5 ms·

It might have been a great tool to some extent but it's gone too far IMO. It's one thing to block non-safety-critical features of a device or make them annoying

It might have been a great tool to some extent but it's gone too far IMO. It's one thing to block non-safety-critical features of a device or make them annoying to use... it's something else to break functionality that people's lives might depend on. Block their ability to watch videos and install new apps and other stuff, OK, but to not even let them make a phone call? Should someone die because they didn't pay back $40 on your phone?

renewiltord 6y ago
It's India. If you were going to die unless you make a call, you're going to die anyway because the other end is unlikely to answer fast enough. In this case, this guy was going to be unable to do his job until he called from a borrowed phone (people do this all the time, did it myself when I had to make a call there once and my phone was borked).
- dataflow 6y ago
  "It was going to happen anyway" is such an easy way to justify terrible things...
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    Describing things as 'terrible' is such an easy way to justify not making cost-benefit analyses...
    - dataflow 6y ago
      Wha? I literally did the analysis in my first comment... that's where I tried to strike a balance between both parties' interests. You're the one who dismissed the whole thing with "it's India, they were going to die anyway".
      - renewiltord 6y ago
        That's not analysis. It's just a statement of opinion. The guy in the story was going to die due to the phone not being able to dial if the following sequence occurred: * He arrived to do work on the building * He was unable to get the power shut off to the building before working * He decided to work anyway The actual worst case of anyone reasonable (yes, even in India¹) is "Oh no, I can't confirm power shut-off. I can't do this job. Oh, it's you the guy who hired me. Can you call the building super and have him shut off the power? I can talk to him on your phone if you'd like". Then you decided that this scenario somehow translates to "Should someone die because they didn't pay back $40 on your phone?" This really strains credulity. ¹ Yes, they're not working on live wires intentionally there. This isn't the '90s
        dataflow 6y ago
        It's because you're not understanding the comment. I was talking about the general case, not saying that that guy was going to die in this particular case. There are tons of situations where being able to make a phone call can make the difference between life and death. And the trade-off is that this mechanism for ensuring a debt gets repaid explicitly puts people's lives in jeopardy. None of that is an an opinion, it's just a fact. That you somehow don't realize these really strains credulity. You're evidently not even trying to have a real discussion here so don't expect me to keep trying beyond this.
        renewiltord 6y ago
        > There are tons of situations where being able to make a phone call can make the difference between life and death. There are vanishingly few in India where you will not have an instant substitute, since emergency calls aren't blocked. You really don't understand the market at all. Also, I am not trying to have a discussion with you. I'm trying to get you to stop misinforming third parties so your stopping posting is a desired outcome. I am glad to hear that.
- fogihujy 6y ago
  On a side note, situations like this should be taken into account when designing access control schemes and it's an excellent argument for NOT using phones or other devices for authentication. I don't really have a better suggestion, but as more and more people from non-Western countries establish an online presence, many things that used to be taken for granted will no longer be applicable. "Everyone owns their own phone" is up there, along with "all names can be written in ASCII", "personal names always come first", "everyone has an address/a personal email account" and "everyone uses the Gregorian calendar".
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    You're right, of course. And I was curious myself since practically any banking there uses SMS-based OTPs, so I looked it up and apparently they allow incoming SMS. Interesting constraints, to say the least.

renewiltord 6y ago

It's India. If you were going to die unless you make a call, you're going to die anyway because the other end is unlikely to answer fast enough. In this case, this guy was going to be unable to do his job until he called from a borrowed phone (people do this all the time, did it myself when I had to make a call there once and my phone was borked).

dataflow 6y ago
"It was going to happen anyway" is such an easy way to justify terrible things...
- renewiltord 6y ago
  Describing things as 'terrible' is such an easy way to justify not making cost-benefit analyses...
  - dataflow 6y ago
    Wha? I literally did the analysis in my first comment... that's where I tried to strike a balance between both parties' interests. You're the one who dismissed the whole thing with "it's India, they were going to die anyway".
    - renewiltord 6y ago
      That's not analysis. It's just a statement of opinion. The guy in the story was going to die due to the phone not being able to dial if the following sequence occurred: * He arrived to do work on the building * He was unable to get the power shut off to the building before working * He decided to work anyway The actual worst case of anyone reasonable (yes, even in India¹) is "Oh no, I can't confirm power shut-off. I can't do this job. Oh, it's you the guy who hired me. Can you call the building super and have him shut off the power? I can talk to him on your phone if you'd like". Then you decided that this scenario somehow translates to "Should someone die because they didn't pay back $40 on your phone?" This really strains credulity. ¹ Yes, they're not working on live wires intentionally there. This isn't the '90s
      - dataflow 6y ago
        It's because you're not understanding the comment. I was talking about the general case, not saying that that guy was going to die in this particular case. There are tons of situations where being able to make a phone call can make the difference between life and death. And the trade-off is that this mechanism for ensuring a debt gets repaid explicitly puts people's lives in jeopardy. None of that is an an opinion, it's just a fact. That you somehow don't realize these really strains credulity. You're evidently not even trying to have a real discussion here so don't expect me to keep trying beyond this.
        renewiltord 6y ago
        > There are tons of situations where being able to make a phone call can make the difference between life and death. There are vanishingly few in India where you will not have an instant substitute, since emergency calls aren't blocked. You really don't understand the market at all. Also, I am not trying to have a discussion with you. I'm trying to get you to stop misinforming third parties so your stopping posting is a desired outcome. I am glad to hear that.
fogihujy 6y ago
On a side note, situations like this should be taken into account when designing access control schemes and it's an excellent argument for NOT using phones or other devices for authentication. I don't really have a better suggestion, but as more and more people from non-Western countries establish an online presence, many things that used to be taken for granted will no longer be applicable. "Everyone owns their own phone" is up there, along with "all names can be written in ASCII", "personal names always come first", "everyone has an address/a personal email account" and "everyone uses the Gregorian calendar".
- renewiltord 6y ago
  You're right, of course. And I was curious myself since practically any banking there uses SMS-based OTPs, so I looked it up and apparently they allow incoming SMS. Interesting constraints, to say the least.