Hacker News Reader

Comment by dusted | Hacker News Reader

> I believe consumers, as a right, should be able to install software of their choosing to any computing device that is owned outright.

While I agree, I think even legislation will not fix this, because what is a computing device, and who decides what is and what is not ? I'm sure apple will argue that nothing they sell should be considered computing devices. While the hacker will consider anything they can trick into arbitrary code to be one (is your fridge a computing device?)

If we go the legal route, I think the only way is to give the right to flash firmware of _ANYTHING_ that has programmable bits, and that's probably not going to fly either because lots of legislation already dictates users should be prohibited and prevented.

View on HN

> While I agree, I think even legislation will not fix this, because what is a computing device, and who decides what is and what is not ?

If there is legislation, it will contain a definition of what is a computing device and what isn't. It will be imperfect, and the edge cases will be contested in courts. Courts deal with blurry boundaries all the time.

That's how it always is with legal matters, and doesn't mean we have to demand that anything with a firmware must be flashable.

What I mean is that I think this is the fastest way to end the era of widely-available general-purpose-computing devices that we are currently in (and that is currently ending, but at a glacial speed).

It's not that hard to imagine a version of the world where computers as we know them do not exist, but are mere appliances (like tablets and smartphones), and if companies feel threatened that they might be forced to open up their computing devices, they will be quick to make them not fall under the definition.

Instead of a smartphone, you will get a "Can telephone and access facebook and instasnap" device with whatever technical cripplement is needed to make it not a computing device and be exempt from the law. And as the general public and justice system is pretty ignorant with regard to technology, it's going to be pretty resource intensive to convince a judge why every gadget around that suddenly identifies as "not a computing device" is in fact on anyway.

That's easily solved.

Just scope the law to any device that can run code, and have the criteria for control be "the user must never have less control over code execution as the manufacturer does after the sale".

So, for example, if someone buys a phone from Apple they will get full control of the entire device (SEP/TEE included) because Apple has the ability to exercise post-sale code execution control to that level (they hold the private keys required).

Does that apply to those biometric readers issued to me by the government? If not, why not? Can I have a root on my car to disable ISA? Why not, if not? Do you see the problem?

I don't really see the problem. I find it perfectly acceptable for people to be able to change every single thing about their cars. If it's an illegal mod you can let the law deal with it.

German here - I do believe this legislation already exists - the owner of a thing has full rights of disposal and no other entity is allowed to interfere (except for the state itself). And this is part of the common property rights. afaik the property rights in the US are even stronger.

But i wonder, why these rights do not seem to be enforced on computing devices. Either everyone is failing to assert their property rights or i am in the wrong here. Probably the latter.

> I think the only way is to give the right to flash firmware of _ANYTHING_ that has programmable bits

This seems reasonable to me. What's wrong with it?

> I'm sure apple will argue that nothing they sell should be considered computing devices.

“What’s a computer?”

Reply on news.ycombinator.com