We all now live with the blowback from that decision. Most people don't even realize that actually secure computing is a possibility now, even here on HN.
This general insecurity means that anything exposed to raw internet will be compromised and therefore significant resources must be expended to manage it, and recover after any incidents.
It's no wonder that most people don't want to actually run their own servers. Thus we give up control and this .... Situation .... Is the result.
It's like trying to set up a warehousing system so perfect that the shrinkage rate is 0.
Not for tablets or game consoles though.
The killer app for jailbreaking is usually running unlicensed games.
This is historically inaccurate. All console games were originally produced in-house by the console manufacturers, but then 4 Atari programmers got wind that the games they wrote made tens of $millions for Atari while the programmers were paid only a relatively small salary. When Atari management refused to give the programmers a cut, they left and formed Activision. Thus Activision became the original third-party console game development company. Atari sued Activision for theft of trade secrets, because the Activision founders were all former Atari programmers. The case was settled, with Atari getting a cut of Activision’s revenue but otherwise allowing Activision to continue developing console games. I suspect this was because the 4 programmers were considered irreplaceable to Atari (albeit too late, after they already quit).
The licensing fee business model was a product of this unique set of circumstances. The article author's narrative makes it sound like consoles switched from open to closed, but that's not true. The consoles (like the iPhone) switched from totally closed to having a third-party platform, after the value of third-party developers was shown.
> Consumers loved having access to a library of clean and functional apps, built right into the device.
How can you say they're "built right into the device" when you have to download them? Moreover, you were originally able to buy iPhone apps in iTunes for Mac, and manage your iPhone via USB.
> Meanwhile, they didn’t really care that they couldn’t run whatever kooky app some random on the Internet had dreamed up.
I'm not sure how you can say consumers didn't really care. Some people have always cared. It's a tradeoff, though: you would have to care enough to not buy an iPhone altogether. That's not the same as not caring at all. Also, remember that for the first year, iPhone didn't even have third-party apps.
> At the time, this approach largely stayed within the console gaming world. It didn’t spread to actual computers because computers were tools. You didn’t buy a PC to consume content someone else curated for you.
I would say this was largely due to Steve Wozniack, who insisted that the Apple II be an open platform. If Steve Jobs—who always expressed contempt for third-party developers—originally had his way, the whole computing industry might have been very different. Jobs always considered them "freeloaders", which is ridiculous of course (for example, VisiCalc is responsible for much of the success off the Apple II), but that was his ridiculous view.
None of what was written in the rest of the article after this statement has any bearing on what they said in this statement. Sure, they said the "Microsoft Store", but aside from that, you still have the freedom of running whatever software you want on your own desktop computer, laptop computer, or server (Linux, Windows, or Macintosh) ... nothing has changed about this. I, for one, like the increased security on mobile devices. As far as gaming, I am not a gamer, so I just do not care.
I'm not sure how many Macs you've used lately, but this isn't entirely true: out-of-the-box, Macs only run software that has been signed and notarised by Apple.
You can still disable this, but the methods of disabling are getting more obscure, and it's not a given they will remain available
Which is why after Snow Leopard, I switched to Linux 100%.
> Apple sold the walled garden as a feature. It wasn’t ashamed or hiding the fact—it was proud of it... The iPhone’s locked-down nature wasn’t a restriction; it was a selling point.
Please, write as a human, I promise you it's good enough. I'd much rather read something that's a bit clunky but human written than something that's very polished but leaves me wondering what the author actually was trying to say.
Respect your reader, but most importantly, respect yourself as a writter too.
I don't really think an LLM wrote this, because the use of punctuation is actually a bit clumsy. However, I have no problem parsing the author's intended meaning.
> The iPhone’s locked-down nature wasn’t a restriction; it was a selling point.
Was it really? I thought it was more about having 1 device that did it all when it launched, and app stores were a rather late addition if anything that still was more pro app store than pro lockdown.
To be clear, I think most of the text in that article was human written. I have absolutely no issues with em dashes or other humane figures of speech that LLMs have unsurprisingly picked up on.
But it was a few paragraphs here and there (like the example I gave) that felt odd and just out of place.
I don’t like that governments are forcing companies to open their environments up to random code, I wish they instead put legislation in place about transparent vetting processes, and allowing different kinds of apps.
In general I think software engineers get away with things no real engineering job gets away with, and it baffles me.
As much as I want to agree with this author (and do, to an extent) they are also providing the exact and honestly-pretty-good reasons for why this is happening: computers have breached containment, and they did it a long time ago. Computers are not just for us weird nerds anymore and they haven't been for some time; they're tools for a larger, more complicated, more diverse userbase, many of whom are simply not interested in learning how to computer. They just want shit to work, reliably. Random software on the Internet is not a path to reliability if you also don't know how your thing actually works.
I mourn this too but let's not pretend it's simply what happened because corporations are evil (though they are for sure that).
I am allowed to own multiple computers. Many do. I've got a Linux hand held, a windows desktop, an iPhone and a MacBook. All with varying degrees of freedom and function. I don't feel like I'm constrained right now.
HDCP is an example of the other thing in my mind. It adds zero value to anyone's experience. Any potential value add is hypothetical. You can't survey a person after they watch an unprotected film and receive a meaningful signal. It's pure downside for the customer. There's no such thing as competitive Netflix lobbies.
