Hacker News Reader

Comment by Barrin92 | Hacker News Reader

I think the operating system should allow users to do whatever they want with it, as long as they consent to it.

I'm honestly a little bit baffled how the discussion swings the other end when it comes to software like this, compared to say the Google Manifest V3 debate. If people value having fewer cheaters in their video games and they're willing to accept the trade-off of having software run at a low-level to be effective at detection that's their choice.

Flatpak's are a great choice to have but I don't want to have the operating system force them on me.

View on HN

I agree. I want sandboxing technology that increases user control, not the other way around. I don't accept the trade-off you described and I don't think anyone else really wants to either, they're just forced to if they want to play the game. We shouldn't let this invasive kernel-level anti-cheat technology become normalized.

Now when you say want to play the game, do you mean getting instantly killed on spawn by cheaters?

More specifically, given that you want the game to be playable without anti-cheat, do you imagine that the cheaters will just agree not to cheat?

I think it's pretty clear that the choice in popular games is between a strong anti-cheat vs a strong cheat. For some types of games a lot can be enforced by the server (think chess), but for other types of games it is just inevitable that there is an arms race at the point of input. Nevermind rootkits, soon enough we'll have mandatory webcams monitoring that you're actually physically moving your mouse in a way that matches the signal coming out of your mouse.

What people want are to only play games with other people running this anti-cheat software, and are more than willing to run it themselves to achieve that. Seems really like missing the point to argue that running or not running anti-cheat is a personal choice that doesn't impact anyone else. It totally impacts other people. In fact, that's precisely why folks want it!

This is the exact opposite of consent. People are being forced to install the anti-cheat software. While you may personally find it acceptable, you do not have the authority to consent on behalf of all other players, therefore it is not consent but simply an opinion.

Installing the anti-cheat software on your own computer will provide you absolutely no benefits. It needs to be installed on the cheaters' computers for it to be effective. Obviously if there was actual consent involved and people were allowed to not install the anti-cheat software, then cheaters would simply not install it.

There are plenty of valid reasons to be concerned about this, even for people who have no intention of cheating at all. While you may trust Riot, others may not. Even if Riot won't do anything nefarious with it, all software has bugs. It's only a matter of time until someone finds a vulnerability in Riot's anti-cheat software and actual malicious actors start to exploit it.

I hate cheaters as much as anyone else, but an anti-cheat program running with kernel-level privileges is simply a ticking time bomb and should never have been approved by Microsoft. But of course, it's easy for gaming companies to brainwash the masses who have no awareness of security and privacy risks with "you don't want cheaters in your games, do you?" These are the same people who get brainwashed by arguments like "if you're not doing anything illegal you have nothing to hide, therefore you should have no issue with your communications being surveilled 24/7 because it will help reduce terrorism".

> you do not have the authority to consent on behalf of all other players,

I don't, I'm not forcing anyone to play League of Legends at gunpoint and I don't force them to install anything on their machines. If you don't trust Riot there's a simple solution, don't install their software on your computer.

The basis of consent isn't that Microsoft gets to dictate security standards to both users and third parties, it's you getting to decide what you run on your own machine.

>But of course, it's easy for gaming companies to brainwash the masses who have no awareness of security and privacy risks

This securocrat mindset is the exact problem. To you every user who makes choices that you don't approve of is part of the mindless and brainwashed masses, and you'd prefer if an operating system owner gets to dictate conditions to everyone else likely because they align with your own. That is the opposite of user freedom and it is paternalistic. It's extremely ironic you don't realize that you want Microsoft to act like a sort of discount nanny state that interfers in every decision between users and third parties because you're afraid of security threats. In this analogy you have chosen, you are the guy who smells sinister plots on every corner and wants to move control from the user to the operating system manufacturer. It is the same walled garden bs that Apple forces on everyone.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com