6 ms·
The Coming War on General Computation (2011)
- throwaway2048 13y agosadly people will always be ready to sell snake oil that promises the impossble. great example i saw floating around here the other day: http://privatecore.com/ http://privatecore.com/
- readme 13y agoCare to explain to the rest of us who don't see it why your link is an example of "snake oil"? I'm familiar with the metaphor, but I don't see the deception yet.
- 616c 13y agoI believe it is the "data in use" portion, glancing from the page. Why? Because all forms of powerful server-based crypto rely on software-based crypto. The problem with this is they need the private key of yours on the server side, somewhere, from the whole thing to work. This means the server operator can recover the key from a running operating system, easily (through system utilities) or forcefully (reading it out of memory with specialized programs), or just writing code to fool you into enter the passphrase and storing. If you have heard of host-proof systems, they indicate (I would say correctly) the only way for crytography on network service like the one offered here is the data is encrypted on the client and sent to the server, never ever will the passphrase see server receiving the data. Therefore, not even the service provider can crack it without the same effort as some adversary from outside the system. That being said, I could have read too much into.
- cinquemb 13y agoI think as the topography of meshnets takes form, it just makes the ability to securely communicate more inherit in the system than storing our private keys on others computers. That makes me really excited. I'm also pretty excited about what kinds of hacks people will build upon such.
- EliRivers 13y agoHomomorphic encryption allows one to carry out operations on encrypted data without having to decrypt it; I could encrypt my data, send it to a big number-crunching server, they do the operations without decrypting anything, and send it back to me to decrypt and see the results at my leisure. It's got some way to go, but it's certainly possible.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- pcunite 13y agoPreviously discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3448754 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3448754
- stalled 13y agoand here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4436139 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4436139
- tjaerv 13y agoLinks to the actual upstream posts by Doctorow: http://boingboing.net/2011/12/27/the-coming-war-on-general-purp.html http://boingboing.net/2011/12/27/the-coming-war-on-general-p... http://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html http://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html http://boingboing.net/2012/08/23/civilwar.html http://boingboing.net/2012/08/23/civilwar.html
- stesch 13y agoGeneral purpose computers will be available for a long time. But they will have the significance of a home computer in the 1980s.
- TelmoMenezes 13y agoI don't know and neither do you.
- lotsofcows 13y agoEr yes, that applies to absolutely everything. He's expressing an opinion.
- TelmoMenezes 13y agoFair enough, let me rephrase it: he is parroting a common cliché, one that is based more on the desires and trends of the contemporary computer industry than a deep reflection on the future of humanity.
- stesch 13y agoDoesn't sound very nice.
- lotsofcows 13y agoI suspect a typo in the second sentence. I think it's hard to argue with the first.
- ds9 13y agoThis prediction is plausible based on the trend to vendor-managed devices amongst the general public. However, all the vendors of such devices need GPC's to make them. And certain big industries (incl. financial, pharmacos) won't tolerate not having root. So GPCs will continue being manufactured and available in the market, though they might become expensive or regulated. There are factors to consider in addition to the popularity of iDevices, tablets and such: 2. Will there or can there be a non-GPC that is usable for software creation. It is certainly possible for creation of text, images and so on, and some solution that allows using a managed language to produce binaries could be locked down fairly well. Certainly the likes of Microsoft and Apple would promote this, and the dot-net ecosystem already approaches it. 3. A possible dystopian scheme where the government tries to control access to GPCs and allows coding only on "captive" PCs as per (2). 4. Developers being discontented with (2) enough to reject the share-cropping arrangement and create a market for GPCs for individuals. 5. General public discovering advantages of having root on their gadgets and creating market demand, even though they will have little idea of the details ("I can do X with it this way but not when it's subject to the telco")
- dave1010uk 13y agoI remember when the iPad first came out and I (along with many others) were concerned that it was a device for consumption and not creation: the first step in the "war" on general-purpose computation. However, with the continual improvements in web browsers and JavaScript runtimes (as well as things like Emscriptrn) I'm far less concerned. Nowadays even a locked down phone can run any JavaScript, which may provide the user with an IDE or a secure messaging system. I still think there's a war but I think it's more at the network level rather than device level.
- homeomorphic 13y agoI think your optimistic view misses something important: nomatter how well browsers can execute JS, it's not truly general purpose computing as long as the stuff beneath the browser - from OS to hardware - is out of your control. It's great that the in-browser ecosystem is expanding and improving, but IMO we will still lose The War if we cannot tell our chips to do whatever we want. I hope we won't settle for the browser when we can and should have it all.
- snowwrestler 13y ago> it's not truly general purpose computing as long as the stuff beneath the browser - from OS to hardware - is out of your control. By that standard the state of general-purpose computing has been steadily improving as the most popular computing platform has moved from Windows--which is closed-source--to Android, which is open-source.
- homeomorphic 13y agoI'm not so sure. There seems to be an unwillingness to consider phones general purpose (which isn't that strange, since not long ago they were indeed special purpose). Just look at the acceptance of vendor lockdowns.
- wslh 13y agoYes, I don't know why Haskell or a Python interpreter (coming from their own free software teams) are not available.
- mtgx 13y agoWhen the war on drugs will inevitably be over in US, within a decade or so (the trend towards it is growing), by then there will already be two new wars started to "replace" the war on drug for anyone who benefitted from it (such as the police, private prisons [1], etc): the War on Pirates, and the War on Child Porn. If not both, they'll just use whichever works best. The real agenda behind it will be the same either way. Then you can start expecting SWAT teams raiding people's homes for downloading songs illegitimately (and yes, you'll even see more dogs and even innocent people shot in the process - just like in that "parody" video where the SWAT team shoots the kid who was downloading songs in the head at the end, which I can't find right now). Some of these are not felonies yet, but they're working hard [2] to "fix" that "problem". Current and future surveillance technologies, used by either NSA, FBI, DHS, or even the police will make that ever easier and more "tempting" to do. [1] http://www.republicreport.org/2012/marijuana-lobby-illegal/ http://www.republicreport.org/2012/marijuana-lobby-illegal/ [2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/07/unauthorized-streaming-felony_n_3720479.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/07/unauthorized-stream...
