It is your machine and it is their software. Why do you think what you want is more important than what they want? You can decide not to run their software if you do not like what it does, if you decide to run it, it will do what they want it to do.
This "you decide to run their software" narrative is the same bullshit as the "just vote with you wallet" crap that even economists don't push anymore. I can choose between one of half a dozen banks, all of which have "integrity" anti-features. Some government and school apps also have them and you basically have to use them.
What apps are doing these days is like if all the major grocery store chains decided you can only drive there using a BMW and said "just buy a BMW or shop somewhere else" to everyone that complained, ignoring the fact that 1) there's nowhere else to shop, 2) BMWs are expensive and 3) many people have needs that a BMW isn't suitable for.
It's just an "our way or the highway, take it or leave it" attitude from people with zero leverage over us. In fact we have a third choice: run their software anyway, and stop it from doing things we don't want it to do, whether they want it or not. We have numerous options available to us at all times. Because we own the computer.
Adversarial interoperation. It should be our right, as the owners of the computers, to do this.
I am all for that, if they do hostile things and you can break them, go for it. I just think that you can not just demand that a company builds their software the way you want it. For this we have markets, find or build a better alternative. The exception is of course in case of market failures, there it is legitimate to intervene. If Google forced apps to do this integrity check, that would be very different from some random apps deciding to make use of it.
> you can not just demand that a company builds their software the way you want it
I absolutely can. I think building certain types of software should be straight up illegal. And not the copyright infringement kind either.
These days our computers come pwned straight off the factory. The only difference between this and malware is that the company consented to it. In other words, from our perspectives as users and owners of computers, there is no difference whatsoever between their software and illegal malware. The entire purpose of those softwares is to usurp control of your computer and make it do somebody else's bidding.
Creating malware is already illegal. I think it should also be illegal to sell a computer to a person with such malicious DRM "integrity checking" software included. It should also be illegal for corporations to require it. And so on.
This isn't about markets anymore, it's about politics. If a politician shows up and proposes to enforce what I am saying above by force of law, they will have earned my vote.
>The exception is of course in case of market failures, there it is legitimate to intervene
Can't think of a bigger market failure than big techs building digital fiefdoms where they own the users and their data, where users don't have private property, where the corporations sell their users to other corporations and to software developers, dictate the developer's working conditions and control their futures, collect taxes on their earnings, enforce border controls on "their" devices so that software that didn't pass their customs clearance can't get installed.
> If Google forced apps to do this integrity check, that would be very different from some random apps deciding to make use of it.
The only reason why they are even able to "check integrity" to begin with is Google gave them the ability to do so via their attestation nonsense. They deployed hardware cryptography against us to deny us control over what was supposed to be our devices. The ones who have the keys own the machines, and it sure as hell ain't us.
The truth is these apps should not even have the ability to do any integrity checks at all. They should run on whatever device we put them on. And they should be happy that they get to run at all.
I know this is taboo knowledge on the Internet, but other countries exist too!
And on a more serious note, banks have a lot of explicit and implicit lock-in power. Switching is a an annoying process, you might have loans or multi-year deposits with your bank that mean you can't just close your account...
Because I own the machine that runs the code. It's that simple. Their code will do what I allow it to do. It's not really a "take it or leave it" deal. I have numerous options available to me. If those options aren't there, it means I don't own the machine.
If they don't want others to "tamper" with their code, they should run it on their computers. Keep them safe and secure on their servers. Code that runs on our machines is and should be completely under our control. Anything that enables them to usurp this control from us is an attack on computing freedom and should be illegal.
Google already enforces a lot of restrictions on how people write their software. Otherwise you could apply the same logic to say, requesting unneeded permissions. If the user doesn't want that they he could just not use the software, right?