If I want to run arbitrary code, I'll do it on my windows box or fire up a Linux VM in the cloud somewhere. I don't need weird problems on my phone. If you are trying to touch all platforms at once, try using the goddamn web. I've been able to avoid Apple enterprise distribution hell with a little bit of SPA magic and InTune configuration for business customers. For B2C I just don't see it anymore. You need to follow the rules if you want to be in the curated environments.
How far away are we from hooking up a vision model to the display output of let’s say, Battlefield 6 and hooking in mouse+kb input from said vision model + an aimbot that perfectly replicates a top performing players mouse movements?
I’d say not very far away.
Much like how in online chess, no technical solution can attest that a move is really from a human brain and not a chess program running on his phone.
I do understand the broader point. I know a few elderly people in particular who are walking targets for cybercrime. But I wish we had more differentiation. Locked down, easy to use phones for those who want or need that, and more open phones that act similar to laptops for those who know what they're doing (or, in any case, are willing and able to bear the risk).
When the software on these locked down devices breaks down, and it does, everyone is helpless.
When a zero day is found, again everyone is helpless.
If we cannot understand how something works on all layers, stability and security are only promises.
This is a recurring pattern: people make bad choices, mostly out of ignorance, but no one blames the public because we always assume that in a democracy the costumer and the voter are always right.
Behind every corrupt politician or every greedy corporation there are thousands or millions of negligent and ignorant voters and costumers.
So it sucks ass that a greater and greater share of what we consider computing has to occur in platforms that are utterly locked down to the core, but again, at the same time, putting my "regular user" hat on here: I don't want my phone to run anything from an untrustworthy source. My computer? Shit yeah, I'll try just about anything with a healthy skepticism as required, but not my phone. Losing a computer is irritating. Losing a phone is a fucking MESS.
Then I have raspberry pi and steam deck which I use for messing around with and running whatever weird software.
there are plenty of "honestly-pretty-good reasons" we plebs shouldn't have access to general purpose computers, and we're only a few decades away from them reclassified into the equivalent of fully automatic rifles.
If this was genuinely about security and UX then they would continue to provide viable "escape hatches", but it isn't and so they don't. That's what's being criticized.
I would characterize it more as Google is responding to the needs of the vast majority of its users, most of whom do not care to run unsigned software, certainly don’t write it, and have no need of escape hatches. Escape hatches are great, but each also represents a security weakness waiting to be exploited.
And not to leave it merely implied: they are also responding to large development organizations who want locked down platforms in which they can distribute, and more importantly crack down on those who would pirate their, software.
I don't really agree with it either.
Having money and using them without supervision is a safety risk. You can unknowingly buy food that isn't good for your health. And good food is what you actually need. So transfer your money to me and I will benevolently manage your diet for you. No other motives but your safety and wellbeing, I swear.
By the way, can you really trust the supermatkets? They sell alcohol and alcohol is bad for you.
> more importantly crack down on those who would pirate their, software.
If you represent the interests of corporations then try leading with that next time.
> Escape hatches are great, but each also represents a security weakness waiting to be exploited.
Besides being a broad statement that lacks citations and no doubt relies on contrived examples where this was implemented poorly, it's also clearly a violation of the EU Digital Markets Act.
I don't. I'm just saying Google and whichever boogeyman you'd care to slot into position 2 share the same interests. Far more than you or me and Google anyway.
> Besides being a broad statement that lacks citations and no doubt relies on contrived examples where this was implemented poorly
To a laymen user, any software that is running without code signing has a much much much higher chance of being something that has gone wrong rather than Joe Public found a cool image editing app that doesn't want to be distributed via the Play store. Are there exceptions? Sure, I'm certainly a big one. Does that mean I don't understand Google's position here? No.
> it's also clearly a violation of the EU Digital Markets Act.
If true, they'll end up in court, same as Apple did.
Don't give me these "political" answers. That's just another broadly-agreeable statement that's completely unrelated to the one I asked you to substantiate:
> Escape hatches are great, but each also represents a security weakness waiting to be exploited.
There are 3 problems here:
0. If Google genuinely cared about Android security to this degree, they wouldn't be giving threat actors 4 months to run wild with 0-days before publishing them:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45158523
https://xcancel.com/GrapheneOS/status/1964754118653952027
1. Crossing the escape hatch != security breach
Mobile security relies on sandboxing, not on Google's approvals. Even the most malicious app approved by Google shouldn't be able to steal information, access information from other apps without authorization, or execute actions on user's behalf.
Whenever this core principle is broken due to inevitable security vulnerabilities, it should be treated as such and promptly patched. Instead these shortcomings are used as convenient excuses to advance these political goals.
2. An escape hatch can be anything:
- "allow installation from unknown sources" like we've always had
- secret settings menu + PIN/password + require a switch to be flipped in the recovery menu during boot + require an ADB command to executed + warnings at every step.
- ADB commands + switch in recovery menu + time delay + require a full device reset with all data being lost
First one is somewhat vulnerable to social engineering though I've personally never encountered a device where someone was tricked into doing this, so it must be more resistant than downloading malware on Windows.
Second is close to impervious to social engineering. Grandma isn't going to be accessing the recovery menu or running ADB commands any time soon.
Third one, while far too restrictive in my opinion would still be better than nothing, it would be impenetrable to social engineering, and safeguard any existing data on the device even in case of a serious concurrent vulnerability in the Android sandbox.
Are all of these completely unacceptable?
On the balance of probabilities, "Joe Public" isn't being tricked into doing anything, he is trying to install ReVanced to get ad-free Youtube.