- kabdib 13y agoYou bring up an interesting point. "Winning" the War on Drugs doesn't mean that all those enforcers go away to write their memoirs and join each other in bars to talk about the good old days. There's a whole infrastructure -- courts, police, private contractors, manufacturers and salesmen -- entire bloody skyscrapers full of policy and bureaucracy that simply will not go idle just because the war was declared "won" and it's time to go home. The immediate aftermath of a war can be just as horrifying as the conflict itself. And we know that it's important to plan the results you want out of a war (because somebody sure is). So what do idle and technically unskilled hands /do/ for a living? My guess is that they won't change job descriptions very much, and since opportunities for helping Grandma across the street are relatively limited, they'll just be enforcing different stuff. What stuff is that going to be?
- straight_talk_2 13y agoYou missed the biggest businesses in this "war" - the private prison companies.
- navait 13y agoWe live in a world where anyone with $25 can purchase a rasberry Pi and hook it up to a television/monitor. General purpose computing is more accessible than ever before. And if people want a locked down device why shouldn't they have a device that actually meets their needs?Unless the need for programs dried up and ran away, we will always need(and have) general purpose computation. I'm sure a lot of people here constantly fix the computers for their friends and family. Tablets and smartphones help decrease the amount of help they need. isn't that a good thing? Or is Doctrow scared of becoming irrelevant when hackers are no longer needed as techno-priests?
- kevingadd 13y agoDevice cost is only part of the equation. If 99% of the devices out there run iOS, there are real accessibility and support problems - websites will use iOS-specific layout, applications will only be available for iOS, devices will only have 'drivers' or dedicated apps for iOS, connectors will be designed to hook up to iDevices, etc. Obviously we aren't in that scenario right now, but the Windows monoculture made it clear that all these things can and will happen. Low-cost manufacturers can thrive (comparatively) in that kind of environment by selling their devices for $25, but customers will suffer because their general purpose computers will be useless for non-hackers.
- rmk2 13y agoI disagree. You cannot simply buy the RPi at a normal retailer, unlike (smart)phones, laptops, (smart)TVs etc. etc. This does not mean the RPi isn't a fantastic little machine or that it doesn't offer new possibilities. However, there is a world of difference between a developer board (that doesn't have a case, operating system, built-in storage etc.) and a ready-made consumer article. General purpose computers become rarer with an increase in phones and tablets, all of them locked down. This is the making of a niché, and I think it is dishonest to simply assume people are worried about losing their status. Is the reduction in sales of general purpose computers the end of the world? Perhaps not. Should it prompt closer scrutiny and some concern? I think it should.
- superuser2 13y ago
- Aqueous 13y agoAnd in the 2 years since this was published, this has turned out to be completely spot-on...OH WAIT. it hasn't at all. Modern political discourse: Everything is a war on something. This kind of language radicalizes people from the outset, and prevents a discussion from actually happening. How about instead of calling it the "War on General Purpose Computing," "the War on Christmas," the "War on Women," the "War on Guns", heck, even the "War on Drugs," and the "War on Terror" - we take a step back, take a breather, and talk reasonably and calmly about the actual issues here? Because that wouldn't grab headlines.
- ihsw 13y agoI think it all boils down to the "War Over Control" where some people want to control other people. Personally I think if Islamists/gun grabbers/drug dealers/child pornographers want to destroy our way of life then they need to do it themselves -- I'm not going to do it for them by enacting draconian, broad-sweeping, and baseless laws that delegate power to people with questionable motives (all in the name of "safety").
- MarcScott 13y agoI think you are being a little disingenuous here. The title is designed to grab attention, as all headlines are. The article itself is measured and reasoned, as you'd expect form Doctorow. He does write fiction as well, so you'd expect him to choose a title that's going to make people pick up and read.
- b1daly 13y agoWhile I think there are certainly reasons to be concerned with the phenomena Doctorow is describing, I find his reasoning unpersuasive.As a general observation, he is making an argument that certain trends are bad because they could lead to possible bad outcomes in the future. This style of reasoning seems to me to be common in political arguments. The reality is is that there are trade offs from policy choice in the present, which are hard enough to quantify. Then there are going to be future trade offs, which become harder and harder to predict the further out they are, and the more complex the problem domain is. The core of his argument is that special andpurpose computers open the potential for surveillance. This seems myopic in the sense that the only effective controls on government surveillance are political. General purpose computers or not, the government has no shortage of means to spy. So far, the adoption of special purpose computers is being driven by market forces. They simply work better for most tasks than general purpose computers. There is a huge benefit to the human population from these devices, just as there is a huge benefit from having a rather leaky worldwide network easily accessible to "civilians." So society has to struggle already with how to manage control of information. The availability of general purpose computers seems largely peripheral to this dilemma. As far as the availability of general purpose computers to technical people, the harm he posits is almost entirely hypothetical. Not only are they still being produced in large numbers, there are fantastic numbers of existing computers that will continue to function for years to come. A far more likely impediment to accessibility to powerful, modern general purpose computers will be that market forces will shift so that they are no longer commodity items, and the cost to access the latest and greatest will rise. This is a problem of market structure, and legislative attempts to address this type of pricing problem have proven to be futile. If we were seeing calls by industry or politicians to legally limit the use of open source operating systems, then I think a call of alarm would ring louder (at least to me).