Hacker News Reader

Comment by QuantumG | Hacker News Reader

Yeah, cryptography is bad and consumers shouldn't be allowed to prove their browser hasn't been modified or have safety when using biometrics or making payments.

View on HN

"modified" according to whom? Users should be able to use software the way they want, not the way Big Tech dictates.

Governments are scared because they realise cryptography is being used against them.

Now users should realise the same.

Strong encryption is classified as a weapon for good reason. Just like you'd want a gun in your hands, but not one pointed at you.

Then again, the fact that you call them "consumers" instead of "users" already shows what side of the debate you're on.

I'm sorry but there's a class of users who want to be able to prove they haven't made modifications and they refer to themselves as consumers. They're the people who don't jailbreak their devices for exactly that reason and this protocol will support them. Oh, and they happen to be the bulk of the users.

> I'm sorry but there's a class of users who want to be able to prove they haven't made modifications and they refer to themselves as consumers. [..] Oh, and they happen to be the bulk of the users.

No they don't. No single person on this planet wants this. What they want is to be allowed to buy/stream/consume stuff with as little friction as possible.

You're barking up the wrong tree mate.

You know how you can pay for stuff at stores with your phone? That didn't just magically happen. It wasn't just "the technology got better" or whatever you tell yourself. That was called Tokenization and what made it possible was cryptographic hardware being rolled out to the masses. They love this stuff.

You've got this all backwards and you even proved their point. People don't _love_ tokenization, or DRM whatever. They LOVE the removal of friction, like buying things with their phone removes friction of carrying a wallet or a card or whatever I guess. On the other hand DRM makes things easier on the company, but as a consumer I don't really give a fuck about them or what extra work it causes them. In fact, they better have to do something otherwise I'm not paying for anything and they're just collecting rent for something I should be able to attain for free.

DRM makes it possible for customers to rent products they don't want to own. If that isn't "removing friction" I dunno what is. Tokenization similarly makes it possible to buy stuff and not have to worry about what the merchant will do with your info. All possible because of cryptography hardware. The alternative is subscription platforms, where the payments happen behind the curtain.

You seem to be conflating loving the result vs loving the process that enables the result. Regular people mostly do not care about anything except the result. A simplified example: People love driving, they do not love the DMV and getting a driver's license that enables them to drive. Remote attestation is the equivalent then of saying ok we can't tell if the person who drives the car has a drivers license so lets mandate that a license cert is embedded on a chip and we'll implant that in you when you get your drivers license and it'll tell the car you're licensed. You're sitting here saying "people love getting implanted! See they're all doing it and driving their cars!" and some of us are like.. dude no that is so fucked up I don't want mandated anything implanted in me but I still have to be able to drive a car. I guess if you force me to do this at risk of being homeless or disabling my freedom of movement or at gunpoint I have no real choice. It's antithetical to the human spirit.

and what you're doing is getting all butt hurt over a technical solution. Cryptographic hardware is good.

Good for whom? Good for me? No. Good for totalitarians and their bootlickers? yes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com