3 ms·

Probably true, but the solution to that must not be to treat the user like a child unable to make decisions for themself. If a person decides to give up contro

Probably true, but the solution to that must not be to treat the user like a child unable to make decisions for themself. If a person decides to give up control of their device to another person or organization (like the device manufacturer) fine, but that should be a voluntary decision on the part of the user, not something forced.

acdha 5y ago
What if that person's “decision” was being tricked by a scammer? Or being in an abusive relationship? Or living in a surveillance state? I want people to have more control over devices but there are some non-trivial threats which millions of people face which are currently defanged by things like the OS not allowing malware installs, or hiding the use of various sensors or data access, etc.
- Ajedi32 5y ago
  So people might make bad decisions, therefore they should not be allowed to make decisions at all? Sure, do everything you can to educate the user on what they're doing and make things as hard as possible for scammers, but ultimately it must be their choice who controls their device, not yours.
  - acdha 5y ago
    We don't have absolute freedom in many areas because the law recognizes that the general public either is not capable of making informed decisions when that requires high-levels of skill or when there is a high likelihood of bad outcomes due to malicious actors. For example, if you buy a car there are safety features you cannot turn off without major modifications. Dangerous tools often have safety guards built-in to the design — for example, my blender doesn't say it's my choice whether to keep the spinning blade covered. My bank doesn't say it's my choice whether or not to identify myself when making a withdrawal. For most people, iOS limiting the damage when they get compromised is a huge plus. Removing that entirely in the absolute position is bringing people back a couple of decades ago only now the malware will have access to their most private moments and data 24x7 rather than just their Geocities browsing history. Now, consider what that means for something like unlocking the bootloader. Allowing that means undetectable malware, potentially irrecoverable. There's not really a good way around that and even if you try to inform people at the time they enable it that doesn't help if it's done when the device is out of their control (abusive partner, boss, police, etc.), and every on-screen indicator can be faked by the malware vendor. That leaves options like a physical switch in a prominent location which most people aren't going to want to pay for or see, and are more likely to be used by accident than intentionally.
    - heavyset_go 5y ago
      > For example, if you buy a car there are safety features you cannot turn off without major modifications. To use a direct analogy with Apple's restrictions on users, you're free to modify and flash your car's ECU firmware. In fact, it's quite common.
      - dev_tty01 5y ago
        >In fact, it's quite common. Really? How have you defined common? Where is that data from? I can't imagine anything more than a tiny fraction of car owners are doing this. Most people are not hacking their cars, building Raspberry Pi controllers for their toilets, or have any desire whatsoever to side load an app on their iPhone. The HN community is not representative of the overall population.
        Nextgrid 5y ago
        It's common enough that there's a legitimate industry around that and a lot of auto-tuning shops will do it on request. In most cases though it's just editing the built-in data tables rather than completely replacing the firmware, and it's often done for engine performance reasons rather than bypassing safety features.
        eecc 5y ago
        And possibly blowing the cars’ mileage and emissions limits which were defined by regulation and would make the car illegal to drive if measured…
        heavyset_go 5y ago
        Mechanics do it often, as do people who work on their cars. It isn't the Hacker News segment that is doing it, but the people who work on cars for a living or for fun.
      - mason55 5y ago
        And you’re free to jailbreak your phone. It’s not illegal. No ones going to arrest you. But no one says the car manufacturers are required to make a car where you can flash the ECU. There’s just no reason for them to block it. If someone came up with a way to steal your car by tricking your into running an app that flashed your ECU then you can bet Ford would disable it pretty quickly.
- mehlmao 5y ago
  If you live in a surveillance state, Apple is happy to hand over the keys (so long as the market is big enough).
pjmlp 5y ago
The old Internet Explorer full of toolbars, and a notification area with an endless amount of background services, kind of proves the point that the general public are children unable to make decisions for themselves.
- feikname 5y ago
  These toolbars were usually bundled with legit software (Heck, even Java installed Bing toolbar..) behind dark patterns where a computer beginner would, understandably, not realize they were also installing something else. As long as the dialog for unlocking your phone would clearly state the risks and what it does, unlike those toolbars upon installation, I think it would totally be OK. Imagine if you couldnt install Linux on any PC because Dell didnt give you the keys to prevent you from hurting yourself. Or Apple didnt allow sudo in macOS. Seems kinda absurd right? Yet this is the standard for phones. Also Id like to point out that Android allows installation of external APKs (after activating) and it didnt lead to a super increase in malware, as user still prefer the Play Store, and APK are usually left for the more technically inclined user for niche purposes or often times Region lock circumventing.
