4 ms·

It seems very common sense. I don't even know what the argument would be against this measure as it's completely optional for users and neutralizes censorship a

by Sargos 6y ago

It seems very common sense. I don't even know what the argument would be against this measure as it's completely optional for users and neutralizes censorship and anti-trust concerns. Seems like a win-win for both consumers and the platforms.

JoshTriplett 6y ago
> I don't even know what the argument would be against this measure While I do absolutely agree that sideloading should be possible, I do know that many phishing/security scams involve (or used to involve) installing a sideloaded application. It should be easy to install a sideloaded application if you understand the implications (and maintain the same protection that ensures you know what permissions you're granting the application), but it should not be easy to accidentally or unknowingly install a sideloaded application. Maintaining that distinction is a challenge; it's important enough to be worth doing, though.
- grishka 6y ago
  Android shows some scary-ish warnings the first time you try to install an apk, and has you go into system settings and allow yourself sideloading apps from that particular source (browser, self-updating beta of something and so on). With this and all the permissions and sandboxing, it would take some serious dedication to scam yourself this way.
  - threeseed 6y ago
    > it would take some serious dedication to scam yourself this way Consumers every day go to extreme lengths to satisfy the wishes of scammers. They will physically drive to the store, buy iTunes Gift Cards and hand over the codes to them. They will take photos of passports, credit cards etc for identify theft. They will install whatever software they are asked to. The idea that they won't go into some setting and enable "Sideloading Apps" which sounds completely harmless is a bit ridiculous.
    - Nextgrid 6y ago
      In the real world, we're already allowing very dangerous goods to be sold, whether it's chemicals, power tools or kitchen appliances that can easily set fire to your house if misused. Yet the world hasn't ended and we've accepted that the convenience of having access to these goods is worth the risk of stupid people dying/hurting themselves. Why should we be against doing the same online, and allowing greedy megacorps to profit and squash competition in the name of "security", especially since as you say stupid people will always find a way to get scammed regardless? Furthermore I think that the reason people are being so careless online is because of the lack of consequences and thus no opportunity for learning. The various security safeguards already in place mean it's relatively hard to end up out of pocket even if let's say your machine has malware (which should be considered a "game over" scenario) and steals your credit card number (the bank will refund you for any fraudulent card-not-present transaction), thus there is no real worry around malware beyond a minor inconvenience.
      - nemothekid 6y ago
        >Furthermore I think that the reason people are being so careless online is because of the lack of consequences and thus no opportunity for learning. If that were really true, then people would have "learned" in the Windows era. I don't think consumers actually directly suffer any consequences from having a hacked device, the problems are always third order. An open PC becomes a botnet to DDoS someone else. An unsuspecting employee uses a personal device to jump a corporate firewall. Credit Card fraud is routed through thousands of residential IPs. >Yet the world hasn't ended and we've accepted that the convenience of having access to these goods is worth the risk of stupid people dying/hurting themselves. The vast majority of us live in a country where toys inside chocolate is banned. I don't think you have a strong argument here.
        Nextgrid 6y ago
        > An open PC becomes a botnet to DDoS someone else Make the originator of the traffic liable for any damages, all the way up to the ISP? There would be a lot more worry about malware if it could cause a lawsuit/police investigation that lasts for months, even if you eventually end up off the hook, and ISPs would be incentivized to kick off customers that can't be bothered to secure their devices. > Credit Card fraud is routed through thousands of residential IPs. If the original credit card owner was liable for the stolen money this would incentivize them to better protect it and prevent it from being compromised in the first place. Plus with the liability for malicious traffic there wouldn't be as many residential IPs to proxy it through. > where toys inside chocolate is banned Well the is true but how about chemicals, power tools, flammable gas canisters, etc? I agree that the ban on toys inside chocolate eggs is stupid but we're allowing much more dangerous things to be around and the world hasn't ended.
jedberg 6y ago
> I don't even know what the argument would be against this measure The standard argument is that non-approved applications could damage the device, which the device maker would then be on the hook for fixing. This feels like a weak argument to me, given that PC makers have been dealing with this for 30+ years.
- scarface74 6y ago
  And very badly....
alexashka 6y ago
Apple and Google accountants would like to have a word with you in regards to this win-win you're imagining. If you think these mega-corps haven't done the math and decided it's more profitable to lobby and skim 30% off everyone vs not skim and avoid having to pay lobbyists and lawyers, you are being naive.
- grishka 6y ago
  Google is okay with apps having their own payment processing, regardless of whether it's for physical or digital goods.

