←back to thread

845 points the-anarchist | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.406s | source
Show context
userbinator ◴[] No.44334486[source]
making it nearly impossible for regular users to uninstall it without root access, which voids warranties and poses security risks

Stop parroting the corporate propaganda that put us into this stupid situation in the first place. Having root access on devices you own should be a fundamental right, as otherwise it's not ownership.

replies(12): >>44334515 #>>44334549 #>>44334577 #>>44334616 #>>44334661 #>>44334912 #>>44335283 #>>44335463 #>>44335597 #>>44336211 #>>44336257 #>>44336433 #
ulrikrasmussen ◴[] No.44335283[source]
We need regulation which defines that any hardware device capable of running software developed by a third party different from the hardware manufacturer qualifies as a general purpose computing device, and that any such device is disallowed to put cryptographic or other restrictions on what software the user wants to execute. This pertains to all programmable components on the device, including low-level hardware controllers.

These restrictions extend outside the particular device. It must also be illegal as a commercial entity to enforce security schemes which involve remote attestation of the software stack on the client device such that service providers can refuse to service clients based on failing attestation. Service providers have other means of protecting themselves, taking away users control of their own devices is a heavy handed and unnecessarily draconian approach which ultimately only benefits the ad company that happens to make the software stack since they also benefit from restricting what software users can run. Hypothetically, they might be interested in making it impossible to modify video players to skip ads.

replies(3): >>44335513 #>>44335681 #>>44335780 #
akoboldfrying ◴[] No.44335513[source]
> any such device is disallowed to put cryptographic or other restrictions on what software the user wants to execute

Won't this also forbid virus scanners that quarantine files?

> This pertains to all programmable components on the device, including low-level hardware controllers.

I don't think it's reasonable to expect any manufacturer to uphold a warranty if making unlimited changes to the system is permitted.

replies(3): >>44335670 #>>44335696 #>>44335749 #
1. afeuerstein ◴[] No.44335696[source]
> Won't this also forbid virus scanners that quarantine files?

Yes. If I really _want_ to execute malware on my device, I should be allowed to do so by disabling the antivirus or disregarding a warning.

> I don't think it's reasonable to expect any manufacturer to uphold a warranty if making unlimited changes to the system is permitted

It is very reasonable and already the rule of law in "sane" jurisdictions, that manufacturer and mandated warranties are not touched by unrelated, reversable modifications to both hard- and software.

replies(1): >>44342802 #
2. akoboldfrying ◴[] No.44342802[source]
> Yes. If I really _want_ to execute malware on my device, I should be allowed to do so by disabling the antivirus or disregarding a warning.

I agree.

> already the rule of law in "sane" jurisdictions, that manufacturer and mandated warranties are not touched by unrelated, reversable modifications to both hard- and software.

Do you have any examples of such jurisdictions? I think whether this is reasonable turns on how "reversible" is interpreted. If it means "reversible to factory settings", including wiping all built-in storage media, then it seems reasonable to me that manufacturers should support this (possibly modulo some extreme cases like cars that have dozens of CPUs). But I would not be happy with having my hard disk wiped if I sent in my laptop for repairs because a couple of keys stopped working, which tells me that (to me) there remain at least two classes of "problem that should be fixed for free under warranty by the manufacturer".