zlacker

[parent] [thread] 3 comments
1. Schroe+(OP)[view] [source] 2022-07-30 06:09:37
That's not security. That's submission.
replies(1): >>charci+k4
2. charci+k4[view] [source] 2022-07-30 07:10:54
>>Schroe+(OP)
Please elaborate.
replies(1): >>Schroe+o6
◧◩
3. Schroe+o6[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-07-30 07:46:03
>>charci+k4
Your entitlement to control what your users do in their house or on their device is sickening. Your right to control ends when you send the packet.

Requiring that everyone have a telescreen watching them at all times, wear a shock collar that goes off if their heartrate spikes and sing about how they love big brother all day would stop assaults, but that doesn't make it a secure or safe world -- it makes it a totalitarian hellhole.

Noone pushing these features cares about security or the firmware would be open and the keys would be changeable, they don't care about user rights or better experience or it wouldn't be coming from microsoft and you would be able to register a public key taking responsibility for your own device that any locally provided service would be required to accept or choose your own CA. You just want the ability to sell removing the nitro button or having a slightly less unusable UI or getting the ads off of the lock screen for $9.99 a month.

replies(1): >>charci+cb
◧◩◪
4. charci+cb[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-07-30 09:06:27
>>Schroe+o6
>Your entitlement to control what your users do in their house or on their device is sickening

I'm not controlling what you do. I'm just making a whitelist of allowed clients for my service. You are free to do whatever you want with your computer, but if you want to use my service you need to use an allowed client.

>Your right to control ends when you send the packet.

Again, I'm not controlling what you are doing. I'm just requiring certain software to use my service. You are free to run whatever you want on your machine, but if you can't prove to me that you are running an allowed client I can choose to not let you use my service. You can't force me to serve you if I don't want to.

This isn't spying on you, or forcing you to do something against your will. I have designed a system whose safety is better since I can trust clients. Asking you to client I trust to not compromise the safety of my service should be a reasonable request.

>No one pushing these features cares about security or the firmware would be open and the keys would be changeable

TPM providers have many interests. They have an interest of developing a secure device, but they also have an interest of protecting their IP. Just because they care about protecting their IP, it doesn't mean they don't care about security. In regards to making your own chain trust go ahead, but I won't trust you.

>You just want the ability to sell removing the nitro button or having a slightly less unusable UI or getting the ads off of the lock screen for $9.99 a month.

Yes, just like how DRM stops people from ripping content you have invented money into. This can prevent people from leaching by using a modded client that removed ads for free. People spend a lot of money building services and they rely on ad revenue in order to make money. If you choose to mod advertisements out of your client I can choose to stop responding to your requests.

[go to top]