←back to thread

2071 points K0nserv | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.268s | source
Show context
e_i_pi_2 ◴[] No.45104032[source]
I know it's not quite the point of the article, but just to push back on the phrase

> I should be able to run whatever code I want on hardware I own

There's a few cases where this definitely seems wrong - you can own a radio transmitter but it's super illegal to broadcast in certain frequencies. So while you're "able" to in the sense that's in physically possible, you're not "able" to because it's illegal, and I think most people would want it that way.

In a similar way, it's illegal to modify your car or especially guns in certain ways. I could see a similar argument saying "I own this machine, I should be able to modify it mechanically however I want". Yes you own it, but as soon as you bring it in the world then you also need to account for how it's going to impact everyone else. You can't even manufacture certain hardware on your own without the right approval.

If it's "I should be able to run whatever code I want on hardware I own if I accept the risks of doing so" then that seems more balanced, but also doesn't seem too desirable because you're adding more footguns into the world that average consumers wouldn't want to run into accidentally

replies(1): >>45104133 #
1. K0nserv ◴[] No.45104133[source]
OP here: Yes I agree that there needs to be limits on this. Classic "your freedom ends where mine begins"