Hacker News Reader

Comment by amitparikh | Hacker News Reader

The article raises some interesting points, but I think the author makes a major error by misusing the terms 'spyware' and 'malware' multiple times throughout.

The term 'spyware', in particular, has a well-defined meaning which indicates that the malicious software is communicating data back to the creator in order to exploit the user unknowingly. The author of this article uses the term to refer to non-general-purpose computers, and I think that's exceptionally misleading. The iPad could be considered a non-general-purpose computer, but most people would not go around labeling it as coming pre-loaded with 'spyware'.

View on HN

Emotive language though it may be, I don't think it's all that far from the truth. The iPad most definitely is a general purpose electronic computer. It can run any software that's loaded onto it.

Except that it can't, really, because it is loaded with software that prevents the user from doing some of the things they should reasonably expect to be able to do. Regardless of whether it comes from Apple, I would certainly be happy to call software that prevents me from using a computer that I own in a manner in which it is otherwise capable 'malware.'

I don't want to pirate software or content, but I do want to be able to use the equipment that was sold to me and that I now own in any way that I see fit. Merriam-Webster defines Malware as 'software designed to interfere with a computer's normal functioning'; a definition which I think is entirely appropriate here.

That's exactly what Doctorow is arguing. He says that we don't actually have a way to make a computer capable of only running specific applications, we just have general purpose computers that are loaded with spyware/malware to prevent running every program as an approximation to a specialized computer.

Yup. I was just pointing out the misuse of the terminology. Specialized computers certainly are, as you say, just general-purpose computers with restrictive software. But calling all of the restrictive software 'spyware' or 'malware' is unfair to a multitude of devices that are intended to operate in a specialized way. I think it's scare-tactics and a failure of the author to generalize all restrictive software as 'spyware' or 'malware'

That's only a minute technical distinction. It is spyware, because the only way to prevent users from doing general purpose computing is to spy in them. Spying, in this case, is defined as "remote surveillance and control". For example, forcing a firmware upgrade when a way is found to get around code signing restrictions.

It is very simple: If you are not in control of a device, someone else is.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com