5 ms·

Apps are definitely a train wreck in terms of privacy and security, and it's definitely at least partly the responsibility of Apple and Google for allowing that

Apps are definitely a train wreck in terms of privacy and security, and it's definitely at least partly the responsibility of Apple and Google for allowing that abusive behaviour at OS/API level in the first place. Then again, take a look at your desktop/laptop OS, and by comparison mobile devices are almost fortress-like in their protections. We're still using security models based on the threats of several decades ago, with barely any attempt made by any of the major desktop OSes to develop a suitable defence to the biggest threats of 2020. The real problem here, IMNSHO, is that most users don't take privacy and security seriously, which in turn is at least partly because most users lack even rudimentary understanding of what is happening and what could be done about it. Almost everyone suddenly has a life full of small, somewhat independent devices with significant computing power, sensors, and external connectivity. Even people who choose not to use such devices themselves will still find themselves affected by this technology because so many other people around them do use it, so unless you're willing to become some sort of modern-day hermit, you can't entirely escape the trap. But until public awareness is increased, until these issues start becoming a matter of real competition and hitting inferior product developers in their quarterly results, until there is enough concern over the more serious abuses for politicians to learn about these issues properly themselves and legislate or regulate accordingly, trying to stay off as many radars as we can is sadly the only realistic strategy. You can avoid installing untrusted software on your computers and putting IoT devices in your home, and that's a significant improvement, but it's still far from ideal.

derefr 6y ago
> We're still using security models based on the threats of several decades ago, with barely any attempt made by any of the major desktop OSes to develop a suitable defence to the biggest threats of 2020. If you think in terms of who the paying customers were/are for desktop OSes (by-and-large, corporations and governments), the "threats of several decades ago" were—and continue to be—real threats to them (vis. industrial espionage/cyberwar); whereas the modern "threats" aren't things that threaten their interests at all, "only" things that affect the lives of individuals. A corporation won't lose money because a rival knows everything about its employees shopping habits. Insofar as nobody's currently making money selling a desktop OS to consumers (Microsoft sells cloud with the OS as a loss-leader; Apple sells the hardware with the OS as a cost-center; and RedHat, Canonical, VMWare, etc. only make money from enterprise support) there's nobody incentivized to protect the wellbeing of individual customers on the desktop.
- Silhouette 6y ago
  Insofar as nobody's currently making money selling a desktop OS to consumers...there's nobody incentivized to protect the wellbeing of individual customers on the desktop. This looks like the root cause of the problem, except that in reality users are still paying for their OSes in many cases, it's just bundled in with the cost of the equipment and they don't see it as a separate line item. However, given the huge barrier to entry for any new competitor, not only in building a better OS but also in developing the ecosystem around it, I am increasingly sceptical that this offers a realistic route out of the current hole we find ourselves in, at least not any time soon. That's why I favour better public education, and ultimately relying on competitive and/or statutory forces to push developers in a healthier (for customers/society) direction.

derefr 6y ago

> We're still using security models based on the threats of several decades ago, with barely any attempt made by any of the major desktop OSes to develop a suitable defence to the biggest threats of 2020. If you think in terms of who the paying customers were/are for desktop OSes (by-and-large, corporations and governments), the "threats of several decades ago" were—and continue to be—real threats to them (vis. industrial espionage/cyberwar); whereas the modern "threats" aren't things that threaten their interests at all, "only" things that affect the lives of individuals. A corporation won't lose money because a rival knows everything about its employees shopping habits. Insofar as nobody's currently making money selling a desktop OS to consumers (Microsoft sells cloud with the OS as a loss-leader; Apple sells the hardware with the OS as a cost-center; and RedHat, Canonical, VMWare, etc. only make money from enterprise support) there's nobody incentivized to protect the wellbeing of individual customers on the desktop.

Silhouette 6y ago
Insofar as nobody's currently making money selling a desktop OS to consumers...there's nobody incentivized to protect the wellbeing of individual customers on the desktop. This looks like the root cause of the problem, except that in reality users are still paying for their OSes in many cases, it's just bundled in with the cost of the equipment and they don't see it as a separate line item. However, given the huge barrier to entry for any new competitor, not only in building a better OS but also in developing the ecosystem around it, I am increasingly sceptical that this offers a realistic route out of the current hole we find ourselves in, at least not any time soon. That's why I favour better public education, and ultimately relying on competitive and/or statutory forces to push developers in a healthier (for customers/society) direction.