alt Hacker NewsWe should have the ability to run any code we want on hardware we own
Comments
Nope. The masses have voted with their wallets for the walled garden approach. Maybe if the Linux phone wasn't as terrible or worse than bottom contender Android devices the argument could stand. In an era where move fast and break things is business as usual, we've correctly chosen the devices that just work, even when we must sell our privacy to make it so. The days of IBM/PC compatible are ancient history.
alternatively, we should have the ability to run [doom] on hardware we own.
Ha-ha.
Android doesn't even let you access your files. It has famously blocked acess to the subfolders of /Android/data - every app has a subfolder there where it sfores files. And you can not visit these subfolders since Android 11.
A buggy app accumulates gigabytes (literaly, i am not exagregating) of temp files there, but i cant visit the folder to delete them.
Google explains that "it's for you safety".
I have to call it with the strong word "idiotic".
There are apps now where storing files in a shared, accessible folder is a payed option.
And in this world you want to own your hardware.
These arguments always suggest that the hardware/software divide is rigid. A cell phone does not have a single OS, it has many.
Right to repair and right to modify
You can’t run any code you want on the phone because of the radios.
Is this your human right?
Not defending Apple, but when they restrict sideloading it's because they made both the software and the hardware. They didn't exploit thousands of open source developers who basically worked for free making Android what it is right now, only to be hijacked by Google. I used to use Android but I did notice a huge decline around 2015, which was around the time when the Android creator left Google.
Cuda disagrees with you !
I think it's time we start revoking our agreements to these terms and conditions or altering them after the fact, taking non-self-destruction of the service providing firm as an explicit acceptance of the new user-defined terms.
A gentle reminder to the readers here at HN that it doesn't have to be this way. Computer Security is a solved problem[1], and has been so since the 1980s[2]. It's my strong opinion that the only methods you've seen to this point[3-7] were deliberately chosen to be ones that don't work, and make things worse in the long run.
There's no reason we shouldn't be able to run what we want on our hardware, without having to trust anything other than the microkernel inside the operating systems.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability-based_security
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability-based_operating_sys...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_Account_Control
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AppArmor
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security-Enhanced_Linux
Programmers make the same Faustian bargain with all these "safe" languages.
No, please, don't let me touch memory! It's too dangerous. Give me a nice bubble wrapped playpen to "program" in.
This is a relatively obvious universal sentiment with no suggestion as to how to make it happen.
Governments should be protecting consumers not companies. Every time that company tries to limit consumers in any way, government should step it and forbid it.
That's the whole benefit of having strong central government, that it can curb ambitions of smaller local tyrants.
It is depressing having a government that facilitates and support the mass rape of the populace. I thought the entire point was to lift people up
Why are folks so worried about this. If necessary we build a new generation of phones.
Sorry, but I was thinking that Apple was forced to allow side load? And now you're telling me that Good Guy Google is disallowing this? How this is legally possible?
Can't you with enough effort?
Relevant XKCD - https://xkcd.com/86/
I agree with this take, but my view is that it is one step detached from the root cause. The right to property is fundamental and inalienable. A person who can't own things isn't free, they have no claim on liberty.
That said, service providers, corporations and the like should be allowed one remedy: They can refuse future services and business to anyone if that person violates whatever b.s. rule they came up with.
However, the government (any government) has no authority to police post-ownership activity in a manner that deprives the owner of their property rights. In other words, they can say "You can't own an AK-47" or "You can't generate sound over certain dB" , but they can't say "You can't shoot your AK-47 on your property, even if it pauses no risk of harm to others, but you can own it", and they can't say "You can't use your speaker at maximum volume" (they can police the sound you generate but not the usage of your property, if the speaker passes the legal threshold then the speaker isn't relevant, the sound generated is).
This also applies to free (not commercial) sharing of property (copyright laws are fundamentally invalid).
The problem is, I am talking logic and reason which doesn't translate well into real-world scenarios. In the real world, the guys with the biggest guns make up random rules and pretend it is just and valid.
The reason I'm stating all this, is in the hopes that I can convince anyone who reads this and maybe if enough of us agree, some day democracy might work and laws can change.
The government can prevent ownership of things. It cannot however pass laws that dicate you can come into possesion of things and by all reason it is your property, but as a matter of technicality it can't be considered property and is subject to arbitrary usage laws by the government or rules by third-parties.
That said (I promise, my last one!), access to network services is special. If someone made some software where to function it requires some network service, and they came up with random rules on the network service side, then that is also their right, since that service is on their property. The remedy people have for this is to avoid that service. And if that service is the only one of its kind and using it is required, then the government has a natural obligation to protect the public against monopolies.
