Comment by charcircuit
1 day ago
>"Insecure" for the program against the user.
We already tried out trusting the users and it turns out that a few bad apples can spoil the bunch.
>It's such a dystopian idea that I don't know what to respond with.
Plenty of other devices are designed so that you can only use it in safe ways the designer intends. For example a microwave won't function while the door is open. This is not dystopia despite potentially going against what the user wants to be able to do.
>I don't believe any external party has the right to require me to use my own property in a certain way.
And companies are not obligated to support running on your custom modified property.
>The bar gets lower by the day with locally deployable AI.
The bar at least can be raised from searching "free hacks" and double clicking the cheat exe.
>who don't want you to have any control whatsoever
This isn't true. These systems offer plenty of control, but they are just designed in a way that security actually exists and can't be easily bypassed.
>and would probably inject ads/backdoors/telemetry into your "free" guest anyway.
This is very unlikely. It is unsupported speculation.
> We already tried out trusting the users and it turns out that a few bad apples can spoil the bunch.
You say this as if the user is a guest on your machine and not the other way around.
It's not a symmetrical relationship. If companies don't trust me, they don't get my money. And if I don't trust them, they don't get my money.
The only direction that gets them paid is if I trust them. For that to happen they don't have to go out of their way to support my use cases, buy they can't be going out of their way to limit them either.
> designed in a way that security actually exists
When some remote party has placed countermeasures against how you want to use your computer, that's the opposite of security. That's malware.
>You say this as if the user is a guest on your machine and not the other way around.
The user is a guest on someone else's network though. You may be a guest to Netflix and they require you to prove your machine is secure for them to provide you 1080p video. You are free to do whatever you want with your own machine, but Netflix may not want to give you 1080p video files if they don't trust your machine.
>When some remote party has placed countermeasures against how you want to use your computer, that's the opposite of security. That's malware.
I think it's fair to have computers that allow you to disable integrity protections and do whatever you want. You just shouldn't be able to attest that your system is running 1 set of software when in reality it's running something else. It's fraud.
No it's still my network that I'm on. I don't have to be a good neighbor because I also own all the adjacent hardware.
There's already a body of laws that incentivize against violating copyright. It lunacy to stack on additional ones in service of the same goal. That's like saying that it's both illegal to speed, and it's also illegal to tell your friends that you'll be there in 15 minutes when you'd have to speed to get there sooner than 20, whether or not you actually do the speeding.
Devices are not legal persons, they can't sign contracts on your behalf, nor can they commit fraud on your behalf. If a bogus is attestation is necessary in service of interoperability, that's a technical detail not a legal one. If what you want is copyright enforcement, focus on the crime not the circumstance under which a such a crime is possible.