6 ms·

"I think privacy and security is of paramount importance to everyone," Vestager said. "The important thing here is, of course, that it's not a shield against co

"I think privacy and security is of paramount importance to everyone," Vestager said. "The important thing here is, of course, that it's not a shield against competition, because I think customers will not give up neither security nor privacy if they use another app store or if they sideload." Spot on! There is a point of no return for us consumers too when the manufacturers use the argument of "security and privacy" to take so much control away from us. At that certain point, can you really say that you own the device you have paid for?

nobodyshere 5y ago
Well they use the "save the kids" argument pretty often in the US to take away what's left of the privacy out there.
- alpaca128 5y ago
  In the US? Everywhere. Also popular: "but terrorists could use this encryption thing"
contravariant 5y ago
I'm pretty sure we already passed that point when we accepted the argument that users need to be protected against themselves. Forced updates, walled gardens, mandatory online accounts, all of it has been pushed down the throat of users with the justification that it is necessary to protect users against themselves. And in most cases it's pretty easy to see it wasn't primarily in the interest of those users, since they weren't given the opportunity to make an informed decision.
- dageshi 5y ago
  I would feel fairly confident in saying the majority of the iphone install base is both incapable and completely disinterested in making an informed decision in these matters. They don't care how it works really, so long as it works, whichever product "just works" is the one they will buy. Power users like the majority of HN users are different, but they're not the majority of the market.
  - Dah00n 5y ago
    I agree with this but must add that laws aren't made to force what the majority knows (or in this case doesn't know) down the throat of everyone. This is why we have people like Vestager to counter what Apple does.
graeme 5y ago
She isn’t making a sensible assessment of tradeoffs though. You do take a security hit from sideloading. There’s no way around that. Society may find that it is worth mandating sideloading nonetheless and that the competition gain is worse the privacy loss. But it is senseless to argue there is no tradeoff.
- realusername 5y ago
  That's debatable, you don't have any more control as a user on apps downloaded from the appstore compared to a sideloaded app. They are running in the exact same security sandbox and the lack of insights on what the app is doing is there in both cases. For me the most secure medium right now is the web (much more than any appstore) and it's designed to run code on demand.
  - Retric 5y ago
    You’re assuming that App Stores have no influence. Not enough people make choices based on privacy to offset the profits from violating people’s privacy, however gatekeeping App stores have real leverage. What they use that leverage for is a real question. We have plenty of examples where opening things up caused issues. For example the minimum quality of NES games massively declined after Nintendo opened the floodgates.
    - realusername 5y ago
      I can agree that having the appstore does maintain some quality standards, however it does not guarantee any security, that's not really a good argument considering that their security model still needs to catch up to reach something as good as the web which is completely opened.
      - Jcowell 5y ago
        It’s never been about it the guarantee of security. There is no such thing and never will be. It’s about the degree of security and having a Single App Store has a degree of security that multiple does not.
type0 5y ago
Just for the record MS stated that they don't support older CPUs in Windows 11 because "security"; mind you not your security but security for the media companies that can feel safe with the new DRM being stronger.
- saiya-jin 5y ago
  another example of bad amoral behavior doesn't make this example any less significant (whataboutism?)
  - tryingtogetback 5y ago
    test

nobodyshere 5y ago

Well they use the "save the kids" argument pretty often in the US to take away what's left of the privacy out there.

alpaca128 5y ago
In the US? Everywhere. Also popular: "but terrorists could use this encryption thing"

contravariant 5y ago

I'm pretty sure we already passed that point when we accepted the argument that users need to be protected against themselves. Forced updates, walled gardens, mandatory online accounts, all of it has been pushed down the throat of users with the justification that it is necessary to protect users against themselves. And in most cases it's pretty easy to see it wasn't primarily in the interest of those users, since they weren't given the opportunity to make an informed decision.

dageshi 5y ago
I would feel fairly confident in saying the majority of the iphone install base is both incapable and completely disinterested in making an informed decision in these matters. They don't care how it works really, so long as it works, whichever product "just works" is the one they will buy. Power users like the majority of HN users are different, but they're not the majority of the market.
- Dah00n 5y ago
  I agree with this but must add that laws aren't made to force what the majority knows (or in this case doesn't know) down the throat of everyone. This is why we have people like Vestager to counter what Apple does.

graeme 5y ago

She isn’t making a sensible assessment of tradeoffs though. You do take a security hit from sideloading. There’s no way around that. Society may find that it is worth mandating sideloading nonetheless and that the competition gain is worse the privacy loss. But it is senseless to argue there is no tradeoff.

realusername 5y ago
That's debatable, you don't have any more control as a user on apps downloaded from the appstore compared to a sideloaded app. They are running in the exact same security sandbox and the lack of insights on what the app is doing is there in both cases. For me the most secure medium right now is the web (much more than any appstore) and it's designed to run code on demand.
- Retric 5y ago
  You’re assuming that App Stores have no influence. Not enough people make choices based on privacy to offset the profits from violating people’s privacy, however gatekeeping App stores have real leverage. What they use that leverage for is a real question. We have plenty of examples where opening things up caused issues. For example the minimum quality of NES games massively declined after Nintendo opened the floodgates.
  - realusername 5y ago
    I can agree that having the appstore does maintain some quality standards, however it does not guarantee any security, that's not really a good argument considering that their security model still needs to catch up to reach something as good as the web which is completely opened.
    - Jcowell 5y ago
      It’s never been about it the guarantee of security. There is no such thing and never will be. It’s about the degree of security and having a Single App Store has a degree of security that multiple does not.

type0 5y ago

Just for the record MS stated that they don't support older CPUs in Windows 11 because "security"; mind you not your security but security for the media companies that can feel safe with the new DRM being stronger.

saiya-jin 5y ago
another example of bad amoral behavior doesn't make this example any less significant (whataboutism?)
- tryingtogetback 5y ago
  test