I had a hole other post/thread that got negative feedback and some interesting discussion about Google, Android and their sideloading policies. If you glean anything from this post of mine, please let it be that I am advocating for solving of the root causes of these problems. It is all too easy to be reactionary and fall into these rage-baiting events. Solving root causes is never easy, but good solutions are often simple. If reasonable minds can have a healthy discourse to find these solutions then many problems are solved, instead of playing whack-a-mole forever.
Termux
Some things shouldn't be left to amateurs to repair. Just because you "own" the hardware doesn't mean you're equipped to fix it safely or securely. Modern devices are tightly integrated systems -- tinkering with them can make them less reliable, less secure, and sometimes outright dangerous. Manufacturers lock down certain layers not just out of greed, but because risk management protects both users and the people around those users.
If you agree with this article, do you also agree with these statements?
* "We should be able to repair our firearms with freely available full-auto conversions kits."
* "We should be able to repair our own cars, and add software like Volkswagen did to bypass EPA and state inspection testing."
* "We should be able to repair our own homes and offices, and ignore building codes and ADA guidelines."
there are plently of choices for hardware you can buy which freely allow any software you want to run.
As for the new Android restrictions I assume my Galaxy S20 will be immune to them because it's not getting (major) updates anymore. I'll continue using it as long as I can to avoid this. Does anyone know the most recent Galaxy phone that will be safe from this? I want to get a backup.
tbh I don't even care about support, just give me the keys
but ultimately it doesn't matter, if the market could bear the additional cost a competitor could emerge... but they barely do anywhere
honestly at this point in life I think it would be easier to change society to be structured in a way to make the people running these companies want to give it to you
Anyone who doesn't agree with this is a collaborator and should be publicly shamed.
No, says the man in Hollywood - those cycles belong to the MPAA
No, says the car manufacturers, those cycles belong to us
No, says the nerds in Redmond, your computer belongs to us
apt Pkg install nmap
no, we must.
That doesn’t benefit the corporations, so it’s communism.
no, however, bootloader muck be unlocked and software must be open sourced when device reaches EOL
Run meant run ok and that meant support if it not running … should have the ability meant we can do it on our own … does it major any sense in general. No.
You can agree on anti-monopoly but to say we (who is we here) can do this without any resource consideration is not thinking but wishful thinking.
Open source is not wishful thinking but until the user pay …
We’ve got a solution to that.
What makes you think you can own hardware, you fascist capitalist pig dog!
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[flagged]
the Android change doesn't impact your ability to plug in your own device and run your own code or someone else's code
the change impacts closed source software distributed without verification which is by definition unknown so the "want" is not possible - i.e. you can't know if you want to run it.
You can. You can jailbreak your iPhone. I assume you can do so with Android. Problem solved.
Oh, you want to jailbreak it and use it as an authenticator? No. That doesn't seem like a reasonable requirement.
The editorializing of this article title changes the meaning, please restore it.
But to answer the claim, no, only software that you own or are allowed by the software owner to run, is obviously what should be allowed. And clearly illegal and harmful software should not be allowed at all. It's a no-brainer.
I like the idea of course, but such legislation would also be very disruptive, because it affects the entire supply chain. Every maker of any gadget, be it random white label android smartphone, set top box or smart home camera would have to negotiate with all their component suppliers to obtain full documentation instead of just driver and firmware blob. So would these suppliers with their suppliers. For mor niche components it seems plausible that no proper hardware spec exists and it’s instead through a combination of hardware descriptor languages, the driver code and good old tribal knowledge. Forcing Google and Apple to allow side loading on their OSs just requires them to flip a switch. I think there are also compelling reasons why smartphones are special. It’s a duopoly and most people have got to have one to properly participate in modern society.
This seems counter intuitive.
All nflix da should require is the interfaces outer needs.
Network stack CODECS CRYPTO stack (DRM)
The OS seems irrelevant.
I mean sure you worked be limited to whatever interface a browser could provide.
It's not as if certification of a certain operating system means anything other than the certificate.
Netflix used play4sure beck in my days at Apple, and literally t out was a tick box for them to assure the content owners they had DRM.
Nobody certified apple's netflix app for ATV back then, I know, Ben Lee and I wrote it...
We desperately need OS research, exokernels should be a thing by now, at least then the question becomes moot.
Windows, (alphabet)OS, Linux and BSD all provide operating systems that enable productive work but there's a lot of cruft