12 ms·

> It was also possible to bypass the copyright monitors by installing a modified system kernel. Dan would eventually find out about the free kernels, even entir

> It was also possible to bypass the copyright monitors by installing a modified system kernel. Dan would eventually find out about the free kernels, even entire free operating systems, that had existed around the turn of the century. But not only were they illegal, like debuggers—you could not install one if you had one, without knowing your computer's root password. And neither the FBI nor Microsoft Support would tell you that. Not quite there, but almost (wrt PCs). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Extensible_Firmware_Interface#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Extensible_Firmware_In... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Platform_Module#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Platform_Module#Critic... http://rt.com/news/windows-8-nsa-germany-862/ http://rt.com/news/windows-8-nsa-germany-862/

Nitramp 12y ago
And of course it's illegal to install other operating systems on smartphones and other devices. Citation required?
- Karunamon 12y ago
  Most modern smartphones are bootloader locked. Circumventing those locks is arguably violating the anti-circumvention bits of the DMCA. Therefore, to install another OS, you have to break the law. Worth mentioning is that it's illegal in the same way breaking the speed limit by 1MPH is illegal, i.e. technically against the law, but your chances for ending up in trouble for doing it are nil.
  - xnull2guest 12y ago
    Yeah looks like that was the argument that held up until just a few years ago. I remember it being 'illegal' (like breaking the speed limit) at that time. As of 2010 it appears to have changed. Note that it IS illegal to modify a phone so that it connects to a carrier it wasn't 'intended' to connect to.
    - Crito 12y ago
      That is only for smartphones specifically though, as I understand it.
  - droopyEyelids 12y ago
    Thats actually not worth mentioning. Speeding by 1mph isn't a practical or useful law to enforce. Creating a new OS and breaking the boot loader would require a group of people working together in some organized form, which would make it practical to target, and it'd probably be financially threatening to a larger company, which would make it useful to enforce. In 2014, companies are the political and cultural entities in our society, and a law like this kills off a class of entity.
  - biafra 12y ago
    It might be illegal in _your_ country. But AFAIK reverse engineering or installing custom software on a device I bought is not illegal in Germany. Probably in most countries.
    - psykovsky 12y ago
      Motorola tried to tell me my phone warranty was off because I requested the bootloader unlock code from their site. Well, they're wrong. They cannot do that. It's illegal. I have every right to unlock my phone. Europe really is different from the USA.
      - leni536 12y ago
        Something voiding the warranty or being illegal is quite different matter though. I'm pretty sure that disassembling your phone voids your warranty but I would be surprised if it was illegal.
        kuschku 12y ago
        Disassembling your phone only voids the warranty on the overall device, not on the individual parts. Also changing the software does not void the warranty of the hardware. Also if a contract contains a clause forbidding you to disassemble, decompile, or debug something, then the clause is automatically void. Yay for EU rights.
        psykovsky 12y ago
        Exactly. Doesn't matter what Motorola says. The Terms they made me "read" and "agree" upon are void because they go against the law. I'm free to get rid of the Motorola software on my phone and replace it without voiding the 24 months warranty on my phone.
      - arrrg 12y ago
        Warranties can be tied to limitations and restrictions the manufacturers make up. (There probably are some limitations to that to do with contract law. It surely is quite complicated, but voiding your warranty by unlocking your device doesn’t seem unreasonable to me.) Warranties are voluntary and distinct from seller liability for defects in the product. That liability is legally required in the EU. The details of the implementation are different in different countries. In Germany it’s like this: The seller (and only the seller) is liable and you have to go to the seller to make a liability claim. So if you bought your phone from Amazon you have to write Amazon, not Motorola. If you bought it from a carrier you have to go to the carrier. If you didn’t buy the phone directly from the manufacturer that manufacturer doesn’t have to do anything when you come to them with a defect phone. It’s the seller’s problem. (This is mostly to prevent a runaround, where seller and manufacturer both tell you each other is responsible for fixing the problem. This creates one entity that is clearly and obviously responsible and has to handle the problem.) It’s for defects present when the device was sold and that’s it. (However, subsequent defects of some component because the device was