by Sargos 6y ago

JoshTriplett 6y ago

> I don't even know what the argument would be against this measure While I do absolutely agree that sideloading should be possible, I do know that many phishing/security scams involve (or used to involve) installing a sideloaded application. It should be easy to install a sideloaded application if you understand the implications (and maintain the same protection that ensures you know what permissions you're granting the application), but it should not be easy to accidentally or unknowingly install a sideloaded application. Maintaining that distinction is a challenge; it's important enough to be worth doing, though.

grishka 6y ago
Android shows some scary-ish warnings the first time you try to install an apk, and has you go into system settings and allow yourself sideloading apps from that particular source (browser, self-updating beta of something and so on). With this and all the permissions and sandboxing, it would take some serious dedication to scam yourself this way.
- threeseed 6y ago
  > it would take some serious dedication to scam yourself this way Consumers every day go to extreme lengths to satisfy the wishes of scammers. They will physically drive to the store, buy iTunes Gift Cards and hand over the codes to them. They will take photos of passports, credit cards etc for identify theft. They will install whatever software they are asked to. The idea that they won't go into some setting and enable "Sideloading Apps" which sounds completely harmless is a bit ridiculous.
  - Nextgrid 6y ago
    In the real world, we're already allowing very dangerous goods to be sold, whether it's chemicals, power tools or kitchen appliances that can easily set fire to your house if misused. Yet the world hasn't ended and we've accepted that the convenience of having access to these goods is worth the risk of stupid people dying/hurting themselves. Why should we be against doing the same online, and allowing greedy megacorps to profit and squash competition in the name of "security", especially since as you say stupid people will always find a way to get scammed regardless? Furthermore I think that the reason people are being so careless online is because of the lack of consequences and thus no opportunity for learning. The various security safeguards already in place mean it's relatively hard to end up out of pocket even if let's say your machine has malware (which should be considered a "game over" scenario) and steals your credit card number (the bank will refund you for any fraudulent card-not-present transaction), thus there is no real worry around malware beyond a minor inconvenience.
    - nemothekid 6y ago
      >Furthermore I think that the reason people are being so careless online is because of the lack of consequences and thus no opportunity for learning. If that were really true, then people would have "learned" in the Windows era. I don't think consumers actually directly suffer any consequences from having a hacked device, the problems are always third order. An open PC becomes a botnet to DDoS someone else. An unsuspecting employee uses a personal device to jump a corporate firewall. Credit Card fraud is routed through thousands of residential IPs. >Yet the world hasn't ended and we've accepted that the convenience of having access to these goods is worth the risk of stupid people dying/hurting themselves. The vast majority of us live in a country where toys inside chocolate is banned. I don't think you have a strong argument here.
      - Nextgrid 6y ago
        > An open PC becomes a botnet to DDoS someone else Make the originator of the traffic liable for any damages, all the way up to the ISP? There would be a lot more worry about malware if it could cause a lawsuit/police investigation that lasts for months, even if you eventually end up off the hook, and ISPs would be incentivized to kick off customers that can't be bothered to secure their devices. > Credit Card fraud is routed through thousands of residential IPs. If the original credit card owner was liable for the stolen money this would incentivize them to better protect it and prevent it from being compromised in the first place. Plus with the liability for malicious traffic there wouldn't be as many residential IPs to proxy it through. > where toys inside chocolate is banned Well the is true but how about chemicals, power tools, flammable gas canisters, etc? I agree that the ban on toys inside chocolate eggs is stupid but we're allowing much more dangerous things to be around and the world hasn't ended.

jedberg 6y ago

> I don't even know what the argument would be against this measure The standard argument is that non-approved applications could damage the device, which the device maker would then be on the hook for fixing. This feels like a weak argument to me, given that PC makers have been dealing with this for 30+ years.

scarface74 6y ago
And very badly....

alexashka 6y ago

Apple and Google accountants would like to have a word with you in regards to this win-win you're imagining. If you think these mega-corps haven't done the math and decided it's more profitable to lobby and skim 30% off everyone vs not skim and avoid having to pay lobbyists and lawyers, you are being naive.

grishka 6y ago
Google is okay with apps having their own payment processing, regardless of whether it's for physical or digital goods.