The Coming War on General Computation (2011)

https://github.com/jwise/28c3-doctorow/blob/master/transcript.md

by qb • 13 years ago

160 59 13 years ago

github.com

throwaway2048• 13 years ago

sadly people will always be ready to sell snake oil that promises the impossble.

great example i saw floating around here the other day: http://privatecore.com/

readme• 13 years ago

Care to explain to the rest of us who don't see it why your link is an example of "snake oil"? I'm familiar with the metaphor, but I don't see the deception yet.

616c• 13 years ago

I believe it is the "data in use" portion, glancing from the page.

Why? Because all forms of powerful server-based crypto rely on software-based crypto. The problem with this is they need the private key of yours on the server side, somewhere, from the whole thing to work. This means the server operator can recover the key from a running operating system, easily (through system utilities) or forcefully (reading it out of memory with specialized programs), or just writing code to fool you into enter the passphrase and storing.

If you have heard of host-proof systems, they indicate (I would say correctly) the only way for crytography on network service like the one offered here is the data is encrypted on the client and sent to the server, never ever will the passphrase see server receiving the data. Therefore, not even the service provider can crack it without the same effort as some adversary from outside the system.

That being said, I could have read too much into.

pcunite• 13 years ago

Previously discussed here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3448754

stalled• 13 years ago

and here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4436139

tjaerv• 13 years ago

Links to the actual upstream posts by Doctorow:

http://boingboing.net/2011/12/27/the-coming-war-on-general-p...

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

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

stesch2• 13 years ago

General purpose computers will be available for a long time. But they will have the significance of a home computer in the 1980s.

TelmoMenezes2• 13 years ago

I don't know and neither do you.

lotsofcows2• 13 years ago

Er yes, that applies to absolutely everything. He's expressing an opinion.

ds9• 13 years ago

This prediction is plausible based on the trend to vendor-managed devices amongst the general public. However, all the vendors of such devices need GPC's to make them. And certain big industries (incl. financial, pharmacos) won't tolerate not having root. So GPCs will continue being manufactured and available in the market, though they might become expensive or regulated.

There are factors to consider in addition to the popularity of iDevices, tablets and such:

2. Will there or can there be a non-GPC that is usable for software creation. It is certainly possible for creation of text, images and so on, and some solution that allows using a managed language to produce binaries could be locked down fairly well. Certainly the likes of Microsoft and Apple would promote this, and the dot-net ecosystem already approaches it.

3. A possible dystopian scheme where the government tries to control access to GPCs and allows coding only on "captive" PCs as per (2).

4. Developers being discontented with (2) enough to reject the share-cropping arrangement and create a market for GPCs for individuals.

5. General public discovering advantages of having root on their gadgets and creating market demand, even though they will have little idea of the details ("I can do X with it this way but not when it's subject to the telco")

snowwrestler3• 13 years ago

It's true that kids today won't experience computing as a revelation to the degree we did in the 80s.

I don't think that matters all that much, though. Cameras were invented a long time ago, but plenty of kids still get inspired to pick one up and learn how to make compelling images...same with music, film, writing, painting, sculpture, etc.

All kids today need are the means to learn (it's never been easier) and a reason to give it a try (there millions of games, apps, websites, etc. to inspire them).

dave1010uk• 13 years ago

I remember when the iPad first came out and I (along with many others) were concerned that it was a device for consumption and not creation: the first step in the "war" on general-purpose computation. However, with the continual improvements in web browsers and JavaScript runtimes (as well as things like Emscriptrn) I'm far less concerned. Nowadays even a locked down phone can run any JavaScript, which may provide the user with an IDE or a secure messaging system. I still think there's a war but I think it's more at the network level rather than device level.

homeomorphic3• 13 years ago

I think your optimistic view misses something important: nomatter how well browsers can execute JS, it's not truly general purpose computing as long as the stuff beneath the browser - from OS to hardware - is out of your control.

It's great that the in-browser ecosystem is expanding and improving, but IMO we will still lose The War if we cannot tell our chips to do whatever we want. I hope we won't settle for the browser when we can and should have it all.

snowwrestler3• 13 years ago

it's not truly general purpose computing as long as the stuff beneath the browser - from OS to hardware - is out of your control.

By that standard the state of general-purpose computing has been steadily improving as the most popular computing platform has moved from Windows--which is closed-source--to Android, which is open-source.

kevingadd2• 13 years ago

If everyone moves to iPads and iPhones, no amount of Emscripten will address the problem that the browser doesn't have access to the actual hardware. No talking to bluetooth devices, no talking to the GPU, no ad-hoc wifi communication with other devices, etc.