delivered with some faulty or not up to spec components count, too.) In the first six months the seller has to prove the defect wasn’t present when the device was delivered to not be liable. You, the buyer, don’t have to prove anything. That burden of proof, however, reverses after six months and up to 24 months (then there is no more liability), making it very hard in practice for buyers to prove after those six months that the defect was there when the device was sold. (However, courts have relaxed the requirements for that. Buyers usually don’t need to get some expensive expert opinion or something like that. If you can make a very good and informed argument for your case you should usually be covered.) The seller can repair or replace the device. Buyers don’t have right to get their device replaced when it’s possible to repair it. If repairing and replacing fails a number of times (I think three) the buyer can demand their money back. That’s the liability. A legal requirement and very complicated – and also wholly distinct from warranties. By unlocking your phone you may have voided your warranty, but you certainly didn’t void the legal liability of the seller.
  - higherpurpose 12y ago
    There was an exception against that until about a year ago. Then this year that exception was added back in. http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/1/5959915/president-barack-obama-signing-phone-unlocking-bill http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/1/5959915/president-barack-ob...
- xnull2guest 12y ago
  I looked it up and am wrong as of 2010 when the Registrar of Copyright of the Library of Congress ruled that, in fact, it was legal to jailbreak iPhones and other smartphones. Apologies, I will remove the comment above.
- ajb 12y ago
  That was a prediction, not a statement - it's from Stallman's 1997 'right to read' cited above.
userbinator 12y ago
Let's not forget the widening gap between "advanced user" and "developer", created by schemes like code signing, forced app-store distribution models, and the gradual removal of "only developers will need them" features from software. While there are arguably security benefits to such closed ecosystems, it also makes it much harder for users to be in control of their computers - which includes modifying and writing new software for them. Compared to a PC today, the original IBM PC/XT/AT was amazingly open. All versions of DOS came with a basic debugger, which could also be used to write short Asm programs. I remember these being popularly published in the computing magazines of the time, and there was a general attitude of openness around that. Perhaps the average user today doesn't care, but what astounds me is how much freedom we've given up in pursuit of security and safety. We seem to have gone down a path (or the corporations have led us down one) in which we're lead to believe that having responsibility and freedom is a bad thing, and that we'd be happier - blissfully ignorant - if we let these corporations (and governments) take over for us.
- xnull2guest 12y ago
  We've gone in a security model that Bruce Schneier calls Digital Feudalism. We give up rights to have large centralized organizations take care of our security for us. In exchange we give them data that they are allowed to sell. This is both for devices and for services (notably Web 2.0). There are arguably benefits to this arrangement. Prostitutes have pimps, even though they cut into profits without taking much personal risk or providing much labor, because pimps do provide a safety mechanism. Likewise, vassals gave up large portions of what they produced for security from their lords and kings. We've returned to this arrangement because: 1.) Paying is painful and copying software is easy. Instead of making money from you, Web 2.0 have monetized you as a target for advertisers. Web services are 'in' because that's the only way software can't be pirated. Much of our software today displays GUIs on a screen but runs on other computers because of this reason. The new Office products all run in the cloud, MMOs offer the same deal, and games like Diablo III can only run when in constant connection to the internet, even though there's no technical reason why that should be the case. XBox One tried to (and backpedaled from) make the xBox always on always connected. Other streaming video game and content services try the same. Essentially, the internet has become glorified TV (minimally interactive), with more channels. 2.) The internet is the Wild Wild West. Security professionals have been yelling for ages that the rush to release and the need to compete together with closed source development was making the world an insecure place. Essentially every layer of our computing stack is insecure. Attestation of computer intrusion is ridiculously hard. And there's money (and geopolitical power) to be had. We designed things insecure from the start, and continue to do so. Individuals can't stay secure on their own. It's not possible. So up with the lords and vassals - we know it sort of works from history. I do think the average user cares. I don't think the average user is informed.