  - fingerlocks 5y ago
    > and it didnt lead to a super increase in malware Are you sure about that? I pulled an old, cheap Android phone out of storage box to do some debugging. I needed a quick file manager app, installed one of the top results on Google Play that was baked with some malware that may have bricked the device (didn't bother to try to fix it, it's in the bootloader). Granted this was an old version of Android, but that's still a bit egregious. I can't recall anything like that happening on iOS.
    - alisonkisk 5y ago
      how do you know it was malware and not a hardware or sofrware failure?
      - fingerlocks 5y ago
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> the solution to that must not be to treat the user like a child unable to make decisions for themself There is a wide gap between being unable to decide for oneself in the general case, like a child, and being unable to decide for oneself due to lack of expert knowledge. Sometimes, less is more. Apple built its brand on this insight.
Steko 5y ago
> If a person decides to give up control of their device to another person or organization (like the device manufacturer Exactly but what you’re missing is that with iOS this decision is made when you buy the phone.
rur77r7r7 5y ago
Doesn't track at all. If a person wants a device with that sort of freedom they can buy one or fund one. The only reason there aren't devices famous for empowering users is because users don't want to have to deal with that. It's only techbros and people they scare with racist China imagery that care. This 'Must Not' mentality is just entitlement.
Spooky23 5y ago
There probably hasn’t ever been a time with more options to do just that than today. The reality is it isn’t 1981 and computers aren’t toys or cloistered academic devices anymore. Mass market platforms need to be more secure than 90s era tech allowed.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
snowwrestler 5y ago
Are people forced to buy iPhones now?
eecc 5y ago
Next thing, Facebook lures users into side-loading their app. The app won’t provide any warning about the complete mirroring of any user activity, just “stay in contact with your loved ones” and “ooh kittens”. Everyone will install it because of FOMO and network effect; and there goes your privacy. Eventually also google, Amazon, anyone under the sun will do the same, just in case some aspect of your privacy is not captured.
- fuckyouriotshit 5y ago
  The only way that sort of corporate behavior by Facebook, etc. is to regulate how data about users can be collected and have real (potentially criminal) penalties for data collection without informed consent. Technical solutions (like preventing side-loading) cannot possibly eliminate the thing driving the behavior; profit motive for stealthily gathering data to build "better" user profiles to lease to advertisers.
  - eecc 5y ago
    Well, we’re getting there: EU GDPR regulation. But given the inter-jurisdictional nature of the internet, I’m happy to use a device that makes it hard to syphon my personal data and dump it beyond reach
    - fuckyouriotshit 5y ago
      Making it hard to siphon personal data doesn't require manufacturers to prevent side-loading of apps. A much better solution would be to create better permissions models (capability-based) for mobile devices. As an example, one could build a granular permissions model which forced apps to be composed of multiple modules. Each module would have their own sets of mutually exclusive permissions. An app that allowed the user to apply filters to photos/videos could be composed of two modules: One which had read and create permissions for files the photo library along with read-only access to an app-local storage directory A module which had the network communications permissions (exclusively by OS APIs that performed all the crypto[1]) and write-only access to the app-local storage directory (for downloading new filters) By forcing apps to be broken up into separate modules and ensuring that all network communication is done from a carefully constrained sandbox (which can only read/transmit a tiny subset of data generated/available to the app), users could see exactly what the app transmitted without having to install their own self-signed root certificate (and maybe also jailbreak their devices if the app that they're interested in is using certificate pinning or ignoring the OS certificates). The best way to technically combat a lot of this sort of data-slurping nonsense would be to force apps to have near[1] total transparency for all network communication for any user that wanted to see. [1] The OS crypto API would have to provide a few authentication routines which blanked passwords, secret keys, etc. after use to prevent the unintentional leaking of secrets. Those APIs would obviously have to be designed to be resistant to malicious use by Facebook, etc.

acdha 5y ago

What if that person's “decision” was being tricked by a scammer? Or being in an abusive relationship? Or living in a surveillance state? I want people to have more control over devices but there are some non-trivial threats which millions of people face which are currently defanged by things like the OS not allowing malware installs, or hiding the use of various sensors or data access, etc.