Mozilla and Google have been pushing on exposing more features like that to the web browser, but that's something Apple seems uninterested in (because it diminishes the importance of their App Store)

hippee-lee• 13 years ago

Google have been pushing on exposing more features

Of course they have. This increases the importance of their services. No matter which side the consumer purchases from, both sides of that coin have pros/cons & warts/polish.

Kurtz79• 13 years ago

Well, single or "reduced" purpose computers have existed long before the iPad or modern smartphones. Game consoles, audio players, video players go way back...

It makes engineering and economic sense to have devices dedicated to specific purposes, since economy of scale and optimization can produce devices that are better at that specific function than a general purpose one, at a cheaper price point.

Devices like the tablets or smartphones address the need of many people to have a subset of a general-purpose computer (messaging, web browsing, media player) without the added overhead of having to manage a full-fledged computer.

Functionality that for years has been available mostly on general purpose computers has become so commonplace and necessary that a (huge) market for devices streamlining the experience has opened up.

I don't think general purpose computer will disappear any time soon, if anything computers have gotten cheaper, more powerful and, yes, more free.

The choice of a computation platform (from a raspberry pi to an eight core server, or maybe an eight core server in the cloud to which you ssh with your raspberry pi), OS (OSX, Windows, a gazillion Linux distributions...), programming language, availability of knowledge has never been greater.

wslh• 13 years ago

Yes, I don't know why Haskell or a Python interpreter (coming from their own free software teams) are not available.

null_ptr• 13 years ago

I don't see how being confined to a subset of programming is a good thing. To always depend on what features your overseers are willing to make available to you.

So what if a locked down phone can run JavaScript? I can do a ToDo-list app?

jfb• 13 years ago

Whether you consume or create with a computer is only passingly related to the runtime the applications run in; the real differentiating factor is how you use it. It's immaterial that Javascript is well supported or not on Android or iOS; what's material is how software evolves under the interface constraints.

A computer could live entirely inside a web browser and be useless for creation; just as a computer could have no web browser at all and be a content creator's dream.

There are plenty of arguments for the Javascript/DOM/&c. stack as an application framework -- that they're somehow more better at creation isn't one of them.

freyrs3• 13 years ago

Running Javascript is arguably not that important to an "open device", we need a full compiler that goes down to native code and can access system internals.

kintamanimatt3• 13 years ago

I was concerned too, but even with general purpose computing devices readily available, for the last decade most people have been using them like oversized tablets, barely knowing anything about how they work or how to fix them when they break. The curious among us will always have the avenue of creation open to us (after all, who otherwise would create the newest apps and websites?) and it's not like all the literature is being burned and destroyed.

Perhaps its our duty to make even better tools and resources available to those who want create and produce in the age of tablets, and to create alternate platforms that don't include walled gardens and locked-down app stores.

mtgx• 13 years ago

When the war on drugs will inevitably be over in US, within a decade or so (the trend towards it is growing), by then there will already be two new wars started to "replace" the war on drug for anyone who benefitted from it (such as the police, private prisons [1], etc): the War on Pirates, and the War on Child Porn. If not both, they'll just use whichever works best. The real agenda behind it will be the same either way.

Then you can start expecting SWAT teams raiding people's homes for downloading songs illegitimately (and yes, you'll even see more dogs and even innocent people shot in the process - just like in that "parody" video where the SWAT team shoots the kid who was downloading songs in the head at the end, which I can't find right now).

Some of these are not felonies yet, but they're working hard [2] to "fix" that "problem". Current and future surveillance technologies, used by either NSA, FBI, DHS, or even the police will make that ever easier and more "tempting" to do.

[1] http://www.republicreport.org/2012/marijuana-lobby-illegal/

[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/07/unauthorized-stream...

kabdib• 13 years ago

You bring up an interesting point. "Winning" the War on Drugs doesn't mean that all those enforcers go away to write their memoirs and join each other in bars to talk about the good old days. There's a whole infrastructure -- courts, police, private contractors, manufacturers and salesmen -- entire bloody skyscrapers full of policy and bureaucracy that simply will not go idle just because the war was declared "won" and it's time to go home.

The immediate aftermath of a war can be just as horrifying as the conflict itself. And we know that it's important to plan the results you want out of a war (because somebody sure is).

So what do idle and technically unskilled hands /do/ for a living? My guess is that they won't change job descriptions very much, and since opportunities for helping Grandma across the street are relatively limited, they'll just be enforcing different stuff.

What stuff is that going to be?

straight_talk_2• 13 years ago

You missed the biggest businesses in this "war" - the private prison companies.

