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
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.
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.