6 ms·

So let them install that malware and have their data stolen despite all warnings because they deserve it? We can't have safety nets everywhere, and we, in fact,

So let them install that malware and have their data stolen despite all warnings because they deserve it? We can't have safety nets everywhere, and we, in fact, don't. We allow everyone to drive, use knives and handle all kinds of potentially dangerous stuff every day, but for some reason can't trust them with their own phones. Some mistakes are costly, but people learn from them. Such is life.

gruez 6y ago
>We allow everyone to drive, use knives and handle all kinds of potentially dangerous stuff every day, but for some reason can't trust them with their own phones. Can you get social engineered into crashing a car or stabbing yourself? The difference here is that people most likely know the consequences of their actions, unlike with phones/computers where the consequences are nebulous.
- grishka 6y ago
  > unlike with phones/computers where the consequences are nebulous. So maybe they need to be educated on that? Or just, in general, to think critically at all times? > Can you get social engineered into crashing a car or stabbing yourself? There were cases of people "social engineered" into wearing bomb belts and blowing themselves up. It's just that this social engineering was much more sophisticated than telling someone to send bitcoin to have it doubled.
ernst_klim 6y ago
> We allow everyone to drive, use knives Ah, these are pretty simple things. We don't allow to sell any drugs, or some drugs without prescription, because drugs are hard and require education. So do computers.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  The risk coming from malware to end users on laptops is about 0.1% of the risk from cars, and following the message in scary red letters is pretty simple too.
- oscargrouch 6y ago
  The big question here is one simple thing: property. Imagine someone selling you a house and despite that you think you own the house the seller defines what things you can or cannot have in your own house, and even the ones he let you have, you must buy through them (so they can get a tax and force control) and if suddenly they are not ok with that anymore, it can simply vanish from your home. "Hey look, you cant have that knife that its not from Apple Houses, it will hurt your kids.. we are always thinking on your safety" Then you buy a car that you think its the one you like, but its not on you Apple Home store, so you are not allowed to drive that car. But hey Apple homes have said its for your own safety, because that car was evaluated and could kill your wife. In this case its clear "Apple Homes" succeeded in through marketing in psycological tatics to influence the house owner to do be ok with those things and still think he actually owns the house while the property is in reality leased where they define what you can access to or what can simply vanish even if you bought them. I just cant understand how people can try to defend this sort of behaviour even when its clear it goes against their self interests and can damage them in several ways.. as the parent have said, just some sort of "stockholm syndrome" can explain this.
  - arvinsim 6y ago
    The infantilization of users with regards to tech is profitable for a lot of companies.
  - ernst_klim 6y ago
    > Imagine someone selling you a house and despite that you think you own the house the seller defines what things you can or cannot have in your own house That's exactly like housing in developed world works, lol. When you buy a flat in Germany, you implicitly agree on a huge set of rules. No one would allow you to buy a flat and turn it into a brothel or a disorderly house, or even run a pretty legal business in it) And many have additional rules, like not playing piano too loud. But your analogy is wrong. Apple doesn't prohibit you to do something with your phone, they regulate the service they provide to you on a constant basis. Following your analogy if you've bought a flat, nobody is obliged to deliver food to you, especially when some food vendors do not comply with delivery's rules.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
misnome 6y ago
> We allow everyone to drive Don't people normally get qualified to drive, controlled by the Government? Is that what you are advocating?
- grishka 6y ago
  They do, but a car is still a very dangerous thing. Judging by /r/IdiotsInCars on Reddit, there are people who don't quite realize that despite having a driver license.
YarickR2 6y ago
I support you wholeheartedly, survival of the fittest and evolution show us it's the only way to ensure getting better as species, but current point of view (equal opportunities, maximum protection) all but guarantees those who scream louder survive, not those whos skills are more useful in a long run .
enos_feedler 6y ago
We shouldn't be allowing everyone to drive. Autonomy will fix this. Apple will bring it to us, just like they have kept our phones safe.

gruez 6y ago

>We allow everyone to drive, use knives and handle all kinds of potentially dangerous stuff every day, but for some reason can't trust them with their own phones. Can you get social engineered into crashing a car or stabbing yourself? The difference here is that people most likely know the consequences of their actions, unlike with phones/computers where the consequences are nebulous.

grishka 6y ago
> unlike with phones/computers where the consequences are nebulous. So maybe they need to be educated on that? Or just, in general, to think critically at all times? > Can you get social engineered into crashing a car or stabbing yourself? There were cases of people "social engineered" into wearing bomb belts and blowing themselves up. It's just that this social engineering was much more sophisticated than telling someone to send bitcoin to have it doubled.

ernst_klim 6y ago

> We allow everyone to drive, use knives Ah, these are pretty simple things. We don't allow to sell any drugs, or some drugs without prescription, because drugs are hard and require education. So do computers.

sudosysgen 6y ago
The risk coming from malware to end users on laptops is about 0.1% of the risk from cars, and following the message in scary red letters is pretty simple too.
oscargrouch 6y ago
The big question here is one simple thing: property. Imagine someone selling you a house and despite that you think you own the house the seller defines what things you can or cannot have in your own house, and even the ones he let you have, you must buy through them (so they can get a tax and force control) and if suddenly they are not ok with that anymore, it can simply vanish from your home. "Hey look, you cant have that knife that its not from Apple Houses, it will hurt your kids.. we are always thinking on your safety" Then you buy a car that you think its the one you like, but its not on you Apple Home store, so you are not allowed to drive that car. But hey Apple homes have said its for your own safety, because that car was evaluated and could kill your wife. In this case its clear "Apple Homes" succeeded in through marketing in psycological tatics to influence the house owner to do be ok with those things and still think he actually owns the house while the property is in reality leased where they define what you can access to or what can simply vanish even if you bought them. I just cant understand how people can try to defend this sort of behaviour even when its clear it goes against their self interests and can damage them in several ways.. as the parent have said, just some sort of "stockholm syndrome" can explain this.
- arvinsim 6y ago
  The infantilization of users with regards to tech is profitable for a lot of companies.
- ernst_klim 6y ago
  > Imagine someone selling you a house and despite that you think you own the house the seller defines what things you can or cannot have in your own house That's exactly like housing in developed world works, lol. When you buy a flat in Germany, you implicitly agree on a huge set of rules. No one would allow you to buy a flat and turn it into a brothel or a disorderly house, or even run a pretty legal business in it) And many have additional rules, like not playing piano too loud. But your analogy is wrong. Apple doesn't prohibit you to do something with your phone, they regulate the service they provide to you on a constant basis. Following your analogy if you've bought a flat, nobody is obliged to deliver food to you, especially when some food vendors do not comply with delivery's rules.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

misnome 6y ago

> We allow everyone to drive Don't people normally get qualified to drive, controlled by the Government? Is that what you are advocating?

grishka 6y ago
They do, but a car is still a very dangerous thing. Judging by /r/IdiotsInCars on Reddit, there are people who don't quite realize that despite having a driver license.

YarickR2 6y ago

I support you wholeheartedly, survival of the fittest and evolution show us it's the only way to ensure getting better as species, but current point of view (equal opportunities, maximum protection) all but guarantees those who scream louder survive, not those whos skills are more useful in a long run .

enos_feedler 6y ago

We shouldn't be allowing everyone to drive. Autonomy will fix this. Apple will bring it to us, just like they have kept our phones safe.