4 ms·

Taking away the user's ability to manage their own security should bring with it the responsibility - and liability - for any problems that derive from the impo

by pdkl95 10y ago

Taking away the user's ability to manage their own security should bring with it the responsibility - and liability - for any problems that derive from the imposed settings. The paternalistic attitude that users are and always will be ignorant is not only offensive. it is counterproductive. Security is not a product, and keeping people ignorant of the trust models they are relying on is a recipe for disaster in the long-term. Instead of pretending that users are always going to be ignorant of security and incapable of learning, the UI should be extended to make the chain-of-trust more visible in a way that helps the users understand their security situation. Instead of pretending that one security model fits all situations, more control needs to be given and taught to the user, in a way that actually allows them to make decisions about their security situation.

esrauch 10y ago
Most people don't want to be taught something like this though, and why should they? The system can do what practically everyone wants it to do without that user education overhead, which is what they are doing.
mtgx 10y ago
I very much agree with the liability responsibility and liability argument that you're raising. I also fully believe self-driving car makers should be 100% responsible for accidents and hacking incidents of their cars and they should fully compensate the victims of such accidents and hacks. However, I think this is generally a good thing. When Android has 50 different OEMs (or whatever the number is), then some standardization is a good thing for the user. You don't want Samsung or Huawei or some local Turkish OEM, or perhaps even the retailers themselves (as we've often seen with malware on imported Chinese phones) to start loading up certificates in a device before selling it. Think about what Lenovo and Dell, or all the anti-virus companies, are doing with their own certificates to PC users because Windows allows people to install their own certificates. Also, in some countries, such as Kazakhstan, they want to start requiring users to download the "national security certificate" and install it in their devices. This policy would prevent all of those things. That doesn't mean we still won't see CNNIC and Blue Coat/Symantec and other untrustworthy certificates loaded up by default in all Android devices (which you can still disable yourself), but I think overall this is still a good move from Google.
- newjersey 10y ago
  > This policy would prevent all of those things. That doesn't mean we still won't see CNNIC and Blue Coat/Symantec and other untrustworthy certificates loaded up by default in all Android devices (which you can still disable yourself), but I think overall this is still a good move from Google. I'm ok with this. Even if I can't add a custom root certificate, I would like the ability to distrust any root certificate I explicitly do not like. That coupled with standardization of certificates loaded by default makes this sound like a welcome change.
NKCSS 10y ago
you can always compile your own version of android that does not do this...

by pdkl95 10y ago

esrauch 10y ago

Most people don't want to be taught something like this though, and why should they? The system can do what practically everyone wants it to do without that user education overhead, which is what they are doing.

mtgx 10y ago

I very much agree with the liability responsibility and liability argument that you're raising. I also fully believe self-driving car makers should be 100% responsible for accidents and hacking incidents of their cars and they should fully compensate the victims of such accidents and hacks. However, I think this is generally a good thing. When Android has 50 different OEMs (or whatever the number is), then some standardization is a good thing for the user. You don't want Samsung or Huawei or some local Turkish OEM, or perhaps even the retailers themselves (as we've often seen with malware on imported Chinese phones) to start loading up certificates in a device before selling it. Think about what Lenovo and Dell, or all the anti-virus companies, are doing with their own certificates to PC users because Windows allows people to install their own certificates. Also, in some countries, such as Kazakhstan, they want to start requiring users to download the "national security certificate" and install it in their devices. This policy would prevent all of those things. That doesn't mean we still won't see CNNIC and Blue Coat/Symantec and other untrustworthy certificates loaded up by default in all Android devices (which you can still disable yourself), but I think overall this is still a good move from Google.

newjersey 10y ago
> This policy would prevent all of those things. That doesn't mean we still won't see CNNIC and Blue Coat/Symantec and other untrustworthy certificates loaded up by default in all Android devices (which you can still disable yourself), but I think overall this is still a good move from Google. I'm ok with this. Even if I can't add a custom root certificate, I would like the ability to distrust any root certificate I explicitly do not like. That coupled with standardization of certificates loaded by default makes this sound like a welcome change.

NKCSS 10y ago

you can always compile your own version of android that does not do this...