Unrestrained webservers on phones is an edge case that would certainly be abused by all sorts of crapware while being a very uncommon usecase for mobile devices at all.
1. When discussing human rights (which apply to technological freedoms) reducing a need to "an edge case" is the basis of marginalization, defined as "treatment of a person, group, or concept as insignificant or peripheral". Therefore, it is never appropriate to rely on such language to prove a point, especially when we are discussing software which had to go out of its way to restrict freedoms.
2. It's an incredibly slippery slope to use "crapware" as a justification for reducing the freedoms of the individual. Criminals will find a way, do not create a hostile user experience.
Since it's inception smart phones have been a consumer platform, used for consuming content. The platform for tinkerers already exists. It's called a PC with Linux installed. Every platform does not need to cater to your needs.
Are you familiar with the false dilemma?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
> The platform for tinkerers already exists. It's called a PC with Linux installed
I would love for you to make the case that a modern touch screen phone is not a Personal Computer. And you fail to address the very real scenario in which companies are conspiring to provide fully locked-down hardware and software ecosystems.
I'm always up for a challenge, so here you go.
I'd argue that a PC is a general purpose personal computer. I wouldn't count a game console such as Xbox, PS or Switch as a PC because it is vendor controlled and locked down. I'd also not consider a car with an entertainment system a general purpose computing device.
Similarly phones are bought with the knowledge that they are more similar to game consoles than general purpose computers. They are bought with the knowledge that they are locked down by the vendor and that your use of the device is going to be limited. The right to install custom software that does whatever you want has never been part of the contract.
I do support the people's right to attempt to hack these devices to do whatever they want, but I do think expecting vendor support for their wacky antics is a step too far.
The Xbox was built primarily from standard components used in personal computers.
The PlayStation 2 and 3 ran Linux as alternative operating systems, officially supported by Sony.
The Nintendo Wii series is heralded as some of the most hackable and therefore versatile consoles in history, not for Nintendo's lack of trying.
> Similarly phones are bought with the knowledge that they are more similar to game consoles than general purpose computers
My phone in my pocket has more capability than my old laptops. Touchscreen interaction and the ability to make calls over a cell network do not suddenly make this thing not a personal computer. The hardware is completely capable of supporting this.
> They are bought with the knowledge that they are locked down by the vendor and that your use of the device is going to be limited.
This is just circular reasoning. The entire point is that this "knowledge" is simply consumer conditioning, and people are being taken advantage of by being fed this bullshit narrative.
> The right to install custom software that does whatever you want has never been part of the contract.
My friend, there is no contract. That is the point. I buy the hardware, and then I have the right to do whatever the fuck I want with it. Full stop. Anything less restricts my right to modify my personal items as I see fit.
> I do think expecting vendor support for their wacky antics is a step too far.
What? My phone runs a heavily-modified Linux and can do literally anything I need regarding personal computing, including hook up to external monitors and make use of peripheral devices like a mouse and keyboard. It is objectively a full-blown computer, regardless of if you can't understand that.
The premise of this thread is simply that, despite all of this, ports are arbitrarily locked down. This requires extra vendor intervention to implement, so your argument makes no sense. There is nothing wacky about using my personal computing device for.... personal computing. It's either disingenuous or ignorant to suggest this is not something which should be considered.
i understand that you want to own the stack on your tech, and i would argue that if custom OSes were allowed, that fulfils that need. it’s not apple or google’s responsibility to let you do anything with their OS, in the same vein that you often are limited by stock router firmware or what’s on your ps5.
as phones are hyper-personal it makes sense people want more control, but most average users do not. and as someone who works closely with smartphone tech, i want it to just work and i don’t want to worry about whatever nonsense is enabled by disabling security or os-level by guarantees.
just get a fairphone or whatever. it’s not a human right to force tech companies to embrace your vision of computing
Now that you have, will you say that it has more merit if discussed in future?
You can argue all you want about what the normal joe shmoe should be able to do but most joes shmoes will use that to hurt themselves more than help.
Limitiations are essentially OSHA of computing, by making it hard to do the wrong stuff it makes most people least likely to hurt themselves.
Well, it's not reasonably available. The number of android phone manufacturers that still allow bootloaders to be unlocked without significant friction is pretty small, and hardware attestation is slowly killing the whole rooting/custom rom scene since phones with unlocked bootloaders can't run many apps.
The option is there on some phones, and that with caveats; lots of phones don't let you root them, and even if you can they'll artificially break things (like sony degrading the camera, or any app that refuses to run if it realizes it's on a rooted phone)
Personal computers should be able to run a web server > Phones are personal computers > Phones should be able to run webservers.
Is this line supposed to be ironic or something?
I'm sorry, but what are you doing right now if not this?
It's a legit security issue. Not protecting people from these things is far more user hostile.
