←back to thread

2071 points K0nserv | 5 comments | | HN request time: 0.8s | source
Show context
tzury ◴[] No.45088695[source]
We need both options to coexist:

1. Open, hackable hardware for those who want full control and for driving innovation

2. Locked-down, managed devices for vulnerable users who benefit from protection

This concept of "I should run any code on hardware I own" is completely wrong as a universal principle. Yes, we absolutely should be able to run any code we want on open hardware we own - that option must exist. But we should not expect manufacturers of phones and tablets to allow anyone to run any code on every device, since this will cause harm to many users.

There should be more open and hackable products available in the market. The DIY mindset at the junction of hardware and software is crucial for tech innovation - we wouldn't be where we are today without it. However, I also want regulations and restrictions on the phones I buy for my kids and grandparents. They need protection from themselves and from bad actors.

The market should serve both groups: those who want to tinker and innovate, and those who need a safe, managed experience. The problem isn't that locked-down devices exist - it's that we don't have enough truly open alternatives for those who want them.

replies(23): >>45088735 #>>45088761 #>>45088840 #>>45088846 #>>45088867 #>>45088917 #>>45088924 #>>45088947 #>>45089091 #>>45089098 #>>45089274 #>>45089445 #>>45089853 #>>45090037 #>>45090783 #>>45091788 #>>45091834 #>>45092235 #>>45092332 #>>45092365 #>>45092417 #>>45092508 #>>45094664 #
1. throwaway22032 ◴[] No.45088867[source]
The issue with this is that inevitably the locked down devices, which will end up being 98%+ of the market, become required for ordinary living, because no-one will develop for the 2%.

Open hardware is essentially useless if I need to carry both an open phone and a phone with the parking app, the banking app, messenger app to contact friends, etc.

replies(1): >>45088904 #
2. charcircuit ◴[] No.45088904[source]
For security reasons it makes sense for them to be different devices. People and services may not want to allow insecure devices to communicate with them.
replies(1): >>45088940 #
3. immibis ◴[] No.45088940[source]
Why? It's not like the insecure device doesn't have my identity key on it. If I program it to spam people, I go to jail for spamming.
replies(2): >>45089011 #>>45089015 #
4. charcircuit ◴[] No.45089011{3}[source]
It would be easier to spoof such identities and some services may not want to deal with the overhead of using the legal system. Spammers today already can be taken to court, but in practice people don't do that.
5. jen20 ◴[] No.45089015{3}[source]
If only you went to jail for spamming.