←back to thread

The Dangers of Microsoft Pluton

(gabrielsieben.tech)
733 points gjsman-1000 | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0.896s | source
Show context
Gh0stRAT ◴[] No.32235028[source]
I'm completely missing how his example of a Word document that can only be opened by approved users on approved hardware within the corporation is supposed to be a bad thing.

Honestly, that sounds pretty fantastic. I've been using 3rd party tools/extensions to do this sort of thing in corporate and government environments for years, but having the attestation go all the way down to the hardware level is a big value-add, especially with so much ransomware/spyware/extortion/espionage going on these days.

Can someone please explain to me how the author might see this level of security as a bad thing?

replies(18): >>32235120 #>>32235149 #>>32235164 #>>32235474 #>>32235546 #>>32235795 #>>32235875 #>>32236359 #>>32236639 #>>32236668 #>>32236673 #>>32236797 #>>32236864 #>>32237450 #>>32237580 #>>32238544 #>>32238583 #>>32240740 #
BiteCode_dev ◴[] No.32235149[source]
The capacity for abuse is huge, way beyong the potential benefits.

From the USA, we get news of banned book in some states. When I read that, my head goes back to my european history, and I reach the Godwin point very quickly.

Those kind of people will abuse such system to prevent things to be shared.

It will be used for putting DRM on everything and create a more and more closed web.

It will be used by corporations and govs to prevent wisthleblowers and journalists to do their job. Or to prevent employees to get evidences of mistreatments in case they need to sue.

Because if you look at it, it's basically just a system for information control. And bad actors love that.

And of course it will be "for security reasons".

Trusting people with a terrible track record to not abuse a massive power in the future, espacially one that can be scaled up with the push of a button once the infrastructure is in place, is not a good bet.

replies(5): >>32235233 #>>32235313 #>>32235723 #>>32236892 #>>32238508 #
dx034 ◴[] No.32236892[source]
> From the USA, we get news of banned book in some states. When I read that, my head goes back to my european history, and I reach the Godwin point very quickly.

Books are not banned, just not used in the classroom anymore. While the reasons for it may be wrong, it's something that happens constantly all over the world. No one prevents children or adults to read those books at home. Banning books could mean that owning them is illegal and that just hasn't happened.

replies(3): >>32237118 #>>32241441 #>>32242481 #
acdha ◴[] No.32237118[source]
Banning their use in classrooms is lesser but still a step on that path, and the same Republicans trying to do that are not going to stop at schools after they win but will rather see that as an invigorating first step in a long campaign. For example, book sellers in Virginia are currently fighting a lawsuit against an attempt which would ban private sales:

https://www.virginiamercury.com/2022/07/06/free-speech-group...

replies(2): >>32239545 #>>32240120 #
axblount[dead post] ◴[] No.32239545[source]
merlincorey ◴[] No.32240190[source]
As a bit of an Anarcho-Libertarian who is often in the middle of these conversations from either side, I would imagine part of the problem is your framing of this issue as if it is only coming from one direction, when there is plenty of evidence that both sides are into things like banning books[0] it's just a question of which books they want banned.

[0] When It Comes to Banning Books, Both Right and Left Are Guilty | Opinion: https://www.newsweek.com/when-it-comes-banning-books-both-ri...

replies(2): >>32240432 #>>32240995 #
1. acdha ◴[] No.32240995[source]
The both sides framing is a common tactic used to make this seem even but there’s a pretty notable difference if you look at the details. For example, Newsweek’s right-wing owners love this framing but the left example is a single school district removing a book from the curriculum whereas the right wing examples are far more widespread and include books being removed from libraries. The motives are also different: banning books which depict racism positively (highly debatable in this example) is different from banning them because they reflect existence of gay people in a positive manner.
replies(1): >>32241591 #
2. merlincorey ◴[] No.32241591[source]
According to the article that I linked, California has banned "To Kill a Mockingbird" in schools due to racism and you seem to be implying that is because the book "depict[s] racism positively"; however, I read it back in school and I remember discussing extensively how the book showed racism in a most negative light.

It doesn't seem to me like you are willing to believe that both sides could be over stepping here, but I personally am sure of it.

replies(2): >>32242884 #>>32244804 #
3. SauciestGNU ◴[] No.32242884[source]
I remember the discourse around changing Jim's name in Huck Finn and banning To Kill a Mockingbird. Those changes and bans were wrong. But still the scope and intensity with which the extreme right are gunning for books is alarming. They're doing it more, it's more widespread, and they're using state power.

When "the left" has opposed books they try to use social pressure to get book settlers to voluntarily not stock those books. The right is currently using state power to prevent the teaching of certain books, their presence in public libraries, and are even suing to make private sales of certain books a crime in Virginia.

4. acdha ◴[] No.32244804[source]
According to the article you linked:

> Apparently no one told him that the stack of books in the photo included one banned in the state he leads, To Kill a Mockingbird, which was banned from California schools on the grounds that it contained racism.

Clear cut, right? Nope, here’s what their own linked article says:

> Schools in Burbank will no longer be able to teach a handful of classic novels, including Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird, following concerns raised by parents over racism.

> Until further notice, teachers in the area will not be able to include on their curriculum Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird, Mark Twain's The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, John Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men, Theodore Taylor's The Cay and Mildred D. Taylor's Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry.

The actual memo makes it sound like they’ll likely move these to the supplemental list and add some black authors: https://www.burbankusd.org/cms/lib/CA50000426/Centricity/Dom...

This is how the false-equivalence machine works. A single school district is expanded to an entire state (15k students isn’t nothing but it doesn’t represent many of the ~6M students in the state) and is presented as the equivalent of multiple state-wide attempts to remove books from schools & libraries, and again ignoring the difference between removing something from the curriculum with the goal of exclusion versus inclusion.

The urge to censor isn’t unique to right-wing politics but since they’re the ones pushing the most aggressively and successfully, I attributed more of it to the people causing the lion’s share of the harm.