We're not anywhere there yet, but we're closer than we've ever been, and things keep moving in the wrong direction.
All I really want is a computer that allows me to fully control the permissions and filesystem access of all the programs that I manually install on my system. Almost every program (in my case) needs 0 filesystem access outside of what it installed itself and shouldn't be looking or snooping at anything that isn't in its own process space.
I want a clear and simple way to limit the blast radius of how badly a program could actually screw up my system or have access to my files.
I recently experienced the opposite of this on Android, where I tried to install a very well reviewed ebook reader called MoonReader. But MoonReader seems to require complete access to every file on my Android device to work correctly. That is insane. I looked it up a bit more and it seems that Google has simplified (or something) permissions, but now there isn't much choice other than asking for full file access (I just want to give it access to one directory).
Anywho, just a minor vent, that we are insisting that the only way to make things secure is this sort of attestation path, but we don't spend any energy just making it possible to limit the blast radius of software on most OS'.
But try looking into QubesOS. You create domains where applications can do whatever in the domain (a contained VM). So your personal domain is separate from your bank domain, which is separate from your media domain.
Of course, domains themselves can do naughty things. But they cant cross over to others.
And system resources are a separate domain, as is networking.
Some downsides - gaming is a no go mostly. And if you do SDR stuff, the USB domain is a heavy hit on performance. You really need dedicated machines for those things.
In which folders it can hide, which data to access, and which hardware resources to use.
> At the moment, anyone can use Linux; it's better and easier than ever.
Maybe Linux will save us.
This was a fascinating thing to watch for me (pewdiepie telling people to install Linux): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVI_smLgTY0
My bet is that the momentum is strong enough that:
- A critical mass of PC makers will continue to offer a Linux preinstalled option, or at least some path to installing Linux.
- If Windows and macOS take more rights away, it'll just help Linux's market share.
So Linux's share will probably grow not only because Linux is getting better but because the corpo OSes trying to take away general purpose computing
And web attestation, which almost became a thing about a year ago. It is gone for now, but it will only be a matter of time before it decides to rear its ugly head again.
I hope more people come around and recognize that Richard Stallman deserves a big, resounding "you were right, we're sorry" after being attacked for his dislike of "trusted computing" and TPMs [0].
Hum... It was foolish, but it was decades after the trend started.
Looks to me that the real trend was started mostly by the wide distribution of TV and the subsequent media consolidation (that happened everywhere).
Also, who is "we" here? Because it was exactly the authoritarian-wannabes that created most of it.
Speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg
Transcript: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Coming_War_on_General_Com...
(Of course, Stallman warned of this type of thing much earlier as well.)
Many big institutions lean heavily on mobile apps and other gated computing.
I live in BC Canada and by far the easiest way to authenticate a login to provincial sources involves using the BC ID App as a second factor, even when logging in via desktop. Many banks now also use their app as a second factor, rather than a generic OTP option that can run on any hardware.
There were also issues like running Netflix DRM in browser on Linux for a while.
General purpose computers won’t go away, but they will continue to be gated from more and more services until you are more or less required to have a phone or locked down ecosystem device.
Somewhat related, but if x86 loses dominance it will be even more difficult if not impossible to install Linux or other alternate OS's on ARM devices. The majority of consumer ARM electronics make it hard enough, and normally requires you to run a specific patched (and most likely outdated) Linux kernel in order to boot.
There are ARM devices which meet the ARM System Ready standard which allows you to boot whatever OS you want, but they are mostly enterprise devices such as servers. Cheapest one I've seen which your average consumer might buy was an ARM workstation with a starting price of about $1500
So hopefully in 8 years or so when I need a new machine, there's some decent options available to me.
But nice aint worth the cost when it comes at the expense of supporting something which is undermining everything else you believe in.
* Auth app deploys to one or two app stores. No financial incentive to do otherwise.
* App stores remain within walled gardens. Tracking, DRM, proprietary drivers come with.
Also, my hardware, my choice. It seems there is no way to actually let them know.
1) sign a petition on change.org against that APK lockdown (currently 10.5k votes) - https://c.org/BHZzNvR6pr
2) In your Android device or Google account use "Send Feedback" and articulate yourself or "Contact us" in Android under "System settings > Tips and support" or best, if you are paying subscriber for any Google LLC service, send the feedback through the subscription management channels (such as feedback in Google One, Workspace or any other paid service)
I would also suggest that there is another user base who has been using computers for a long time, before GUIs existed, is fed up with fighting malware, welcomes the protection of a sandboxed, protected system, but doesn't understand the importance of having the option of escaping the sandbox. These users might not see the loss of not being able to install a kext on Mac OS without booting into Recovery Mode. But they will notice the loss when, at some point, we can't run anything that isn't signed on any platform.
Google and Microsoft are slowly moving towards the Apple model because it works as far as decreasing support costs go.
When the day comes that there isn't any hardware we can purchase that we can't install OpenBSD/Linux/whatever we want, it will be too late. We have to push back before then somehow.
There are more
AROS, GNU-HURD and more
you can always contribute code, maintain an app, report a bug
You can buy HW to run AOSP, like Raspberry-PI or RISC-V
We are the consumers, we have the wallet.
After that, certified locked down BigTech 'Personal Computing' will be the only menu choice.
They force anyone distributing software into the legal system so a “3rd party” can sue and destroy the life of anyone that goes against the system they want. Anything they don’t like will be accused of violating patents, etc. and the option to distribute anonymously for the good of users / society will no longer exist.
