this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2023
83 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37613 readers
192 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Archived version: https://archive.ph/vNSJa

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jarfil@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Chromebooks are not a walled garden, they don't need "support" themselves, you can even install Windows 10 on one!

The problem comes from "school test administering companies" requiring a "bootlocked hardware with closed support" for the laptop to work for school.

That other thing about hardware attestation from the browser, that has so many up in arms, is actually a possible solution for this particular problem.

[–] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, it's not.

Use your "you don't get funding unless..." lever to ban schools from doing business with shitbag companies with invasive requirements and your problem is solved.

Allowing Google to abuse their market position to destroy the internet is not a valid answer.

[–] jarfil@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The current lever is "you get closed unless... you follow these invasive rules we've come up with, which we're forcing testing organizations to follow, and you're free to do business with whatever company you want... oh, Google turns out to be the cheapest one following those rules? Whatever."

The browser attestation is a way for Google to keep offering an even cheaper way to comply with those invasive rules.

[–] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Browser attestation is a massive, unconditionally unforgivable invasion of privacy, for the exclusive purpose of strengthening Google's monopoly on the internet.

There's no possible scenario you could contrive where there's even .00000001% good faith mixed in with the bad, because if even that little was there, you would never consider implementing it.

[–] jarfil@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

massive, unconditionally unforgivable invasion of privacy

Have you tried taking a proctored test? The kind where you have to install proctoring software which takes 100% control of your PC, requires you keeping your webcam and mic open, show it around your room, stay in frame all the time, and not look away too many times in case the proctor fails you for potentially cheating from off-screen materials?

The unforgivable invasion of privacy is already here, has been for a long time, and it didn't come from Google.