Ajedi32 5y ago
So people might make bad decisions, therefore they should not be allowed to make decisions at all? Sure, do everything you can to educate the user on what they're doing and make things as hard as possible for scammers, but ultimately it must be their choice who controls their device, not yours.
- acdha 5y ago
  We don't have absolute freedom in many areas because the law recognizes that the general public either is not capable of making informed decisions when that requires high-levels of skill or when there is a high likelihood of bad outcomes due to malicious actors. For example, if you buy a car there are safety features you cannot turn off without major modifications. Dangerous tools often have safety guards built-in to the design — for example, my blender doesn't say it's my choice whether to keep the spinning blade covered. My bank doesn't say it's my choice whether or not to identify myself when making a withdrawal. For most people, iOS limiting the damage when they get compromised is a huge plus. Removing that entirely in the absolute position is bringing people back a couple of decades ago only now the malware will have access to their most private moments and data 24x7 rather than just their Geocities browsing history. Now, consider what that means for something like unlocking the bootloader. Allowing that means undetectable malware, potentially irrecoverable. There's not really a good way around that and even if you try to inform people at the time they enable it that doesn't help if it's done when the device is out of their control (abusive partner, boss, police, etc.), and every on-screen indicator can be faked by the malware vendor. That leaves options like a physical switch in a prominent location which most people aren't going to want to pay for or see, and are more likely to be used by accident than intentionally.
  - heavyset_go 5y ago
    > For example, if you buy a car there are safety features you cannot turn off without major modifications. To use a direct analogy with Apple's restrictions on users, you're free to modify and flash your car's ECU firmware. In fact, it's quite common.
    - dev_tty01 5y ago
      >In fact, it's quite common. Really? How have you defined common? Where is that data from? I can't imagine anything more than a tiny fraction of car owners are doing this. Most people are not hacking their cars, building Raspberry Pi controllers for their toilets, or have any desire whatsoever to side load an app on their iPhone. The HN community is not representative of the overall population.
      - Nextgrid 5y ago
        It's common enough that there's a legitimate industry around that and a lot of auto-tuning shops will do it on request. In most cases though it's just editing the built-in data tables rather than completely replacing the firmware, and it's often done for engine performance reasons rather than bypassing safety features.
        eecc 5y ago
        And possibly blowing the cars’ mileage and emissions limits which were defined by regulation and would make the car illegal to drive if measured…
      - heavyset_go 5y ago
        Mechanics do it often, as do people who work on their cars. It isn't the Hacker News segment that is doing it, but the people who work on cars for a living or for fun.
    - mason55 5y ago
      And you’re free to jailbreak your phone. It’s not illegal. No ones going to arrest you. But no one says the car manufacturers are required to make a car where you can flash the ECU. There’s just no reason for them to block it. If someone came up with a way to steal your car by tricking your into running an app that flashed your ECU then you can bet Ford would disable it pretty quickly.
mehlmao 5y ago
If you live in a surveillance state, Apple is happy to hand over the keys (so long as the market is big enough).

pjmlp 5y ago

The old Internet Explorer full of toolbars, and a notification area with an endless amount of background services, kind of proves the point that the general public are children unable to make decisions for themselves.

