←back to thread

845 points the-anarchist | 9 comments | | HN request time: 1.191s | source | bottom
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 #
1. Sophira ◴[] No.44335780[source]
While I agree in theory, this is never going to happen. There's too much DRM in use for it to work out.
replies(4): >>44335868 #>>44336403 #>>44336964 #>>44341599 #
2. jimjimwii ◴[] No.44335868[source]
Repeal and outlaw drm. It was a mistake that violates everyone's constitutional rights.
replies(1): >>44336315 #
3. mmh0000 ◴[] No.44336315[source]
“constitutional rights”

Words written on toilet paper. Only thing that exists today are “billionaire rights”.

replies(2): >>44336349 #>>44336780 #
4. reactordev ◴[] No.44336349{3}[source]
Exactly. DRM isn’t going anywhere so long as copyrights exist.
replies(1): >>44336398 #
5. xg15 ◴[] No.44336398{4}[source]
Not even that. Companies are already lobbying massively for selective enforcement of copyright as to not harm the AI boom (immediate jail terms for individuals torrenting a movie, "it's a complex issue" for AI companies scraping the entire internet)

But even the DRM that is already there often only uses copyright laws as suggestions. E.g. YouTube's takedown guidelines are defined through their TOS, not through the DMCA.

6. al_borland ◴[] No.44336403[source]
DRM is a barrier to legally protected purchasing digital media for me. I will buy an album from iTunes (no DRM), but I will not buy digital movies the same way.
7. mensetmanusman ◴[] No.44336780{3}[source]
Are there billionaires in the room with us right now?
8. AshamedCaptain ◴[] No.44336964[source]
What there are is many people utterly convinced that this brings some security to end-users. See the other messages in this thread. DRM is only a fraction of the problem.
9. const_cast ◴[] No.44341599[source]
DRM can still stick around and be popular. For example, consider an Apple TV. They make the hardware and software, so it can be locked down under the provided rules. Or a console. We might consider devices which are used for streaming or movies to not be general purpose computation devices. Which, historically, they haven't been.

Watching copyrighted stuff on general purpose computers is a very new phenomena, and it's still quite atypical IMO.