Hacker News Reader

Comment by 1vuio0pswjnm7 | Hacker News Reader

"This passwordless future requires that Microsoft follow in Apple's and Google's footsteps in deciding which software you are allowed to run on your computer."

"These vendors don't trust you to manage your own security, instead they want you to hand all trust over to them."

"This requirement puts even more control of your hardware into Microsoft's hands."

Whether the concept of the "password" is appropriate for computers doesnt really interest me.

However when companies like Microsoft want to control how I can use a computer, thats a problem.

These proposals are not about "security" in every case, they are about control.

The user could be in a situation where security really isnt a major concern (and thats for the user to decide) but these companies will still be able to control what she can and cannot do.

View on HN

> and thats for the user to decide

I'm getting a vaccination vibe here. If being slack about security means a botnet infection that the rest of us have to deal with, then no, not for the user to decide.

"My computer my choice" only works if you're not connected to a network and can't infect anyone else.

I'm fully vaccinated. I would bet the Pur.ism folks are vaccinated, too. Vaccination is a government initiative. Microsoft is a private company.

Originaly Windows had no ability to connect to the internet; it was for LANs only. All was well. Gates originally thought the internet made no sense. Then Microsoft added TCP/IP from BSD and people started connecting Windows to the internet. All was not well. Today, Microsoft actually tries to force people to connect to the internet, and stay connected 24/7. They do this with "automatic upgrades/updates". Windows computers will even try to automatically "update" themselves peer-to-peer from other computers on the LAN. Hows that for a virus analogy. Microsoft could never stop botnets targeting Windows proactively so Microsoft became a botnet. They now have remote command and control.

The root cause of botnets isn't the victims, it's the product. Its especially difficult to argue otherwise when owners have less and less control over their own computers.

I'm fully vaccinated too (and I'm typing this on a Purism 13, so your estimate is good so far ;)

One of the reasons Windows started asserting more and more control over computers is that people are easily duped into doing the wrong thing. I totally agree that Windows was never designed for t'internet, and security was badly bolted on rather than being an integral part from the start. But even if it had been, most of the botnet exploits are social rather than technical. Linux is more secure than Windows, but it is not inherently more proof against social attacks than Windows. However the people who choose to run Linux are more proof against those attacks because we're more knowledgeable about computers, so there are few social attacks that work on Linux.

I'm not victim-blaming. I'm saying some people do not understand the environment they are in or the dangers they face and their bad choices can negatively affect other people around them. Just like with vaccines, mandating some behaviour in this situation seems like a reasonable response.

Sure, but you're choosing their product, right?

Like, the same argument would suggest that "Who is Microsoft to say I need 256M of RAM to run Windows? If I want to run it on 128M, I should be allowed to do that!"

> Sure, but you're choosing their product, right?

No, obviously not. They have a dominating market share and I have no choice.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com