe. Is when you are most unsafe. > Cool! Yeah this is the sort of thing I want to see more of. The drag & drop problem is technically solvable - it just sounds like they haven't solved it yet. (Capabilities would be a great solution for this.. just sayin!) I don't. It is a PITA. Eventually people just turn it off. I did. The reality is that if you want ultimate security you have to make a trade offs. Pretending you can make some theoretical system where those trade off don't exists just isn't realistic.
  - dvdkon 1y ago
    You seem to be arguing that adding complexity reduces freedom, but I don't think that's true in a reasonable interpretation of the word. Your argument would suggest that virtual memory takes away user freedom, because it's now much harder to access hardware or share data between programs, but that sounds ridiculous from a modern perspective. I think it's better to keep freedom and complexity separate, and speak about loss of freedom only when something becomes practically impossible, not just a bit more complex.
    - extraisland 1y ago
      > You seem to be arguing that adding complexity reduces freedom, but I don't think that's true in a reasonable interpretation of the word No I am not arguing that at all.
      - fsflover 1y ago

josephg 1y ago

> Everything you have suggested in this post takes away freedom. There is no solution that doesn't take away freedom / your control. There is always a trade off. Huh? In what way does application sandboxing take away my freedom? What can I do today that I can't do with a sandbox-everything-by-default model? In my mind, it gives me (the user) more freedom because I can run any program I want without fear. > I run Discord/Slack in Flatpak. Out of the box the folders and clipboard permissions are restricted. Only the ~/Downloads folder on my PC is accessible to Discord/Slack. You can't drag and drop things into these apps. Which makes sharing content a PITA. Cool! Yeah this is the sort of thing I want to see more of. The drag & drop problem is technically solvable - it just sounds like they haven't solved it yet. (Capabilities would be a great solution for this.. just sayin!)

extraisland 1y ago
> Huh? In what way does application sandboxing take away my freedom? What can I do today that I can't do with a sandbox-everything-by-default model? I've just explained that sand-boxing causes issues with file access, clipboard sharing etc. Every hoop you add in makes it more difficult for the user to gain back control, even if that is modifying permissions yourself. Most people will just remove permissions out of annoyance. If you remove control, you remove people's freedom. > In my mind, it gives me (the user) more freedom because I can run any program I want without fear. Any security mechanism has a weakness or it will be bypassed by other means. So all this will give you a false sense of security. The moment you think you are safe. Is when you are most unsafe. > Cool! Yeah this is the sort of thing I want to see more of. The drag & drop problem is technically solvable - it just sounds like they haven't solved it yet. (Capabilities would be a great solution for this.. just sayin!) I don't. It is a PITA. Eventually people just turn it off. I did. The reality is that if you want ultimate security you have to make a trade offs. Pretending you can make some theoretical system where those trade off don't exists just isn't realistic.
- dvdkon 1y ago
  You seem to be arguing that adding complexity reduces freedom, but I don't think that's true in a reasonable interpretation of the word. Your argument would suggest that virtual memory takes away user freedom, because it's now much harder to access hardware or share data between programs, but that sounds ridiculous from a modern perspective. I think it's better to keep freedom and complexity separate, and speak about loss of freedom only when something becomes practically impossible, not just a bit more complex.
  - extraisland 1y ago
    > You seem to be arguing that adding complexity reduces freedom, but I don't think that's true in a reasonable interpretation of the word No I am not arguing that at all.
    - fsflover 1y ago