4 ms·
> If Bob paid $COST for a phone and it got exploited because of this, Bob may throw his phone out of the nearest window. You and I both know, despite many atte
by vorpalhex 6y ago
> If Bob paid $COST for a phone and it got exploited because of this, Bob may throw his phone out of the nearest window.
You and I both know, despite many attempts, there is no hardware or software out there that is unexploitable. From the most locked down chromebook to Apple's walled garden, these devices can and are exploited.
The idea that if somehow we take away enough of your freedom we'll make the device safe is basically a bald faced lie. Not once in the history of computing has it worked out. Even my internet connected lightbulbs which literally have only an on and an off exposed are exploitable.
No amount of removing user freedom will make users safer. This isn't a rocket surgery level conclusion, which means companies that continue pressing down this road probably have some other reason for doing so.
- jjuel 6y agoJust because nothing is completely secure doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to make things as secure as possible.
- vorpalhex 6y agoThe question is the cost of making things "secure as possible". Should you harden memory? Setup SELinux? Yeah, do those things, those are good meaningful things to do. Should you prevent users from running apps? Prevent downloads? Restrict third party apps? What about tracking everything the user types in? Tracking every app the user opens and when they open it (eg, Apple)? What about bypassing user firewalls (Apple again)? That's for "security", right? Forcing your own DNS resolver (Google)? User hostility is never an acceptable tradeoff for security.
- johannboehme 6y agoif we give up a huge part of our freedom as the price, i would say lets not.