←back to thread

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

(hugotunius.se)
2071 points K0nserv | 9 comments | 31 Aug 25 21:46 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
kristov ◴[01 Sep 25 13:05 UTC] No.45092413[source]▶
I think the conversation needs to change from "can't run software of our choice" to "can't participate in society without an apple or google account". I have been living with a de-googled android phone for a number of years, and it is getting harder and harder, while at the same time operating without certain "apps" is becoming more difficult.

For example, by bank (abn amro) still allows online banking on desktop via a physical auth device, but they are actively pushing for login only via their app. I called their support line for a lost card, and had to go through to second level support because I didn't have the app. If they get their way, eventually an apple or google account will be mandatory to have a bank account with them.

My kid goes to a school that outsourced all communication via an app. They have a web version, but it's barely usable. The app doesn't run without certain google libs installed. Again, to participate in school communication about my kid effectively requires an apple or google account.

I feel like the conversation we should be having is that we are sleepwalking into a world where to participate in society you must have an account with either apple or google. If you decide you don't want a relationship with either of those companies you will be extremely disadvantaged.

replies(33): >>45092481 #>>45092502 #>>45092525 #>>45092559 #>>45092576 #>>45092623 #>>45092669 #>>45092781 #>>45092939 #>>45092947 #>>45093038 #>>45093048 #>>45093123 #>>45093260 #>>45093421 #>>45093478 #>>45093537 #>>45093699 #>>45093704 #>>45094027 #>>45095844 #>>45096340 #>>45096654 #>>45097801 #>>45098763 #>>45099066 #>>45100986 #>>45102151 #>>45102555 #>>45103765 #>>45103863 #>>45104157 #>>45105475 #
shawabawa3 ◴[01 Sep 25 13:15 UTC] No.45092481[source]▶
> If you decide you don't want a relationship with either of those companies you will be extremely disadvantaged.

Even more worrying is the inverse of this - if Google and/or Apple decide for whatever reason they don't want a relationship with you (aka they ban you for no reason) - you are completely screwed

replies(9): >>45093014 #>>45095288 #>>45098792 #>>45098985 #>>45099237 #>>45099277 #>>45100309 #>>45101066 #>>45102640 #
abustamam ◴[01 Sep 25 14:42 UTC] No.45093014[source]▶
Even if they ban you for a reason, you're screwed. Granted, the ban may have been warranted, but you're essentially put into a societal prison with no due process or recourse.
replies(4): >>45093165 #>>45093707 #>>45095824 #>>45103483 #
tomaskafka ◴[01 Sep 25 14:58 UTC] No.45093165[source]▶
That is a great analogy. There are countries where a police can throw you into a lifetime jail with zero option for justice unless you are a famous person from a well known western country.

Those countries are North Korea, Iran, Russia, Google and Apple.

replies(3): >>45093181 #>>45099561 #>>45101168 #
mothballed ◴[01 Sep 25 14:59 UTC] No.45093181[source]▶
Well the US can do it with CBP/ICE, but not for life. I was placed in a jail without being arrested or being accused of a crime and they were very clear at all times I was not even arrested, nor did a federal criminal history search show any record of arrest. No access to lawyer either.

US Citizen. Contacted lawyers, all informed me they'd given up trying to sue for these things because it's hopeless.

replies(4): >>45093459 #>>45093674 #>>45094551 #>>45094605 #
shawabawa3 ◴[01 Sep 25 15:45 UTC] No.45093674[source]▶
how long were you in jail? How did you get out?
replies(1): >>45093713 #
mothballed ◴[01 Sep 25 15:49 UTC] No.45093713[source]▶
~12 hours in jail, a few hours shackled in prisoner transport vans, and then ~12 hours in cuffs at a couple different hospitals hospital (where I was touched by health care professionals without my consent and without a warrant) while they waited for signs of non-existent "drugs." Shortly before I was released they served me retroactive search warrant, signed by a judge after it happened, using made-up PC that did not even state the name of the person or animal they claim prompted it.

