4 ms·

No. Preventing people from doing something "for their own good" is never the right solution. Instead, we should strive to educate people on proper online safety

by shrx 3y ago

No. Preventing people from doing something "for their own good" is never the right solution. Instead, we should strive to educate people on proper online safety measures so that they don't fall victim to fraudulent attempts.

squeaky-clean 3y ago
That hasn't worked out for the past 30 years and with every passing year there's more to learn. Telling someone they need to spend several hours to learn how to safely use their device is a good way to market the competitor where that's not required.
zacksiri 3y ago
Believe me the central bank puts out social media posts to inform the public on a regular basis, however a lot of people still fall for these frauds because the fraudsters prey on their greed and fear. I’ve seen even the most educated tech savvy people fall for these frauds. So I would say “educating people” is insufficient. Another problem is because the law works extremely slowly, by the time any legal action can be taken to take down the destination bank accounts the fraudsters have already gained and taken the money. Sideloading is the thing that works because the legal infrastructure simply can’t keep up with the fraudsters. I would be inclined to agree with you if I know that the legal system immediately stops fraudsters and returns the money to the people without damange. We’re far from that.
tonylemesmer 3y ago
Engineering disagrees. Having safety interlocks on machines is seen as necessary and sensible to prevent accidental harm. If you want to achieve something that you think sideloading is the only answer for then maybe try and find another solution? Btw. I’m not arguing we shouldn’t educate people about the dangers of phishing etc etc. just that engineers should find better solutions than shortcuts. Some people will never understand the need to be vigilant. And even vigilant people have momentary lapses of vigilance. [edit] i think we’re talking about deliberate sideloading but also accidental sideloading in the same breath here. One enables the other? Accidental sideloading is very much undesirable.
- heavyset_go 3y ago
  > Engineering disagrees. Having safety interlocks on machines is seen as necessary and sensible to prevent accidental harm. Right, which is why operating systems ship with security and sandboxing features. Security does not require an App Store.
- nasmorn 3y ago
  But then we need to take the ability of gatekeepers to forbid random things away. Why can’t I run docker on my iPad?
- 76SlashDolphin 3y ago
  Security features should be there to prevent a user from accidentally letting malicious things happen. Key word: accidentally. One does not accidentally enable apk installation from untrusted sources on Android. If you spend the time going deep into the settings of your phone, and dismiss two massive security warnings then I don't really have any sympathies and those users should have some more common sense. It's like wanting to close down a metro system because some people are incapable of reading the warning signs and jump down to the rails. With these kinds of security problems you need to decide where the restrictiveness is best for society and I would very much argue that in the case of phone security it's on the side of sideloading.
  - tonylemesmer 3y ago
    Except when a sideloading switch is so easy to access that naive users are easily manipulated into enabling it or having a security policy installed on their phones that disables it.
- wiseowise 3y ago
  > Engineering disagrees. Having safety interlocks on machines is seen as necessary and sensible to prevent accidental harm. > safety interlocks That's what sideloading switch is.
Szpadel 3y ago
I'm surprised that there are many cases as to enable sideboarding on Android you basically have to go to settings and enable option that basically tell you that this isn't a good idea if you don't know what you are doing and then you have to do the same for the application that triggers the install. but on the other hand I already saw people trying Linux and being surprised that after multiple confirmations "this is probably a terrible idea, are you sure" it broke their systems
- Muromec 3y ago
  > and enable option that basically tell you that this isn't a good idea ... and people just click though it without reading, because it's UX 101 -- nobody reads your texts, manuals and things while in the flow.
Someone 3y ago
> Preventing people from doing something "for their own good" is never the right solution. Never? So, no laws against speeding, no restrictions of the use of DDT, etc? I think that, to make electronic devices usable for all, we have to restrict what they can do. > Instead, we should strive to educate people on proper online safety measures I would say “in addition”, not “instead”. I think it’s a pipe dream we can educate the majority of the population and keep them educated in these things. Even if we restrict that to the tech savvy, they too grow old, can have periods in their live where they’re so stressed that it limits their thinking, can get mild dementia, etc.
- rand846633 3y ago
  Your comparison seems unsuited: Laws against speeded or ddt are both not primary to protect yourself from your action, but rather to protect others from your actions.
hayst4ck 3y ago
> preventing people from doing something "for their own good" is never the right solution. https://www.osha.gov/etools/machine-guarding/presses/two-hand-controls https://www.osha.gov/etools/machine-guarding/presses/two-han... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockout%E2%80%93tagout https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockout%E2%80%93tagout > educate people on proper online safety measures so that they don't fall victim to fraudulent attempts. This is so inefficient and prone to failure. You think you're an expert, but my mom is not an expert. I don't want to educate my mom, I want to just hand her something that's safe to use.
- razemio 3y ago
  Your mum would be tech-savvy enough to enable "allow ipa from untrusted sources" buried deep in the settings? That's how it works on Android. I believe the main problem with android is, that there are tons of old devices not receiving any security updates. It's close to impossible, that my mum figures out how to install an untrusted apk on her Samsung s22. I guess what I want to say is: Having good security should not prevent you from installing custom software if you want to.
  - hayst4ck 3y ago
    My mom can barely use the app store. The side-loading debate is an indirect reference and to talk about side loading it must first be decomposed. Question 1 is should Apple be able to prevent an engineer from running software they want on their phone? Probably not. Question 2 is should Apple be able to prevent a layman from running software they want on their phone with effort? Debatable. Question 3 is should Apple be able to prevent a layman from running software they want on their phone easily? I think so. Question 4 is should Apple be able to prevent an alternative app store? Yes. Definitely. So should side loading be allowed depends greatly on which question a person is asking and what the "sideloading" reference is pointing to. Should I be able to choose what medicines I want to take without a pharmacist/MD? I have a hard time with this because I think I should be able to ingest whatever I want and I think I am more intelligent than the average person, on the flip side, I think if I were a pharmacist, I would say absolutely not. If you asked me if anyone should be able to take any medication they want without blessing, I look at the ivermectin debacle and realize "probably not."
mikebos 3y ago
That a very American viewpoint. This is why Americans have a gun problem with all the school shootings and random killing going on there. Sometimes it's a good idea to don't let people do something for their own good.
- wiseowise 3y ago
  Love how we're equating sideloading to school shootings.
  - mikebos 3y ago
    Agree, blanket statements as "never a solution" always bring out the worst in me :-)
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