I've never heard an argument before that the ability to host a personal website on a cellphone is a human right. But, by using this phrase, you seem to be assuming your readers already agree with you that human rights is what we are discussing. As a rhetorical device, that may be effective at getting someone to back down for fear of being labeled as anti-human-rights, but it is not effective at persuading someone of your implied thesis. I'd very much like to hear such an argument connecting cellphone websites to human rights.
Hence, freedom is the default position, the default human right. What needs to be justified is the restriction, not the freedom. Without good justification the restriction should be removed. An example of unjustifiable restriction is "criminals may use it", as:
a) your freedom should not be impinged on by the actions of others, especially malicious ones, and
b) you are presumed innocent (the second, perhaps only in order of mention here, great principle of English law, if not culture. One that is sadly being undermined).
The argument is that individuals must have the right to modify their devices as they see fit, barring some reasonable FTC radio restrictions which are necessary to enable fair use.
You can argue that nothing should compel a company, in a free market, to provide such a device. But the nature of human rights is that they must be defended vigilantly, or the entire industry and government will slowly move to exploit people.
If you do not guarantee freedom of speech, companies will restrict it. If you do not guarantee freedom to repair or modify a device, companies will restrict it. At some point, these practices become inescapable for the end user and they effectively lose these freedoms while entirely skipping due process and the court of law.
Rights must be enforced, not left up to corporate goodwill.
Humans rights pov to this were not remotely part of the discussion. If you have one you think is relevant to the discussion then introduce it. The way you have tried to do so here is in the tone of “I know you think you’re trying to help but clearly your attitude is part of the problem.”
This might be acceptable if phone-hosted websites were already a well-known humanitarian & human rights issue and therefore marginalization a potential problem. As it stand though it just seems like you’re twisting the meaning of “edge case” into something that it is not.
You could argue John Deere shouldn't be required to sell you a tractor which you can repair at home. But if you don't require that, they won't, and you've chosen to prioritize corporate needs over individual needs.
Calling this a human rights issue is like calling your ability to order a sandwich for lunch a human rights issue
Exactly. If we established all law based only on what we currently observe, without considering future implications, then we would fundamentally only be a reactive legislative system and not proactive.
> Calling this a human rights issue is like calling your ability to order a sandwich for lunch a human rights issue
No, that is a gross misrepresentation. The simple fact is that if you don't require the right for a user to modify their general computing hardware, that right will never be awarded systematically, and will in fact be repressed. It's the definition of a slippery slope, because anything can be justified from that point.
Your concern is about an intellectual ideal of full freedom to utilize a device as you see fit.
That is an ideal that I am philosophically attracted to. But… you have to balance harms when dealing with the public. Security risk management for mobile is difficult and even professional practitioners fail badly at it. A billion little servers with a trillion little bugs are a physical safety risk for thousands of people that they cannot effectively manage.
We live in an era where publishing is easier than it has been since society consisted of a bunch of cavemen in a few small bands. This idea is technically interesting but a bad one.
This is a category error. The use is marginal, not the people. You can't just uprate the severity of something because it suits your wants.
There should be a separate permission for listening on standard, reserved ports (anything in the IANA docs for all I care) that should require manual consent, like with location access. In fact, I think there should be a retractable permission for any kind of remotely accessible port binding. The fact any calculator app can start a VPN server on my phone without my knowledge isn't good! That doesn't mean providing any type of service is inherently bad, though.
For instance, there are tons of phone <=> desktop sync apps (My Phone on Windows, KDE Connect on Linux/Windows/Mac) that constantly communicate between each other. Why should your phone always be the one to initiate that direct connection? Why should we rely on cloud servers when mutually authenticated SSH is already doing every bit of protection we could possibly need? My phone is half a meter away from my computer, it shouldn't need to be this difficult!
Can you tell me more about that?
I know about SRV records from Minecraft (of all things!) for a similar purpose, can you point me towards a reference of what is this about? Wikipedia fails me.
[1]: https://blog.cloudflare.com/speeding-up-https-and-http-3-neg...
[2]: Current version is https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-...
FWIW, that's possible today on Android (not necessarily tomorrow, not necessarily on iOS) - I can and do regularly move files around with rsync/scp courtesy of termux, either by running the command on the phone or just running sshd on the phone (which does, in my setup, need to be manually started; I don't know if that's inherent or could be changed) and then running the transfer from another machine.
Otherwise they're competing with a lot of other people interested in what the phone should and should not do.
If they own a hammer, they can do what they like with a hammer, but a phone is not a hammer. It's a complex arrangement of molecules, licenses and competing group interests.
I'm sure if someone found a way to shove ads and place restrictions on the use of your hammer they would.
People make a big deal out of those differences though, go figure!
Otherwise your line of reasoning boils down to “it exists.”