5 ms·

how would you define innovation? I would argue that technology that is better designed to make nefarious purposes harder to achieve, rather than just dumping

by kace91 6y ago

how would you define innovation? I would argue that technology that is better designed to make nefarious purposes harder to achieve, rather than just dumping features onto the user, is innovative. User protection is also a feature, one that's usually way more valuable than convenience but that we only appreciate when it's gone and it's too late. It's not necessarily a matter of privilege, we're all potentially at the risk of having an account hijacked by a rando, or having a device stolen, or having a relationship go sideways to a crazy point.

TeMPOraL 6y ago
I think this point can only be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. On the one hand, if there's an easy win that would defeat some nefarious use case while not impacting legitimate ones, it should be taken. On the other hand, it's a fact of nature that a human can weaponize anything if they put their mind to it, so it's impossible to design technologies that cannot be used for doing harm to others.
robertlagrant 6y ago
> I would argue that technology that is better designed to make nefarious purposes harder to achieve, rather than just dumping features onto the user, is innovative. Redefining general terms is the thing that adds the least possible value to a conversation. It often just makes things worse.
- kace91 6y ago
  Are you in disagreement with the point of my comment, or just the way it's worded? Perhaps I can explain what I mean better: New features, by itself, aren't the only way technology moves forward, even thought it's the more noticeable and entertaining way. An improvement in the way existing features are accessed, or even a protection for certain features being accessed in a way that's potentially wrong, can also be an improvement or innovation. Static typing, enforced linters, or the Rust borrow checker are good examples of restriction-as-a-feature. Therefore, I disagree with the original comment's implication that restricting features in lieu of security or misuse is a blocker for innovation.

by kace91 6y ago

TeMPOraL 6y ago

I think this point can only be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. On the one hand, if there's an easy win that would defeat some nefarious use case while not impacting legitimate ones, it should be taken. On the other hand, it's a fact of nature that a human can weaponize anything if they put their mind to it, so it's impossible to design technologies that cannot be used for doing harm to others.

robertlagrant 6y ago

> I would argue that technology that is better designed to make nefarious purposes harder to achieve, rather than just dumping features onto the user, is innovative. Redefining general terms is the thing that adds the least possible value to a conversation. It often just makes things worse.

kace91 6y ago
Are you in disagreement with the point of my comment, or just the way it's worded? Perhaps I can explain what I mean better: New features, by itself, aren't the only way technology moves forward, even thought it's the more noticeable and entertaining way. An improvement in the way existing features are accessed, or even a protection for certain features being accessed in a way that's potentially wrong, can also be an improvement or innovation. Static typing, enforced linters, or the Rust borrow checker are good examples of restriction-as-a-feature. Therefore, I disagree with the original comment's implication that restricting features in lieu of security or misuse is a blocker for innovation.