So you’ll still be able to write code and scripts and play on the side on your laptop, but if you want to access your banks webpage (or really, anything you get through someone else’s server: streaming media, the news, porn, whatever) you’ll be forced to Chrome + laptop with TPM + authentication through smartphone app.
Not ideal.
I care about the free-ness and open-ness of my computer, because that's where I do all my work, my E-mail, my finances, and all my "serious computing." I feel that a different standard applies on a Real Computer because they are totally different devices, used for totally different purposes. So what I accept on phones, cars, and gaming consoles, I don't accept on my computer.
Apart from the viruses, nothing of the above is true any more. Apple doesn't care if you're getting screwed over by an app, and neither does Google. If they can increase their profits by taking away our freedom and/or control over "our" devices, then it WILL happen, as sure as death and taxes.
So then the problem gets moved up to why are you (or group of you) not powerful enough to negotiate being able to run what you want and either not need “them” or be important enough that “they” need you.
And the answer will come down to the fact that 90% of people don’t care about running whatever they want on their machine, and they want the cheapest, quickest, easiest solution.
The best argument “for” building codes is the same as “for” secure platforms; that people should be able to expect a certain level of competence when buying a structure or phone.
But if you want to do it yourself, there should be a path.
Linux.
Linux as an answer doesn't address the needs of 99% of people, so 98% will never adopt it. It's better to meet people where they're at and push for sideloading and alternative app stores.
A much bigger problem for running Linux on phones is that standard Linux runs like crap on phones. It doesn't have the mainline driver support amd64 computers have, and the battery life optimizations that make Android usable need to be reimplemented on top of Linux to get a day's worth of use out of your phone. Unfortunately, most Linux applications are written for desktops where they expect the CPU to be running all the time, the WiFi to be accessible whenever they want, and for sleep/suspend to be extremely incidental rather than every two minutes.
Banking on GrapheneOS
This in combination with using webapps where possible
Is that a problem these days? It was over a decade ago that I last needed to jailbreak a phone, nowadays it’s just "I’d like to unlock" "Ok".
Protecting 1 million grannies is an entirely different risk class than the security implications of stopping everyone from using their devices as they see fit.
Protecting 1 million grannies means everyone loses ability to install apps that:
-allow encrypted chat
-allow use of privacy respecting software
-download art/games/entertainment that is deemed inappropriate to unelected parties
-use software to organize protests and track agents of hostile governments
-download software that opposes monopolistic holds of controlling parties
Thus the risk widens to the sovereign control a nation has over its own services. A US president could attempt to force Google and Apple to shutoff citizen access of banks and health services of an entire nation. Merely the threat could give them leverage in any sort of negotiations they might be in. For some nations in the future, the controlling nation may be China I imagine.
I think the real regulatory solution here is to break up monopoly practices. While the EU's DMA is all well and good in some ways, the EU is also pushing Chat Control... In a more fragmented market it becomes impossible for a bank or health service to mandate specific devices for access (they lose potential customers) so you could theoretically move to a device that doesn't do draconian style remote attestation that breaks if you go off the ranch. We need more surgically precise regulatory tools than sweeping legislation that would keep using alternatives like Linux or FreeBSD or whatever actually viable. It also makes it much harder for that same legislative body to enforce insane ideas like Chat Control.
The answer is not protect users from themselves. The answer is more freedom, with a legal framework that helps all users have more choices while helping victims acquire restitution.
There exists no path where a publicly traded company doesn't eventually view its customers as subjects. Every business school on the planet is teaching their students strategies and tactics that squeeze their customers in pursuit of maximizing revenue. And those strategies and tactics are often at the expense of creativity, ethics, and community. Just last week people's bed didn't work because the company that makes them architected things such that they have absolute control.
Only a reasonably altruistic private company might buck the trend. But the publicly traded companies are allowed, by the government(s), to use their largesse in a predatory fashion to prevent competition. They bundle and bleed and leverage every step of the way. They not only contribute to the politicians that do their bidding, they are frequently asked to write the laws and regulations they're expected to follow. Magically, it has the effect of increasing the costs of their competition to enter the markets they dominate. And so, the odds of an altruistic private company emerging from that muck is low.
Worse still, many of the elected officials (and bureaucrats) actively own stock in the very companies they are responsible for regulating. Widespread corruption and perversion of the market is the inevitable result.
I'm trying to do a better job and redirect my money to the places that better reflect my values. It's not even a drop in the bucket, but it's a lever where I feel like I have a measure of control.
The companies that make stuff could easily be beaten in the market by a non-profit competitor. With no worries about stock market prices and dividends, a non-profit could direct all it's money into making better products.
But the problems are that 1) nobody wants to work for a non-profit and 2) greed redirects the money away from better products into the founder's (or top management's) pockets. Firefox is an example.
Probably won't help, but it is something.
I remember seeing KDE and GNOME already have their "stores", we need to keep a close eye on Linux.
What would you include?
Computers nowadays are so weird.
And even so, perhaps it's later than you realize. Device attestation in the browser is the final nail in the coffin, and it's a question of "when" not "if" major sites start requiring it in the name of "safety" from bots.
I recently found a plugin that can alert to JS doing shady "fingerprint-like" activity. I did not expect it to go off quite as often as it does now.
It would seem that some sites are already asking _very_ probing questions about the browser so it's only a matter of time before they go one step further and demand proof and gate on furnishment of that proof.
