4 ms·

Being able to install a new OS is not an 'additional feature'. It's the downgrade of a capability that's inherent to the device. It's the same as making a carse

by goku12 11mo ago

Being able to install a new OS is not an 'additional feature'. It's the downgrade of a capability that's inherent to the device. It's the same as making a carseat heating a subscriptions service. Whether the users use it or not is entirely irrelevant.

charcircuit 11mo ago
>that's inherent to the device It's not inherit to the device. Accepting updates signed by a specific key is inherit to the device.
- goku12 11mo ago
  How is that inherent? That's something they added to the device to restrict our options. Now even if we accept the argument that this is necessary for security, why is there no provision for the owner to add their own keys, or bypass it explicitly?
  - charcircuit 11mo ago
    It's inherit because that is how the device was designed to function. Ultimately it's just silicon, so there isn't a default design for how it should work.
    - goku12 11mo ago
      Developing a restrictive feature at significant cost and imposing it upon the consumers isn't nearly what a reasonable person would consider as inherent or default. You can argue otherwise based on technicalities or arbitrary definitions and that's what these companies have been frustrating the consumers with. However, such gas lighting is the what justifies the hall of shame, skip lists and name and shame pages and websites like these. I'm hoping that they catch on in popularity because this sort of tactics deserve equally harsh disrepute.
      - charcircuit 11mo ago
        It is a tablestakes security feature. And adding an additional feature to support swapping keys has an additional cost and adds complexity to the design.
        goku12 11mo ago
        Now you're just shifting the goal posts. Locking down the full root and the firmware from even the owner, while retaining an exclusive remote exception for yourself (the OEM) at the same time is worthwhile, but adding or swapping user keys is too complex and costly? Forget the fact that this isn't nearly as complex as what they've set up for themselves. This is the bare minimum that an OEM is obliged to provide the owner, when they lock down the device. They're able to get away without doing that because the market isn't free or fair anymore. They twisted the market and the regulator to unfairly benefit them. Now we are going from gas lighting to just making up excuses to justify what benefits you (the OEMs). This is exactly what I've been accusing them of, all the while. Their justifications are technically false, misleading, arbitrary, unfair, shallow and opportunistic.

by goku12 11mo ago

charcircuit 11mo ago

>that's inherent to the device It's not inherit to the device. Accepting updates signed by a specific key is inherit to the device.

goku12 11mo ago
How is that inherent? That's something they added to the device to restrict our options. Now even if we accept the argument that this is necessary for security, why is there no provision for the owner to add their own keys, or bypass it explicitly?
- charcircuit 11mo ago
  It's inherit because that is how the device was designed to function. Ultimately it's just silicon, so there isn't a default design for how it should work.
  - goku12 11mo ago
    Developing a restrictive feature at significant cost and imposing it upon the consumers isn't nearly what a reasonable person would consider as inherent or default. You can argue otherwise based on technicalities or arbitrary definitions and that's what these companies have been frustrating the consumers with. However, such gas lighting is the what justifies the hall of shame, skip lists and name and shame pages and websites like these. I'm hoping that they catch on in popularity because this sort of tactics deserve equally harsh disrepute.
    - charcircuit 11mo ago
      It is a tablestakes security feature. And adding an additional feature to support swapping keys has an additional cost and adds complexity to the design.
      - goku12 11mo ago
        Now you're just shifting the goal posts. Locking down the full root and the firmware from even the owner, while retaining an exclusive remote exception for yourself (the OEM) at the same time is worthwhile, but adding or swapping user keys is too complex and costly? Forget the fact that this isn't nearly as complex as what they've set up for themselves. This is the bare minimum that an OEM is obliged to provide the owner, when they lock down the device. They're able to get away without doing that because the market isn't free or fair anymore. They twisted the market and the regulator to unfairly benefit them. Now we are going from gas lighting to just making up excuses to justify what benefits you (the OEMs). This is exactly what I've been accusing them of, all the while. Their justifications are technically false, misleading, arbitrary, unfair, shallow and opportunistic.