I was released after an HSI guy showed up, took a quick look at me, decided I wasn't a terrorist or whatever, served me the retroactive warrant, and then I was sent on a prisoner transport van to be dumped at the border with my all my shit (including my shoelaces) in a plastic bag.

For the hospital part I was sent a ~$1k bill, which is still in collections.

replies(3): >>45094502 #>>45097096 #>>45103910 #
1. dingnuts ◴[01 Sep 25 17:05 UTC] No.45094502[source]▶
if you're telling a real story and not just AI generating bullshit for karma you should go to the PRESS. this story, if it's real, should be something the press would eat up.

screw the lawyers. go public and name names

replies(4): >>45094893 #>>45097281 #>>45097956 #>>45100955 #
2. mothballed ◴[01 Sep 25 17:44 UTC] No.45094893[source]▶
The press did an almost identical story for Ashley Cervantes, who had almost the same thing happen, except she was digitally (finger) raped by doctors as part of the process and was a young barely adult ~poor woman vulnerable minority so way way more public sympathy for her vs me (I'm a middle class white native English speaking boring white boy with a hick accent so basically at the bottom of the interest at ACLU, they do occasionally feature some people that have had it happen if they have sympathetic backgrounds).

Nothing changed. Same port of entry, same hospital network, same everything (I don't think she was jailed like me though). Lawsuit failed and public press did nothing. Later the ACLU won some kind of suit that forced all involved parties to be warned, which they promptly ignored, and that was the end of it.

https://www.southernborder.org/woman-suing-border-patrol-ove...

https://www.kgun9.com/news/local-news/woman-sues-cbp-over-bo...

replies(3): >>45096661 #>>45103851 #>>45108998 #
3. philipallstar ◴[01 Sep 25 21:13 UTC] No.45096661[source]▶
> I'm a middle class white native English speaking boring white boy with a hick accent so basically at the bottom of the interest at ACLU

This in itself should be shocking to us

4. tshaddox ◴[01 Sep 25 22:46 UTC] No.45097281[source]▶
Very similar stuff has been in the press often this year. Everyone mostly forgets each case after a couple of weeks (did that end up being a real gang tattoo or not?, etc.).
replies(1): >>45097325 #
5. mothballed ◴[01 Sep 25 22:53 UTC] No.45097325[source]▶
I think my case might have gotten picked up by someone if it happened under Trump or close enough it would have still been under the statute of limitations. There wasn't much interest in immigration law under Biden, lately IJ and others have become interested in defending CBP/ICE overreach.
6. ◴[02 Sep 25 00:42 UTC] No.45097956[source]▶
7. kmacdough ◴[02 Sep 25 09:56 UTC] No.45100955[source]▶
Try abrego garcia. Illegally detained. Now he's got a whole criminal conspiracy built around him with no independently verifiable evidence.
8. FuriouslyAdrift ◴[02 Sep 25 14:49 UTC] No.45103851[source]▶
I looked at the final motion to dismiss document and boy did she get bad legal advice. The lawyer tried a Bivens case against the hospital... which any lawyer will tell you is an impossibility. Bivens cases are just about impossible to win under any circumstances, but trying to do a Bivens against a non-federal officer is a guaranteed loss.

To have won this case against the agents would have required piercing qualified immunity which is very tough (you have to prove intentional misconduct... just being incompetent isn't enough in most cases).

She would have been better off pursuing a medical malpractice case against the hospital and/or doctor to be able to get any kind of relief.

9. kbenson ◴[02 Sep 25 21:01 UTC] No.45108998[source]▶
> I'm a middle class white native English speaking boring white boy with a hick accent so basically at the bottom of the interest at ACLU

I would assume they would be jumping at a few of these cases too, as a) it may be easier to bypass any ingrained bias in the system if you aren't necessarily matching people there may be bias against, and b) establishing case law is important for changing ambiguous legal situations.

Are you assuming they wouldn't be interested or did they communicate that they weren't interested?