Think about it: you need permission to run software on your own hardware. Every time you launch a Mac App, it checks in with its masters to be sure its okay to do so - every time you install an app on your mobile device, it does the same thing.
People accept this terrible state of affairs because the "user experience is better" - but this is a fallacy. Under the cover of 'security issues' that their are incapable of fixing, due to very poor architecture decisions, OS vendors have instead bolted on an insanity and sold it to the user as progress.
Every computing device should have everything it needs, onboard, to write software for that computing device. That they don't is because the OS vendors are cowardly running from the bloat of yesteryear and adding more bloat tomorrow to cover it all up.
There will be a backlash against this. We see it already in the retro-computing and alternative-platform hacking communities, which are growing and growing, exponentially, by the year.
Its only a matter of time that someone wraps up this freedom-to-use concept in hardware that is sexy enough to compete with the totalitarian-authoritarian platform providers. Any .. day .. now ..
yet :D
On UNIX, Sun was the vendor that introduced the concept of SDK SKU, thus for having developer tools, an additional SKU had to be bought, and the until then largely ignored GCC sundenly got a new focus of attention.
Mainframes and micros always needed having a group of folks from the vendor professional services for specific kinds of configurations.
I still remeber working on traditional timesharing UNIX systems, one single server for all teams, what you get to do is decided by IT for your role.
There are plenty of examples from the past on how this has been happening already.
Trusted computing and even remote attestation have legitimate use cases. It's good, great even, that they exist. But just like everything, they can be used against you.
Having important info on your device and having that device accessible to the wild, wild, internet is a very real problem. If the "walled garden" is a flawed solution we should work on a better one.
I beg history to prove me wrong.
For anyone interested, please look at Hardware attestation and TiVoization, thanks.
if the computer won't allow to install or use other software until you install a vendor-signed version of systemd on a vendor-signed kernel we'll be there. it's about hardware attestation, not signed software, though.
The GNU freedoms never specified the right to run free software side by side with proprietary software on the same hardware; so the FSF should actually be fine with such an outcome.
If my bank requires me to use a phone for transfers (mine doesn’t), it might be acceptable to leave one in a desk drawer powered off as you would do with a hardware authentication token. It’s a special device for occasionally accessing a service. Fine. But when governments and industry collude to force citizens to carry these devices in order to live life normally, that’s not OK.
My intent is to be as stubborn and obnoxious as possible in resisting this until they either give up and provide an alternate path or lock me away for noncompliance. Fortunately there is still an alternate path available for most things, primarily thanks to elders who have trouble with new tech. (Thank you elders!)
This. We can’t anymore say to ourselves “but surely a US president would never do that”?
Reference: recent tirades at Canada, Spain, Colombia, Ukraine, ...
Without limitations on authority and control, I worry more that the world will devolve into a multilateral legal hellscape, even moreso than exists today. Given how much is dependent on software, you are going to have the governments of pretty much any country with multinational exposure trying this in the next 10 years if recent UK and EU developments are any indicator.
I knew of banks, but how is it that health services need remote attested mobile devices? Do clinics not support setting appointments through calls anymore, or what?
I believe if we look at the past compared to now, and then extrapolate towards the future, without proper action, we will keep slipping down the slope.
I should be able to run a crypto wallet I downloaded from a Kim Jong Un fan site while high and it shouldn’t be able to do anything I don’t give it permission to do.
It’s totally possible. Tabs in a web browser are basically this.
I can do it with VMs but that’s lots of extra steps.
The only place it seems to fall flat is network I/O - LAN access requires permission, but dialing out to the wider Internet does not.
Compare Windows, which has jack (except for bloated anti-malware hooks in NTFS.)
Linux is _trying_ to replicate macOS with Flatpak/XDG portals, but those still need more time in the oven.
Source: I use both a MacBook and a Linux desktop daily.
No it isn't, and no it doesn't.
95% of people don't know what "Run your own software" means, because to them, the app store lets them chose what apps to install. And they don't get viruses and malware like their 2008 laptop did.
That being said, there absolutely needs to be a mechanism for "lowering the gates" if the user wants full control of the device they own.
- software that are not monetised by their manufacturers should not be considered to be a commercial activity.
- supply of products with digital elements qualifying as free and open-source software components intended for integration by other manufacturers into their own products with digital elements should be considered to be making available on the market only if the component is monetised by its original manufacturer.
- development of products with digital elements qualifying as free and open-source software by not-for-profit organisations should not be considered to be a commercial activity provided that the organisation is set up in such a way that ensures that all earnings after costs are used to achieve not-for-profit objectives.
- does not apply to natural or legal persons who contribute with source code to products with digital elements qualifying as free and open-source software that are not under their responsibility.Some folks don't like digital identity controlled by government, but it seems like the alternative is digital identity controlled by oligopoly.
And this might be a reaction to the fact that music piracy is quite easy; if it wasn't, perhaps there would be no Spotify where you get basically All The Music in existence for peanuts. (Note that no equivalent subscription service exists with regards to movies or games: Netflix and Xbox Game Pass have only a limited selection of content included in their subscription.)
Combined with uutils, which is MIT, you can build a nice (!) walled garden.
Let me say I have seen enough shenanigans over the years.
Broadcom SOCs preferred by Raspberry Pi require proprietary blobs to function, and much of their functionality is buried under a mountain of NDAs.
