←back to thread

We should have the ability to run any code we want on hardware we own

(hugotunius.se)
2071 points K0nserv | 2 comments | 31 Aug 25 21:46 UTC | HN request time: 0.403s | source
Show context
tzury ◴[01 Sep 25 01:47 UTC] 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 #
fellowmartian ◴[01 Sep 25 02:01 UTC] No.45088761[source]▶
I think this is a false dichotomy. Open hardware with open source software would be more protected simply by being more stress tested and vetted by more people. If you need even more protection you can employ zero-knowledge proofs and other trustless technologies. I have long been dreaming about some kind of hardware/software co-op creating non-enshittifying versions of thermostats, electric kettles, EV chargers, solar inverters, etc, etc. Hackable for people who want it, simply non-rent-seeking for everyone else.
replies(2): >>45088783 #>>45089393 #
1. johncolanduoni ◴[01 Sep 25 04:15 UTC] No.45089393[source]▶
The issue here is rarely whether the security features themselves are circumventable. It’s that at some point this turns into trusting users not to give malware apps permissions (whether that’s a dialog, a system wide setting, adding a third-party app store, etc.). Almost no users can usefully evaluate whether a particular bit of digital trust is a good or bad idea, so people will constantly get scammed in practice. If you’re thinking about ZNP as a solution, you’re not trying to solve the actual security problems of normal users.
replies(1): >>45089872 #
2. beeflet ◴[01 Sep 25 06:02 UTC] No.45089872[source]▶
I think normal users will figure it out if you give them a couple of generations