4 ms·

> At least I am not going to lose sleep over it until Apple does abuse that power. What if Apple abuses that power in ways that not everyone sees as "abuse", y

by Crinus 7y ago

> At least I am not going to lose sleep over it until Apple does abuse that power. What if Apple abuses that power in ways that not everyone sees as "abuse", yet they are affected by it? The reason you are not already seeing this act as abuse is because you happen to agree with it. What if you didn't agree? What if you were in the minority? What if the reason you where in the minority was that the majority simply didn't had the necessary understanding, experience and/or knowledge to see the issue you see? If something can be abused, it will be abused, there isn't a matter of if, it is a matter of when. And with that in mind it is better to try and avoid being abused than wait for the abuse to happen and see what you can do after the fact.

ncallaway 7y ago
This same line of reasoning could apply to any Windows or Mac OS update that disables and removes known viruses and malware. Is it appropriate for Microsoft and Apple to push updates that disable and remove those from infected computers? If so, what is the significant difference?
- Crinus 7y ago
  Windows Defender doesn't remove stuff silently, it shows you notifications, provides control to ignore parts of your computer you know can misfire and you can revert the actions it does.
- userbinator 7y ago
  No, and there is no difference, because "infected" in their eyes is not necessarily so in the user's. To give a clear example, AVs have had a long history of false positive problems with things like cracks, keygens, and demoscene productions. Even then, for the most part(? I have not used a persistent AV for a long time) I believe they still tell you first and then let you decide what to do when they find something. I remember many years ago when the first widespread worms for Windows started circulating. All MS did was publish news and a removal tool. It was publicised greatly, but the ultimate choice was left to the owners of the computers, and that's how it should be. All the big tech companies (and even a lot of the smaller ones) are becoming increasingly authoritarian, and that's the most concerning thing about this.
sigzero 7y ago
Apple has had this ability for YEARS. They have not abused it yet.

by Crinus 7y ago

ncallaway 7y ago

This same line of reasoning could apply to any Windows or Mac OS update that disables and removes known viruses and malware. Is it appropriate for Microsoft and Apple to push updates that disable and remove those from infected computers? If so, what is the significant difference?

Crinus 7y ago
Windows Defender doesn't remove stuff silently, it shows you notifications, provides control to ignore parts of your computer you know can misfire and you can revert the actions it does.
userbinator 7y ago
No, and there is no difference, because "infected" in their eyes is not necessarily so in the user's. To give a clear example, AVs have had a long history of false positive problems with things like cracks, keygens, and demoscene productions. Even then, for the most part(? I have not used a persistent AV for a long time) I believe they still tell you first and then let you decide what to do when they find something. I remember many years ago when the first widespread worms for Windows started circulating. All MS did was publish news and a removal tool. It was publicised greatly, but the ultimate choice was left to the owners of the computers, and that's how it should be. All the big tech companies (and even a lot of the smaller ones) are becoming increasingly authoritarian, and that's the most concerning thing about this.

sigzero 7y ago

Apple has had this ability for YEARS. They have not abused it yet.