That's something I don't get about the Samsung setup here actually. Just run the scan (from the video it takes about a second?) automatically without the user needing to. Then you don't have to make awful promo videos about users needing to do a scan.

Azure Sphere edge devices will have 10 years of Linux security updates from Microsoft, even if the vendor goes out of business.

It's not necessary for edge devices to "win" against centralization, only that they exist and are sustainably funded.

Microsoft, HP and Dell/VMware have device-as-service offerings. There can be many permutations of control planes between local and central, or even regional.

The cable modems and DVRs run by cable companies are simpler devices that criminals will not target with malware to run cryptocurrency mining, or install fake CA certificates to MITM grandmothers' web browser and online bank transactions. These devices are restricted and constrained.

The type of hardware that decentralized proponents think of would have enough power and sophistication to displace Facebook and Youtube with p2p intelligence. It would be a more complicated server appliance (maybe a Linux base image) that has sophisticated software (Sandstorm.io, distributed apps on Blockstack, etc). The appliance would be more complex than the Samsung TVs of this thread that require owners to run virus scans. This type of advanced appliance is by design -- unrestricted and unconstrained -- to enable itself to evolve with new software capabilities.

>If centrally managed, they can be decoupled from the telco, i.e. competition among "edge server management services" instead of a land-bound monopoly.

Your scenario has 2 extra levels of "economic friction" and those extra costs act as barriers to decentralization:

(1) The hardware for the server appliance is a cost most normal non-techies would not want to pay for.

(2) The ongoing support payments is another cost that normal people would not want to pay for. (ie. sibling's comment of paying $20/month or $240/year is unrealistic.)

Also, the idea of non-techie consumers comparing "edge server management services" is itself a cognitive barrier to decentralization. Today, if we think of grandmothers' laptops as "hardware to be managed by somebody else" -- such as Geek Squad, we see that many don't have the technical knowledge to avoid being scammed.[0] To put the vision of "decentralization hardware" in perspective, it's basically asking millions of non-techies who are susceptible to Geek Squad scams -- to expose their laptop configuration and root access to the world.

>Techies can optionally enable local management.

And this configuration option to enable flexibility is yet another attack vector to trick non-techies into making their devices more vulnerable.

>It's not necessary for edge devices to "win" against centralization, only that they exist and are sustainably funded.

It's true they don't have to "win" but I was talking about the decentralized proponents' "dream scenario" of decentralized being good enough to make centralized services like Facebook/Youtube irrelevant. This can't happen if only a niche group of enthusiastic homeowners run server appliances.

[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/5n6het/why_you_...

I think people underestimate folks. Given time I've known tech illiterate people to figure out all kinds of hacks.

That said, maybe something like what Chrome does or what windows does would work ok. Pick a time / heuristic and install security updates automatically out of the box.

Say it's a frontend over a Docker image that gets updated upstream for security issues, and the server has a Cron job that keeps it up to date.

Why couldn't that work?

I know there's some centralisation around the Docker image, but that could be open source or provided by someone like Mozilla or Apache or WordPress who we can trust.

And there's no reason why the user couldn't choose from a whole ecosystem of image providers with a simple enough UI

The update process itself acts as an attack vector. Even the techies like programmers can get pwned with trusted repositories that suddenly became untrusted.[0][1][2]

A decentralized server appliance of powerful sophistication that requires updates will require a baseline level of technical expertise. So far, even the less sophisticated hardware like wifi cameras and Nest devices are leaving unwitting homeowners exposed to criminals and unwanted spying.[3][4]

[0] https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/07/12/npm_eslint/

[1] https://www.infoworld.com/article/3184399/malware-finds-unwi...

[2] https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2016/02/22/worlds-biggest-l...

[3] https://www.google.com/search?q=home+wifi+cameras+hacked

[4] https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/8qbq5x/the-cia-spied-on-p...

Which is why they should pay someone. The reason the tech should be open and decentralized is so that Samsung doesn't have control over it, the grandmothers can choose a vendor they trust.

This would also create a lot of low level tech employment, a B2B market for management software, a market for physical support, etc.. I could manage servers for at least 200 grandmothers; 200 grandmothers would probably mean 5-10 calls a day, a quick check of new threats and exploits, a bit of research into new features that my grandmothers might be interested in, a check on their backup status. I might have to call a service to visit one of my grandmothers and make sure that their physical appliance is installed correctly, or to replace it.

I always think that this criticism is due to a lack of imagination. I know how to take care of a home server, and I'm lazy about it. I would be entirely happy to send somebody $20/month to do it for me, as long as that person were my employee, not some massive corporation who works against my interest.

What we should do is pay a small boy to go around town breaking windows, and then grandmas should pay someone to either replace their windows, or to install some sort of decentralized window-protection hardware. This would create a lot of low-level ok I can't keep typing these words anymore.

What we should do is stop cramming processors and networking hardware into everything willy-nilly just so some advertising company can make 1/20th of a cent off my eyeballs.

Your suggestion that the solution to the problem should be handled downstream, out of my grandma's wallet, is frankly insulting.

What I'm not suggesting is that we should pay a little boy to run around shitting on people's lawns and turning over trash cans. In fact, I'm going to be bold and suggest that we not do that.

edit: as far as I can interpret, your argument seems to be that every company using advertising to make money, and making their televisions smart in order to help them to sell more advertising, should just stop. That's not a plan.

† ok, technically incorrect; our putative granny could have a xeriscaped lawn. And our society could get better at packaging.

Legislate then to stop. That’s a plan.

We the people hold a common understanding that our God given time upon this planet be for the benefit of the almighty, ourselves, family and neighbours, and that surveillance and advertising companies are predatory in nature, disagreeable in behaviour, and hereby forbidden on pain of all directors and shareholders thereof being put in stocks and having rotten fruit threw upon their faces and their abusively gained assets confiscated and distributed amongst the surveiled.

Dear people, if you don't like smart tv's - don't connect them to internet.

Everything can get hacked. Whether it's Roku, AppleTV or your local cable STB...

Not saying Samsung software is any better or worse, but why we are surprised by this?