Hacker News Reader

Welcome to the War over General-Purpose Computing.

http://boingboing.net/2012/08/23/civilwar.html

http://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html

The future really scares me. And yes, backlash from Superfish fiasco will probably only make things worse.

I don't understand how this would be the conclusion reached. If you asked a person on the street, would they not think that Lenovo is a entity of authority? That they were the ones dictating the computers configuration? That they were any more or less fallible/malicious than Sony or Microsoft or HP?

If you asked anyone, would they not follow the line of reasoning that, if the manufacturer was releasing hardware in a default state of compromise, that we could not trust the default state of released hardware? Why would you conclude the opposite after this?

I can't see a way to construe this as "We need to ensure that machines must stay as the manufacturer ordained to protect us from security threats introduced by the manufacturer!"

I don't understand the rational here.

This is exactly what I thought (I spammed many of my friends with the link to the talk). I bet you that this (which is a step in the wrong direction) will trigger a something worse (a leap in the wrong direction to 'protect' consumers).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com