Nitramp 12y ago

And of course it's illegal to install other operating systems on smartphones and other devices. Citation required?

Karunamon 12y ago
Most modern smartphones are bootloader locked. Circumventing those locks is arguably violating the anti-circumvention bits of the DMCA. Therefore, to install another OS, you have to break the law. Worth mentioning is that it's illegal in the same way breaking the speed limit by 1MPH is illegal, i.e. technically against the law, but your chances for ending up in trouble for doing it are nil.
- xnull2guest 12y ago
  Yeah looks like that was the argument that held up until just a few years ago. I remember it being 'illegal' (like breaking the speed limit) at that time. As of 2010 it appears to have changed. Note that it IS illegal to modify a phone so that it connects to a carrier it wasn't 'intended' to connect to.
  - Crito 12y ago
    That is only for smartphones specifically though, as I understand it.
- droopyEyelids 12y ago
  Thats actually not worth mentioning. Speeding by 1mph isn't a practical or useful law to enforce. Creating a new OS and breaking the boot loader would require a group of people working together in some organized form, which would make it practical to target, and it'd probably be financially threatening to a larger company, which would make it useful to enforce. In 2014, companies are the political and cultural entities in our society, and a law like this kills off a class of entity.
- biafra 12y ago
  It might be illegal in _your_ country. But AFAIK reverse engineering or installing custom software on a device I bought is not illegal in Germany. Probably in most countries.
  - psykovsky 12y ago
    Motorola tried to tell me my phone warranty was off because I requested the bootloader unlock code from their site. Well, they're wrong. They cannot do that. It's illegal. I have every right to unlock my phone. Europe really is different from the USA.
    - leni536 12y ago
      Something voiding the warranty or being illegal is quite different matter though. I'm pretty sure that disassembling your phone voids your warranty but I would be surprised if it was illegal.
      - kuschku 12y ago
        Disassembling your phone only voids the warranty on the overall device, not on the individual parts. Also changing the software does not void the warranty of the hardware. Also if a contract contains a clause forbidding you to disassemble, decompile, or debug something, then the clause is automatically void. Yay for EU rights.
        psykovsky 12y ago
        Exactly. Doesn't matter what Motorola says. The Terms they made me "read" and "agree" upon are void because they go against the law. I'm free to get rid of the Motorola software on my phone and replace it without voiding the 24 months warranty on my phone.
    - arrrg 12y ago
      Warranties can be tied to limitations and restrictions the manufacturers make up. (There probably are some limitations to that to do with contract law. It surely is quite complicated, but voiding your warranty by unlocking your device doesn’t seem unreasonable to me.) Warranties are voluntary and distinct from seller liability for defects in the product. That liability is legally required in the EU. The details of the implementation are different in different countries. In Germany it’s like this: The seller (and only the seller) is liable and you have to go to the seller to make a liability claim. So if you bought your phone from Amazon you have to write Amazon, not Motorola. If you bought it from a carrier you have to go to the carrier. If you didn’t buy the phone directly from the manufacturer that manufacturer doesn’t have to do anything when you come to them with a defect phone. It’s the seller’s problem. (This is mostly to prevent a runaround, where seller and manufacturer both tell you each other is responsible for fixing the problem. This creates one entity that is clearly and obviously responsible and has to handle the problem.) It’s for defects present when the device was sold and that’s it. (However, subsequent defects of some component because the device was delivered with some faulty or not up to spec components count, too.) In the first six months the seller has to prove the defect wasn’t present when the device was delivered to not be liable. You, the buyer, don’t have to prove anything. That burden of proof, however, reverses after six months and up to 24 months (then there is no more liability), making it very hard in practice for buyers to prove after those six months that the defect was there when the device was sold. (However, courts have relaxed the requirements for that. Buyers usually don’t need to get some expensive expert opinion or something like that. If you can make a very good and informed argument for your case you should usually be covered.) The seller can repair or replace the device. Buyers don’t have right to get their device replaced when it’s possible to repair it. If repairing and replacing fails a number of times (I think three) the buyer can demand their money back. That’s the liability. A legal requirement and very complicated – and also wholly distinct from warranties. By unlocking your phone you may have voided your warranty, but you certainly didn’t void the legal liability of the seller.
- higherpurpose 12y ago
  There was an exception against that until about a year ago. Then this year that exception was added back in. http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/1/5959915/president-barack-obama-signing-phone-unlocking-bill http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/1/5959915/president-barack-ob...
xnull2guest 12y ago
I looked it up and am wrong as of 2010 when the Registrar of Copyright of the Library of Congress ruled that, in fact, it was legal to jailbreak iPhones and other smartphones. Apologies, I will remove the comment above.
ajb 12y ago
That was a prediction, not a statement - it's from Stallman's 1997 'right to read' cited above.

userbinator 12y ago

Let's not forget the widening gap between "advanced user" and "developer", created by schemes like code signing, forced app-store distribution models, and the gradual removal of "only developers will need them" features from software. While there are arguably security benefits to such closed ecosystems, it also makes it much harder for users to be in control of their computers - which includes modifying and writing new software for them. Compared to a PC today, the original IBM PC/XT/AT was amazingly open. All versions of DOS came with a basic debugger, which could also be used to write short Asm programs. I remember these being popularly published in the computing magazines of the time, and there was a general attitude of openness around that. Perhaps the average user today doesn't care, but what astounds me is how much freedom we've given up in pursuit of security and safety. We seem to have gone down a path (or the corporations have led us down one) in which we're lead to believe that having responsibility and freedom is a bad thing, and that we'd be happier - blissfully ignorant - if we let these corporations (and governments) take over for us.

xnull2guest 12y ago
We've gone in a security model that Bruce Schneier calls Digital Feudalism. We give up rights to have large centralized organizations take care of our security for us. In exchange we give them data that they are allowed to sell. This is both for devices and for services (notably Web 2.0). There are arguably benefits to this arrangement. Prostitutes have pimps, even though they cut into profits without taking much personal risk or providing much labor, because pimps do provide a safety mechanism. Likewise, vassals gave up large portions of what they produced for security from their lords and kings. We've returned to this arrangement because: 1.) Paying is painful and copying software is easy. Instead of making money from you, Web 2.0 have monetized you as a target for advertisers. Web services are 'in' because that's the only way software can't be pirated. Much of our software today displays GUIs on a screen but runs on other computers because of this reason. The new Office products all run in the cloud, MMOs offer the same deal, and games like Diablo III can only run when in constant connection to the internet, even though there's no technical reason why that should be the case. XBox One tried to (and backpedaled from) make the xBox always on always connected. Other streaming video game and content services try the same. Essentially, the internet has become glorified TV (minimally interactive), with more channels. 2.) The internet is the Wild Wild West. Security professionals have been yelling for ages that the rush to release and the need to compete together with closed source development was making the world an insecure place. Essentially every layer of our computing stack is insecure. Attestation of computer intrusion is ridiculously hard. And there's money (and geopolitical power) to be had. We designed things insecure from the start, and continue to do so. Individuals can't stay secure on their own. It's not possible. So up with the lords and vassals - we know it sort of works from history. I do think the average user cares. I don't think the average user is informed.