by shrx 3y ago

squeaky-clean 3y ago

That hasn't worked out for the past 30 years and with every passing year there's more to learn. Telling someone they need to spend several hours to learn how to safely use their device is a good way to market the competitor where that's not required.

zacksiri 3y ago

Believe me the central bank puts out social media posts to inform the public on a regular basis, however a lot of people still fall for these frauds because the fraudsters prey on their greed and fear. I’ve seen even the most educated tech savvy people fall for these frauds. So I would say “educating people” is insufficient. Another problem is because the law works extremely slowly, by the time any legal action can be taken to take down the destination bank accounts the fraudsters have already gained and taken the money. Sideloading is the thing that works because the legal infrastructure simply can’t keep up with the fraudsters. I would be inclined to agree with you if I know that the legal system immediately stops fraudsters and returns the money to the people without damange. We’re far from that.

tonylemesmer 3y ago

Engineering disagrees. Having safety interlocks on machines is seen as necessary and sensible to prevent accidental harm. If you want to achieve something that you think sideloading is the only answer for then maybe try and find another solution? Btw. I’m not arguing we shouldn’t educate people about the dangers of phishing etc etc. just that engineers should find better solutions than shortcuts. Some people will never understand the need to be vigilant. And even vigilant people have momentary lapses of vigilance. [edit] i think we’re talking about deliberate sideloading but also accidental sideloading in the same breath here. One enables the other? Accidental sideloading is very much undesirable.