And it is quite demonstrable that Windows can function without Secure Boot.
The clones relied on GW-BASIC and later QBasic, which came on disk and was bundled with DOS, to supply this functionality, and didn't have BASIC in ROM. In fact, some early BIOS implementations, if they did not find a bootable disk, displayed a message "NO BASIC FOUND" or similar.
I have mixed feelings about unenforced regulations. Having unenforced regulations opens up the possibility of targeted abuse of any individuals that are not a cultural fit in the eyes of the government offices and being very relaxed regarding anyone that fits in. This also drives the need for very detailed and expensive inspections prior to purchasing a home and that is a loaded topic all by itself.
Sure thing!
https://jshelter.org/ is the homepage.
I am happy to use a browser on my computer to log into my bank's website.
This is one I’m willing to tolerate, as long as it’s optional. Something I don’t understand though is banking app setup. When I got a new phone this year, the RBC app made me submit some kind of live selfie.
The thing is, I know they can scan your debit card with NFC and authenticate the PIN. I’ve used it for a password reset in the past. Why is a selfie better than that when they presumably have nothing to compare it to?
It would be quite a scandal, legally and socially, if it was discovered that a bank was creating a database of images of their customers without consent.
A financial institution I have an account with requires MFA to log in, and the only options they support are SMS MFA and their proprietary smartphone app. This is acutely annoying to me, because it means I have to get up and get my phone if I want to log into this site from my PC (or rig up a complicated Android emulator setup).
How tiresome.
You're right, we gotta become more powerful. Via radicalization. They seek to marginalize us. To turn us into second class citizens. To destroy free computing as we know it, destroy everything the word hacker ever stood for. If you're on this site and this doesn't radicalize you, then I don't know what to say to you.
Gotta start lobbying governments to make it a literal crime for them to discriminate against us in this manner. Just like racism.
My brother in <deity of your choice>, you are not on a Hacker site. This site exists as the community arm of one of the most capitalistic venture capital ecosystems on the planet.
When are you all going to stop expecting HN to be what it’s not?
Off topic but how does this work for non-believers?
"My brother out of" ?
Hardware cryptoprocessor. Keys are held in a tamper resistant secure element. You're not gonna get at those keys without pouring some serious resources into the task.
The keys are owned by the corporation and used to establish a root of trust from boot. If you change anything at all to suit your interests, verification fails, your machine is identified as "tampered with" and designated as untrusted.
We’ll probably get to the point where you need a verified id to buy a phone that does attestation. Tamper with it and go to jail. Who’s going to hack that?
And yeah, it's a politics problem, not an economic one. If corporations could simply push Trusted Computing without a corrupt police (and military) backing them, we would be there since the 90s already.
I don't disagree, but is that really a game you want to be playing with your government and your bank?
The fact that you can make it pass in some cases using Magisk and so on is because it's spoofing an older device (launched before Android 8) without hardware-bound keys and Google is deliberately allowing that in order not to blacklist the genuine users.
However, once Google decides that the collateral damage is tolerable and those devices should no longer pass Play Integrity, then it's game over. You can't spoof any newer stuff, as you can't produce the desired signature -- only the hardware can do it and the hardware won't do it.
The only way would be if the manufacturer screwed up and it's possible to run unsigned code (or signed by a different key) and maintain a pristine bootloader, or if the hardware key leaks somehow. In either case, the key is per device so Google is always free to blacklist that device if it really wants to. (Verification of the signatures is always done off-device, through Google's servers.)
Source: 7 years of running deGoogled Android phones and 11 years of running ROM’d Android phones before recently moving to iOS and giving up.
So not as great as I thought, but also not as bad as you made it seem ;)
[0]: https://github.com/zenfyrdev/bootloader-unlock-wall-of-shame...
Pretty sure I read Google was no longer going to publish device tree sources for Pixel phones, which will make ROM development for them significantly harder, whether or not the bootloader is open.
Piracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Widevine
They can't stop it, likely never will but they do keep fighting it.
As someone in the USA, I could toss my phone in the dumpster forever and still live my life pretty much as I live it today. I might have to make a few minor sacrifices, but I'm grateful we still have that choice here.
Unfortunately, I think that depends on whether the portion of citizens without a phone is significant. People need to care for businesses/government to care.
See also countries where they struggle to use cash. What happens when a customer does not have a bank account?
For government services, both will work. But you must use some of them, otherwise no government for you. You can still do some things by paper, but those are getting rarer and rarer nowadays. The general assumption is that everything is done online. Some government services can't be done by paper or physical visit, not without involving this authentication at some point.
For most of everything else, only BankID (the oldest of the two and the most deployed by far). Especially for banking, only this works. Even if you call the bank and try to sort out via phone, they will refuse service until you can prove that you are you by authenticating via BankID.
But Sweden is mostly cashless nowadays (even some bank branches are refusing to deal with cash). For example, you can't take a bus or train and pay with cash. You have to use a vending machine that only exists on train stations, or depending on which kind of transport and the region you live you might be able to do a contactless payment, or you must use the app (the default choice that 99% use). If you use the app, to pay you need to use a "card not present" flow, or Swish (Sweden's mobile payment system), and to complete either you must use BankID. You can't use your card or do any payment without BankID (if the card is not present).
Even if you do use your card, if it gets denied for any reason, for you to sort out the issue you'll need the mobile phone and BankID.