Luc• 13 years ago

just like in that "parody" video where the SWAT team shoots the kid who was downloading songs in the head at the end

IT Crowd: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALZZx1xmAzg

homeomorphic3• 13 years ago

I also think we can expect that things which are today 100% legal, like free software on hardware under the user's control, will be targeted too. In this area I expect anti-gun-like retoric: "with so many important aspects of society happening online, we cannot allow potential criminals and terrorists access to tools that can do so much damage". (~)

The future was supposed to be amazing. What happened?

(~) I finally see the pro gun rights people's point of view. I'm disappointed in myself that it took a "me-relevant" analogy for me to understand.

kintamanimatt3• 13 years ago

Perhaps we as a community need to dig our well before we're thirsty and start putting tech-literate, sane-minded, ethical politicians in the seat of power before the new batch of liars and crazies get there. After all, the media is the driving force behind it and we're able to harness online media channels that're rapidly becoming more relevant than the traditional broadcast media platforms of yesterday.

coldtea• 13 years ago

The future was supposed to be amazing. What happened?

People didn't care about politics. That's what happened. Politics is about who gets to decide how this future gonna be.

You can build all the flying cars and robots you want as a scientist, but if you don't try to influence politics (and not just by voting every 4 years or "writing to your senator"), you can still end up a slave.

asgard1024• 13 years ago

Why? In most European countries, there are no endless wars on stuff.. Maybe it's Anglo-American culture? But even then, the culture can be changed, and over a generation or so.

So I wouldn't say it's inevitable. The same goes for surveillance. Many people think that due to technology, surveillance is simply inevitable. But 50 years ago, there already was a technology for suppressing free press, which was exercised in totalitarian regimes around the world. Still, democratic countries didn't have censorship of the press.

So there are optimistic precedents - existence of technology doesn't always mean that government is going to misuse it. Though probably not without a fight, anyway. I would end with modification of the famous slogan: "Think optimistic, act pessimistic!" We should assume better future is possible, but act under assumption that it's not going to happen (by itself, that is).

navait• 13 years ago

We live in a world where anyone with $25 can purchase a rasberry Pi and hook it up to a television/monitor. General purpose computing is more accessible than ever before. And if people want a locked down device why shouldn't they have a device that actually meets their needs?Unless the need for programs dried up and ran away, we will always need(and have) general purpose computation.

I'm sure a lot of people here constantly fix the computers for their friends and family. Tablets and smartphones help decrease the amount of help they need. isn't that a good thing? Or is Doctrow scared of becoming irrelevant when hackers are no longer needed as techno-priests?

kevingadd2• 13 years ago

Device cost is only part of the equation. If 99% of the devices out there run iOS, there are real accessibility and support problems - websites will use iOS-specific layout, applications will only be available for iOS, devices will only have 'drivers' or dedicated apps for iOS, connectors will be designed to hook up to iDevices, etc. Obviously we aren't in that scenario right now, but the Windows monoculture made it clear that all these things can and will happen.

Low-cost manufacturers can thrive (comparatively) in that kind of environment by selling their devices for $25, but customers will suffer because their general purpose computers will be useless for non-hackers.

rmk23• 13 years ago

I disagree.

You cannot simply buy the RPi at a normal retailer, unlike (smart)phones, laptops, (smart)TVs etc. etc. This does not mean the RPi isn't a fantastic little machine or that it doesn't offer new possibilities. However, there is a world of difference between a developer board (that doesn't have a case, operating system, built-in storage etc.) and a ready-made consumer article.

General purpose computers become rarer with an increase in phones and tablets, all of them locked down. This is the making of a niché, and I think it is dishonest to simply assume people are worried about losing their status. Is the reduction in sales of general purpose computers the end of the world? Perhaps not. Should it prompt closer scrutiny and some concern? I think it should.

pdonis2• 13 years ago

General purpose computers become rarer with an increase in phones and tablets, all of them locked down.

But the reason this happens is that most people, even when the computer they owned really was a general-purpose computer, didn't use it as one. Anyone reading or commenting on HN is an outlier; we actually need a general-purpose computer, because we need to be able to do things with it that its designers and builders never thought of. But most people don't. Most people want a small and pretty much stable selection of apps, and if those apps are there, they don't care whether or not the device they're running on could also run an infinite number of other apps.

Aqueous3• 13 years ago

Android phones are not locked down, at least not nearly to the same degree as iOS devices. I can pretty much do anything I want with my phone.

As long as i can still buy a general-purpose computer for $200 that can do/run anything I want, or pay for processor cycles like a utility like I can with AWS, this will seem like computing purist's paranoia. It's a lot like Stallman's regular speechifying, when it strikes me that while he's not completely wrong, he's not really right either.

superuser2• 13 years ago

If you try to buy an iPad at the Apple Store, the Specialist you buy it from will ask you about your intended usage and make it very clear that it's not a general purpose computer, and that you probably need a computer if you don't already have one.

desas• 13 years ago

On the UK high street you can buy an rpi + case + cables + card all in one box.

