3 ms·
> as a pro user, I do appreciate the ability to override software when it mistakenly tries to prevent me from doing something. This is really the core problem
by Godel_unicode 8y ago
> as a pro user, I do appreciate the ability to override software when it mistakenly tries to prevent me from doing something.
This is really the core problem in security; the world is designed for people like this by people like this, without any serious thought for the implications for the overwhelming majority of users. Do not include "I know what I'm doing" escape hatches, and security will magically get better for the many at the expense of convenience for the few.
- TeMPOraL 8y agoSure. That's why I'm not too big a fan of security. The flip side of your observation is this: the most secure form of computing is a rock. You can ensure users can't be pwnd and can't selfpwn themselves by making the device as useless as possible. Let's give every user a tablet that has two buttons. You press one, you get a new cat picture. Press the other to "like it". That's all the user needs. All data exchange is end-to-end encrypted from the cat picture provider to tablet's input&video drivers - can't risk the spooks^Wcompetition knowing what they're looking at. They don't need to do banking - like everywhere else, they just sign a three-party contract with the tablet provider and the bank. This way, the Bad Guys can't steal users' money! Oh, the users also want to watch pictures of squirrels? There's a separate tablet for that pulling from separate provider; it's insecure to let these mix on one device! Seriously, this is how the world would look like if security got its wish. There is a point past which security is essentially enslavement, and that's true both in physical security and computer security.