The era of unrootable devices, unbreakable DRM, and inescapable walled gardens? Considering that this will basically be "trusted computing done right", I'm quite frankly more scared than anything...
I'm not saying that security holes are nothing to worry about, as I am no less irritated by buggy programs than anyone else, but the alternative might be worse.
We are past the point where exploits are a cheap, democratic weapon. So it's time to close the holes that governments and organized crime are using against us. It's our responsibility to build systems that provide democratizing power. It's also our responsibility to practice exercising our political power. Politics will be important for however long we are human.
As long as I have the choice to disable it, I want trusted computing. For example, I want to be able to run a secure cryptocurrency wallet on a portable device. Also would like to be able to introspect the hardware, even if it's costly and potentially destructive.
the problem is that any entity with the resources to create such a device is incentivized to produce one in which you cannot disable the built-in DRM/security. I think such a device could only be made possible under some sort of new law/regulation (like how net neutrality needs to be enacted into law), and i don't foresee how it can realistically happen. Consumer are already very comfortable with locked down devices now - iphone, tivo, even DRM coffee machines, and i don't see any consumer outrage when device makers introduce obstructions in the name of user safety and security.
producing a freer device means you cannot force a business model that is more profitable. For example, Playstation 3 used to be able to run a version of linux, but as time went by, sony removed that capability - they didn't want non-gamers to buy it and use it in clustered computing. Their business model is to sell the machine at cost (or even, take a loss), and recoup/profit on the game sales.
A device maker which makes completely open machines is going to get out-competed with low-margin knock-offs, or generic branded copies from places like china. This is good for the consumer, but not good for a business's bottom-line. This is why there are very few branded computers these days (at least, desktop). You can count them on your fingers.
Not exactly true. Why would Sony have added Linux functionality in the first place?
* Good will among the community
* More familiarity with Cell software development for clusters (although this was behind a VM)
* Import tax savings in certain territories due to the box being classed as a ‘computer’ instead of a ‘games system’.
Which do you think was most important? (hint: it’s the last one) Conversely, when the ability to run Linux was pulled a hypervisor exploit had been discovered. Now the cost equation tipped back the other way. The import tax hit was still there, but the machine had halved in price since launch so that wasn’t as painful. The community had moved away from PS3 clusters as they weren’t energy effective any more: not as painful. The major pain point from removing it was losing the goodwill of the community, but when balanced against the piracy implications they made their decision.
Personally I think they should have patched the hypervisor holes and kept the functionality, but you can see why they decided to remove it.
Another example: had Apple not removed the TPM from its computers and used it for the firmware crypto checks, the Thunderstrike exploit would have faced quite a hurdle. Such a delicate balance.
TPM wouldn't have helped any since it's a passive component.
As long as you get to overwrite the code faster (or more persistently) than it can check itself (with or without support from TPM), you win.
Restrictions placed on Turing machines by their producers are ultimately a political problem and not a technical one. We will indeed have to solve it one day once those restrictions are not buggy.
It is a political problem, but I think it's one that has to be solved very very soon, because the majority of the population seem to acquiesce quickly to these new restrictions and "safer" (against them) systems without thinking much of the negative aspects. To let it reach the point when freedom is completely associated with malware, terrorism, or whatever else is used to frighten the population into comformity, it may be too late to oppose.
In general, technical problems can be permanently solved, and political problems cannot be. Where possible, it's always preferable to turn a political problem into a technical problem.
I agree. But I'm also convinced that in practice there's absolutely no way to pressure OEMs to allow control over our devices in such way that it would lead to persistent computational opennes and freedom.
Walled gardens and eroded digital/computational liberties are here to stay, and even more so in the future. The trend has been that "hacking the device" has become harder and harder, and devices have became more and more closed and controlled. I don't expect this trend to change any time soon. I sure as hell wish it did, but why would it?
Surely, though, if hacking the device was harder - if it wasn't something practically anybody could do with a downloadable tool, for the most part - there'd be more demand for unlockable devices.
The trend is to replace "human stupidity" with automated, provable correctness. One of the most obvious examples of this would be array bounds checking. As programmers become increasingly restricted by their own tools in the name of preventing bugs, and as machines effectively write more (correct) code for them, one does have to wonder at some point: "Are we controlling the machines, or are they controlling us?"
I'm thinking more of a VM like Xen in Rust, with the support to run Docker-like containers, with no C or C++ code anywhere. 100% subscript checked down to the hardware level.
I'm not saying that security holes are nothing to worry about, as I am no less irritated by buggy programs than anyone else, but the alternative might be worse.