feikname 5y ago
These toolbars were usually bundled with legit software (Heck, even Java installed Bing toolbar..) behind dark patterns where a computer beginner would, understandably, not realize they were also installing something else. As long as the dialog for unlocking your phone would clearly state the risks and what it does, unlike those toolbars upon installation, I think it would totally be OK. Imagine if you couldnt install Linux on any PC because Dell didnt give you the keys to prevent you from hurting yourself. Or Apple didnt allow sudo in macOS. Seems kinda absurd right? Yet this is the standard for phones. Also Id like to point out that Android allows installation of external APKs (after activating) and it didnt lead to a super increase in malware, as user still prefer the Play Store, and APK are usually left for the more technically inclined user for niche purposes or often times Region lock circumventing.
- fingerlocks 5y ago
  > and it didnt lead to a super increase in malware Are you sure about that? I pulled an old, cheap Android phone out of storage box to do some debugging. I needed a quick file manager app, installed one of the top results on Google Play that was baked with some malware that may have bricked the device (didn't bother to try to fix it, it's in the bootloader). Granted this was an old version of Android, but that's still a bit egregious. I can't recall anything like that happening on iOS.
  - alisonkisk 5y ago
    how do you know it was malware and not a hardware or sofrware failure?
    - fingerlocks 5y ago

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

> the solution to that must not be to treat the user like a child unable to make decisions for themself There is a wide gap between being unable to decide for oneself in the general case, like a child, and being unable to decide for oneself due to lack of expert knowledge. Sometimes, less is more. Apple built its brand on this insight.

Steko 5y ago

> If a person decides to give up control of their device to another person or organization (like the device manufacturer Exactly but what you’re missing is that with iOS this decision is made when you buy the phone.

rur77r7r7 5y ago

Doesn't track at all. If a person wants a device with that sort of freedom they can buy one or fund one. The only reason there aren't devices famous for empowering users is because users don't want to have to deal with that. It's only techbros and people they scare with racist China imagery that care. This 'Must Not' mentality is just entitlement.

Spooky23 5y ago

There probably hasn’t ever been a time with more options to do just that than today. The reality is it isn’t 1981 and computers aren’t toys or cloistered academic devices anymore. Mass market platforms need to be more secure than 90s era tech allowed.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

snowwrestler 5y ago

Are people forced to buy iPhones now?

eecc 5y ago

Next thing, Facebook lures users into side-loading their app. The app won’t provide any warning about the complete mirroring of any user activity, just “stay in contact with your loved ones” and “ooh kittens”. Everyone will install it because of FOMO and network effect; and there goes your privacy. Eventually also google, Amazon, anyone under the sun will do the same, just in case some aspect of your privacy is not captured.

fuckyouriotshit 5y ago
The only way that sort of corporate behavior by Facebook, etc. is to regulate how data about users can be collected and have real (potentially criminal) penalties for data collection without informed consent. Technical solutions (like preventing side-loading) cannot possibly eliminate the thing driving the behavior; profit motive for stealthily gathering data to build "better" user profiles to lease to advertisers.
- eecc 5y ago
  Well, we’re getting there: EU GDPR regulation. But given the inter-jurisdictional nature of the internet, I’m happy to use a device that makes it hard to syphon my personal data and dump it beyond reach
  - fuckyouriotshit 5y ago
    Making it hard to siphon personal data doesn't require manufacturers to prevent side-loading of apps. A much better solution would be to create better permissions models (capability-based) for mobile devices. As an example, one could build a granular permissions model which forced apps to be composed of multiple modules. Each module would have their own sets of mutually exclusive permissions. An app that allowed the user to apply filters to photos/videos could be composed of two modules: One which had read and create permissions for files the photo library along with read-only access to an app-local storage directory A module which had the network communications permissions (exclusively by OS APIs that performed all the crypto[1]) and write-only access to the app-local storage directory (for downloading new filters) By forcing apps to be broken up into separate modules and ensuring that all network communication is done from a carefully constrained sandbox (which can only read/transmit a tiny subset of data generated/available to the app), users could see exactly what the app transmitted without having to install their own self-signed root certificate (and maybe also jailbreak their devices if the app that they're interested in is using certificate pinning or ignoring the OS certificates). The best way to technically combat a lot of this sort of data-slurping nonsense would be to force apps to have near[1] total transparency for all network communication for any user that wanted to see. [1] The OS crypto API would have to provide a few authentication routines which blanked passwords, secret keys, etc. after use to prevent the unintentional leaking of secrets. Those APIs would obviously have to be designed to be resistant to malicious use by Facebook, etc.