MarcScott3• 13 years ago

I think my worry is that with the prevalence of locked down device that are now on the market, trying to even purchase a general purpose computer might become difficult.

Yes, if you are inclined you can buy a Raspberry Pi, but equally your kids could go from cradle to grave, never having touched a general purpose computer.

I see this as a problem. How do we inspire even a few kids in each generation to take up programming, if the only computer they've ever used is un-programmable.

I've blogged about this somewhere but I forget the link.

aeturnum• 13 years ago

How do we inspire even a few kids in each generation to take up programming, if the only computer they've ever used is un-programmable.

I think for most users, the experiences of using a programmable v.s. non-programmable device are about even in terms of inspiration. An iPad is just as likely to spawn an interest in games as a regular PC (perhaps more, as it's more approachable). The biggest problem is that locked down devices are poor programming platforms, but getting a basic platform to program is pretty cheap and easy, so I don't see that as a big problem.

snowwrestler3• 13 years ago

Let's not rely on nostalgia to inform our concerns. I remember what it was like to grow up with a general purpose computer. It ran closed-source software and there were no programming environments, resources, or classes easily available to a kid.

It's true that some kids learned to program on their home computers. They did so against incredible odds.

Today's kids are surrounded by cheap, plentiful, powerful computers, and awash in information about programming on the Internet and in bookstores and libraries and schools. It has never been easier for a kid to learn to program, if they want to.

How do we inspire even a few kids in each generation to take up programming, if the only computer they've ever used is un-programmable.

This is like asking how do we inspire kids to be writers if none of the books they've ever read have been typewriters. There is more inspiration for kid programmers today than there ever has been in the history of the world, because they are immersed in more computing than any previous generation.

Aqueous3• 13 years ago

And in the 2 years since this was published, this has turned out to be completely spot-on...OH WAIT. it hasn't at all.

Modern political discourse: Everything is a war on something.

This kind of language radicalizes people from the outset, and prevents a discussion from actually happening.

How about instead of calling it the "War on General Purpose Computing," "the War on Christmas," the "War on Women," the "War on Guns", heck, even the "War on Drugs," and the "War on Terror" - we take a step back, take a breather, and talk reasonably and calmly about the actual issues here?

Because that wouldn't grab headlines.

ihsw• 13 years ago

I think it all boils down to the "War Over Control" where some people want to control other people.

Personally I think if Islamists/gun grabbers/drug dealers/child pornographers want to destroy our way of life then they need to do it themselves -- I'm not going to do it for them by enacting draconian, broad-sweeping, and baseless laws that delegate power to people with questionable motives (all in the name of "safety").

MarcScott3• 13 years ago

I think you are being a little disingenuous here. The title is designed to grab attention, as all headlines are. The article itself is measured and reasoned, as you'd expect form Doctorow. He does write fiction as well, so you'd expect him to choose a title that's going to make people pick up and read.

b1daly• 13 years ago

While I think there are certainly reasons to be concerned with the phenomena Doctorow is describing, I find his reasoning unpersuasive.As a general observation, he is making an argument that certain trends are bad because they could lead to possible bad outcomes in the future. This style of reasoning seems to me to be common in political arguments. The reality is is that there are trade offs from policy choice in the present, which are hard enough to quantify. Then there are going to be future trade offs, which become harder and harder to predict the further out they are, and the more complex the problem domain is.

The core of his argument is that special andpurpose computers open the potential for surveillance. This seems myopic in the sense that the only effective controls on government surveillance are political. General purpose computers or not, the government has no shortage of means to spy.

So far, the adoption of special purpose computers is being driven by market forces. They simply work better for most tasks than general purpose computers. There is a huge benefit to the human population from these devices, just as there is a huge benefit from having a rather leaky worldwide network easily accessible to "civilians."

So society has to struggle already with how to manage control of information. The availability of general purpose computers seems largely peripheral to this dilemma.

As far as the availability of general purpose computers to technical people, the harm he posits is almost entirely hypothetical. Not only are they still being produced in large numbers, there are fantastic numbers of existing computers that will continue to function for years to come.

A far more likely impediment to accessibility to powerful, modern general purpose computers will be that market forces will shift so that they are no longer commodity items, and the cost to access the latest and greatest will rise. This is a problem of market structure, and legislative attempts to address this type of pricing problem have proven to be futile.

If we were seeing calls by industry or politicians to legally limit the use of open source operating systems, then I think a call of alarm would ring louder (at least to me).

The Coming War on General Computation (2011)

Related Stories