If you go out with friends to a restaurant, most restaurants don't accept cash. If the restaurant doesn't accept charging each one individually then someone needs to pay for the group, and they will expect you to pay them via Swish which requires BankID. People won't take cash either.
As you can see, it's not actually trivial here to live as part of society without a working mobile phone. If you're outside, you better have 100% faith on your card, and/or be prepared that you might need to walk back home as you can't do much now, might not even be able to buy transportation.
Some smaller shops/kiosks only take Swish: no cash, no card. That requires a phone plus BankID.
If (or better said: when) BankID starts requiring the device to pass Play Integrity, then not only you must be carrying the device at all times, but it must be a blessed device from Google or Apple.
In Denmark the situation is very similar, and in their case their app (which is called MitID) already mandates that the device has to pass Play Integrity.
Or… acknowledge this is a fear of a future 30, 40, 50 years away that may never happen, which is never an argument.
It’s like saying the government, because they have power, and the SCOTUS, because they have power, could decide to kill all children. Yes, they could. No, it’s absurd to let that power keep you up at night, or say the solution is to abolish their power.
Ha! Let me know how to achieve that and I will. I’ve advocated, donated, and volunteered for years on behalf of a number of causes, some with excellent organizations promoting them, and yet things continue to get worse. The only minor victories have been temporary delays of bad policy.
No, the best response for the average citizen is stubborn noncompliance and constant passive resistance. Drag your feet until the whole thing comes crashing down. And encourage your friends to do it too! (But don’t stop trying through conventional politics, maybe one day it will work. Just don’t get your hopes up.)
The banning of Parler did more for activism and awareness regarding platform control than all FOSDEM. Of course, HN happily piled on in favor of this decision, missing the moment to build common ground on platform control, for the sake of political expediency.
If the government, or tech, starts regulating out things people actually care about, then you’ll have your sway. The rush to technical solutions seems to imply we already internally agree tech and government aren’t going to do anything the average person cares about - as it assumes the “bad future” can happen without a national policy discussion anywhere.
Kernel being GPL has no point currently. Require hardware attestation with Microsoft private keys + systemd-boot + systemd + uutils can create a nice walled garden, allowing "vendors" to build locked-down hardware-OS pairs.
More importantly, uutils is MIT, which can attest at every level, without sharing a line of source code.
This will affect everything from small appliances to big iron and it can be very ugly.
I believe the likelihood of a smartphone being the only form of computing (and access to the internet in particular) grows with diminishing income / cultural means.
This is based on anecdotal observation, does anybody here know of relevant survey data?
Based on a cursory look, keywords can include "smartphone-only internet users" and "large-screen computer ownership".
The American Community Survey asks questions related to that (income, computing devices). Comparing states, the poorer the residents of a state, the smaller the percent of households with regular computers ("large-screen computer ownership"), per "Computer Ownership and the Digital Divide" (Mihaylova and Whitacre, 2025) [0, 1, 2].
Also, Pew runs surveys on income and device usage ("smartphone-only"). Again, the lower the income, the higher the proportion that is smartphone-only [3, 4].
[0] Chart: https://files.catbox.moe/emdada.png
[1] Paper, "Census Data with Brian Whitacre.pdf": https://files.catbox.moe/1ttgee.pdf
[2] Web: https://www.benton.org/blog/computer-ownership-and-digital-d...
[3] Pew chart: https://files.catbox.moe/fs62tf.png
[4] Pew web: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/mobile/
The idea that smartphones aren't computers and their users aren't deserving of software freedom is frustratingly entitled.
According to ChatGPT: Only Illinois, Texas, and Washington really constrain that, and Illinois is the only one with real teeth.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/06/felony-contempt-busine...
Meanwhile to install a kernel extension you now have to reboot into safe mode and disable part of system integrity protection (with big warnings that it's at your own risk).
For the average user, kernel extension are already gone, and unsigned software not far behind.
The wisdom of such a freewheeling ecosystem in today's era is maybe debatable, but given how user-hostile the mainline OS and software vendors can be, I say there's still plenty of room for that ecosystem and it should be preserved.
I meant: it is convenient. No doubt. I do use all this because it is convenient. When it works, it is great. The dumb part is to not have a backup plan.
All these things were done for a single reason: cost cutting. They cost less, and the "old-fashioned" flow that could work as a backup no longer makes financial sense so it is retired.
But then again, here we are. Here and now, without a phone, without agreeing with a relationship with a foreign entity and their one-sided T&C, you won't even be able to get service from your own government. And you need to maintain your good standing with that foreign company in perpetuity, because if they ban you as a person then good luck — your are going to be cut off from your own government, your own bank.
A small, hardly exclusive list of things we have been unable to protect through technology:
- DVD/Blu Ray/HDMI copy protection
- Windows product registration
- Device jailbreaking (manufacturers are constantly running to keep ahead of this but old versions are frequently unlocked even with iOS)
- Classified diplomatic documents
- Classified details of warfighting equipment
- Identities of federal employees (and even covert agents)
- Nuclear secrets
Technical measures aren’t always the weak point—bribery works just as well. As the US tech stack continues to decouple from China, they will also have the motivation to break our systems.
iOS jailbreak enthusiasts say it wasn't practical since years.
Some state secrets leaked. Many did not.
> HN happily piled on in favor of this decision
HN is not a monolith with a single opinion. The loudest users at the time (not just here, all over the internet) were pro-censorship political activists, so maybe that caused you to interpret things that way.
> If the government, or tech, starts regulating out things people actually care about, then you’ll have your sway.
