this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2024
156 points (98.1% liked)
Asklemmy
43995 readers
1487 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Companies wouldn't mind having an OS level code run on their PCs if its meant to help secure their computers. A malware infecting their computers could result in way more damages after all.
I'm not so sure what is worse. I wish we wouldn't reimplement statist practices in computers, as it often not goes well in our physical world, and invent more resources into OS/network security, compartmentalization and privilege separation. But yeah, the reality is it's easier to put a god-like "trusted" agent in a system. Well, the police need have guns, read all private chats, place security cameras with face recognition everywhere... to do their jobs. Otherwise terrorist attacks or whatever could result in way more damages after all. The same story every time.
Are you seriously equating security software running on business systems with state violence / surveillance on people? Those two things are not even remotely comparable, starting with business systems not being people that have rights
The equation by the user is bs.
But these companies do hold people's data, and it's a catch 22 situation: in order to protect that, they rely on an invasive system. Providers like Crowdstrike have high-level access to critical infrastructure and critical information. Is the a good thing? Maybe yes, maybe no.