heavyset_go 3y ago
> Engineering disagrees. Having safety interlocks on machines is seen as necessary and sensible to prevent accidental harm. Right, which is why operating systems ship with security and sandboxing features. Security does not require an App Store.
nasmorn 3y ago
But then we need to take the ability of gatekeepers to forbid random things away. Why can’t I run docker on my iPad?
76SlashDolphin 3y ago
Security features should be there to prevent a user from accidentally letting malicious things happen. Key word: accidentally. One does not accidentally enable apk installation from untrusted sources on Android. If you spend the time going deep into the settings of your phone, and dismiss two massive security warnings then I don't really have any sympathies and those users should have some more common sense. It's like wanting to close down a metro system because some people are incapable of reading the warning signs and jump down to the rails. With these kinds of security problems you need to decide where the restrictiveness is best for society and I would very much argue that in the case of phone security it's on the side of sideloading.
- tonylemesmer 3y ago
  Except when a sideloading switch is so easy to access that naive users are easily manipulated into enabling it or having a security policy installed on their phones that disables it.
wiseowise 3y ago
> Engineering disagrees. Having safety interlocks on machines is seen as necessary and sensible to prevent accidental harm. > safety interlocks That's what sideloading switch is.

Szpadel 3y ago

I'm surprised that there are many cases as to enable sideboarding on Android you basically have to go to settings and enable option that basically tell you that this isn't a good idea if you don't know what you are doing and then you have to do the same for the application that triggers the install. but on the other hand I already saw people trying Linux and being surprised that after multiple confirmations "this is probably a terrible idea, are you sure" it broke their systems

Muromec 3y ago
> and enable option that basically tell you that this isn't a good idea ... and people just click though it without reading, because it's UX 101 -- nobody reads your texts, manuals and things while in the flow.

Someone 3y ago

> Preventing people from doing something "for their own good" is never the right solution. Never? So, no laws against speeding, no restrictions of the use of DDT, etc? I think that, to make electronic devices usable for all, we have to restrict what they can do. > Instead, we should strive to educate people on proper online safety measures I would say “in addition”, not “instead”. I think it’s a pipe dream we can educate the majority of the population and keep them educated in these things. Even if we restrict that to the tech savvy, they too grow old, can have periods in their live where they’re so stressed that it limits their thinking, can get mild dementia, etc.

rand846633 3y ago
Your comparison seems unsuited: Laws against speeded or ddt are both not primary to protect yourself from your action, but rather to protect others from your actions.

hayst4ck 3y ago

> preventing people from doing something "for their own good" is never the right solution. https://www.osha.gov/etools/machine-guarding/presses/two-hand-controls https://www.osha.gov/etools/machine-guarding/presses/two-han... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockout%E2%80%93tagout https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockout%E2%80%93tagout > educate people on proper online safety measures so that they don't fall victim to fraudulent attempts. This is so inefficient and prone to failure. You think you're an expert, but my mom is not an expert. I don't want to educate my mom, I want to just hand her something that's safe to use.

razemio 3y ago
Your mum would be tech-savvy enough to enable "allow ipa from untrusted sources" buried deep in the settings? That's how it works on Android. I believe the main problem with android is, that there are tons of old devices not receiving any security updates. It's close to impossible, that my mum figures out how to install an untrusted apk on her Samsung s22. I guess what I want to say is: Having good security should not prevent you from installing custom software if you want to.
- hayst4ck 3y ago
  My mom can barely use the app store. The side-loading debate is an indirect reference and to talk about side loading it must first be decomposed. Question 1 is should Apple be able to prevent an engineer from running software they want on their phone? Probably not. Question 2 is should Apple be able to prevent a layman from running software they want on their phone with effort? Debatable. Question 3 is should Apple be able to prevent a layman from running software they want on their phone easily? I think so. Question 4 is should Apple be able to prevent an alternative app store? Yes. Definitely. So should side loading be allowed depends greatly on which question a person is asking and what the "sideloading" reference is pointing to. Should I be able to choose what medicines I want to take without a pharmacist/MD? I have a hard time with this because I think I should be able to ingest whatever I want and I think I am more intelligent than the average person, on the flip side, I think if I were a pharmacist, I would say absolutely not. If you asked me if anyone should be able to take any medication they want without blessing, I look at the ivermectin debacle and realize "probably not."

mikebos 3y ago

That a very American viewpoint. This is why Americans have a gun problem with all the school shootings and random killing going on there. Sometimes it's a good idea to don't let people do something for their own good.

wiseowise 3y ago
Love how we're equating sideloading to school shootings.
- mikebos 3y ago
  Agree, blanket statements as "never a solution" always bring out the worst in me :-)

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]