The public will not respond until the groundwork has been laid to make effective protest impossible. Only then will important things be regulated out. Until then it will just be “nerd stuff”.
This is a lazy argument, as I can safely say that 80% or more of HN has the same political bent, and every community ever has said “but not everyone.”
Read the comments on the Parler deplatforming. See what was upvoted. See what the consensus was. Nobody cares about the principles, even here, when rubber hits the road.
Imagine if the undesirables, on either side, started actively using all the decentralized censorship-resist tech for their cause. Would the builders and commentators here be saying “working as designed,” or would there be a sense of fury, a sense of “not like that?” A sense of “that was supposed to enable my cause, not yours?”
Suppose Proud Boys coordinated their Jan 6 activities on Signal and Tor. Suppose Truth Social was built on ActivityPub and MAGA developers were the loudest voices at FOSDEM advocating for censorship-resistant protocols. How do you feel? Are we still citing the same principles? If not, we never believed them.
> The public will not respond until the groundwork has been laid to make effective protest impossible. Only then will important things be regulated out. Until then it will just be “nerd stuff”.
I’m looking at history and noticing that 99.9% of revolutions did not have the internet required to be successful.
I disagree, but even if you were correct: like, what’s your point? Are you grouping me in with them because I happen to be posting here? I reject that characterization.
Edit: I feel like this is an attempt at some kind of “gotcha” based on the example you provided. No, I don’t believe access to tech should be gated based on politics. IMHO everyone should have access to private and secure systems, as part of their human rights regarding speech, thought, and personal privacy. I attempted to raise this point in several venues during the “deplatforming” fad and explained how the political pendulum made it a bad idea. The mob remained unconvinced.
> I’m looking at history and noticing that 99.9% of revolutions did not have the internet required to be successful.
You tell me how people are going to protest effectively in the face of:
- Ubiquitous visual surveillance and facial recognition
- Ubiquitous audio surveillance via pocket spies and things like Flock/ShotSpotter/other competing systems
- Ubiquitous ALPR systems and GPS-enabled “digital plates” being trialed in some areas
- Data mining coupled with AI behavioral analysis (sloppy but likely good enough)
- An increasing percentage of cars with remote shutdown capabilities
- The replacement of cash with digital currency that can be remotely disabled
The future looks a lot like China, but without their “economic miracle” that has kept the population satisfied.
It’ll be incredibly easy to lock dissenters out of modern society. It’s too bad the vast majority of users will happily concede autonomy for a tiny bit of short term convenience.
I would say "I'm sure the mean well", but given that parties like Yubico benefit from not getting more competitors, the cynic in me is a bit worried.
Yeah, I wouldn't say that. It's clear from their public comments[1,2,3] that the spec authors don't believe the private key actually belongs to the user to do what they want with. They see services restricting what users may do with their own logins as a feature of Passkeys. It's really a shame it went in this direction. Replacing passwords with an easy-to-use keypair auth system would be a massive security improvement. But the Passkey ecosystem is poisoned at this point. Unless they remove the client ID & attestation anti-features, it should be considered a proprietary big tech protocol.
[1] Threatening an open-source passkey client with server-side bans because they don't implement passkey storage on the client device in the way the spec authors prefer. https://github.com/keepassxreboot/keepassxc/issues/10406
[2] Maintaining a list of "non-compliant" clients, including the above open-source one, presumably for use in server-side bans. https://passkeys.dev/docs/reference/known-issues/
[3] While writing an article about this on my website, I actually emailed the two involved spec authors on the above issue, politely asking how their interpretation of the Passkey spec could possibly be compatible with open source software. Neither replied.
Better to store passkeys in password manager. Then they become more secure passwords. The big advantage is that they can't be phished, and sites don't use 2FA with them. It also means you can choose password manager that you trust and work better than Apple and Google.
Thanks, you missed the point.
Or were you saying something else that I misunderstood?
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Unified_Extensible_Firmware...
What prevents Microsoft from updating Windows PC standards and eliminate the possibility of turning off secure boot and allowance of enrolling your own keychain in the secure boot process?
These are long games. Being comfortable today doesn’t guarantee same comfort and allowances tomorrow.
Ironically, we’re discussing this under Android’s increasing restrictions.
The same Android which was championed as the bastion of mobile freedom when it first came out.
I worked at a big company where GPLv2 software could be used in our systems but not GPLv3. Is it better that that GPLv3 software didn't have more users? The company didn't contribute much back so maybe it's not a big loss.
- 22K stars
- 1600+ forks
- 33 releases
- 622 contributors
- 678 users (at minimum)
- Code of conduct (with a debian.org mailing address nonetheless)
- 1 distribution shipping it as default (so far)
> The uutils project reimplements ubiquitous command line utilities in Rust. Our goal is to modernize the utils, while retaining full compatibility with the existing utilities. We are planning to replace all essential Linux tools.
This is hell of a self-tutorial.
If this was GPL licensed, I'd love to try these. But at this point, it's looking for pushing GNU out of the Linux ecosystem, completely.
> Since then Passkeys are now seen as a way to capture users and audiences into a platform. What better way to encourage long term entrapment of users then by locking all their credentials into your platform, and even better, credentials that can't be extracted or exported in any capacity.
https://fy.blackhats.net.au/blog/2024-04-26-passkeys-a-shatt...
Fingers crossed the Passkey user experience remains so bad no one accepts them & they just die on the vine.