3 ms·

And if it drains people’s bank accounts because they aren’t savvy enough to know that their bank’s app is realbank not realbankofficial? Deal with it? The stan

by c0pium 3y ago

And if it drains people’s bank accounts because they aren’t savvy enough to know that their bank’s app is realbank not realbankofficial? Deal with it? The stance that other people should have their savings stolen, when we could have easily stopped it, because of nebulous freedom reasons is pretty ghoulish.

JohnFen 3y ago
Perhaps the solution is to have two classes of machines, some "safe" for those who don't want to (or can't) be proactive and alert to security threats, and some "unsafe" for those who want total control over their machines and are willing to take on the security risks and responsibilities to do that.
- jasonjayr 3y ago
  I mean, yes. 1000% yes. But the reality is that the 'market' will push to only make content for the "safe" machines, and the total control folks will slowly get locked out. Banks have required auditors that will mandate only allowing access from 'safe' environments Media companies will do everything to make sure content is only played in 'safe' environments Government will allow allow you to interact with their technology from 'safe' environments, etc. And they will all believe 100% they are doing the right thing to protect the users. I am deeply afraid for open general purpose computing.
  - ethbr1 3y ago
    It's economics. If "safe" means ceding control, and there's a business model by which I can make more money if the user cedes control (e.g. enforcing DRM), then I can subsidize the "safe" version and sell it for less than the total control version. I'll make it up on the backend.
ndriscoll 3y ago
If they installed it through a commercial app store, hold the store owner liable as an accessory to fraud.
danShumway 3y ago
> And if it drains people’s bank accounts because they aren’t savvy enough to know that their bank’s app is realbank not realbankofficial? Deal with it? But... will this proposal stop that from happening? I think with every tradeoff between security and freedom, before we get into the philosophical questions we have to ask, "are we getting security from this tradeoff." Tbh, it is not clear to me how this improves security. The way I'll drain your bank account is by setting up a phishing site and proxying requests to your bank. That's how I would do it before this proposal, and it seems like post-proposal that would still work exactly the same way? I don't feel like I've seen enough information yet about how this is going to work to be able to confidently say that this is going to improve security.
mindslight 3y ago
This is not how bank accounts work at all. "Regulation E". Bank accounts are not bearer bonds, and the system is not meant to be impervious to unauthorized transactions. Your vulnerability/responsibility essentially ends at checking your statements for unauthorized transactions.
- c0pium 3y ago
  > This is not how bank accounts work at all. Of course it is. It is allegedly the case that you are correct. It is actually the case that using the system is incredibly painful, and hard to understand, and lots of people end up in a terrible situation because of it.
keepamovin 3y ago
Resorting to what appears as a moral high ground by labeling any dissenter with extreme negative attributes is, in essence, a shaming tactic intended to stifle opposition. This method is prevalent in political discourse, where extremists might brand those who disagree with them with the most severe moral condemnations available. The reliance on such shaming suggests that the accuser’s arguments might not withstand critical examination. Instead of yielding to this intimidation, intended to silence dissent, people should recognize these tactics as signs of argumentative weakness and a questionable moral stance. True morality, in contrast, supports the free exchange of ideas in a secure environment where all perspectives can be considered. Hostile tactics like these often betray an immoral position by those who employ them, despite their attempts to claim moral high ground. Their quickness to suppress dialogue through shaming undermines any claim to ethical superiority. Recognizing these tactics should prompt us to steer the conversation towards more constructive, open engagement, rather than engaging with any of the points raised in the moral intimidation directly, and question the robustness of the positions of those who resort to such methods.

by c0pium 3y ago

JohnFen 3y ago

Perhaps the solution is to have two classes of machines, some "safe" for those who don't want to (or can't) be proactive and alert to security threats, and some "unsafe" for those who want total control over their machines and are willing to take on the security risks and responsibilities to do that.

jasonjayr 3y ago
I mean, yes. 1000% yes. But the reality is that the 'market' will push to only make content for the "safe" machines, and the total control folks will slowly get locked out. Banks have required auditors that will mandate only allowing access from 'safe' environments Media companies will do everything to make sure content is only played in 'safe' environments Government will allow allow you to interact with their technology from 'safe' environments, etc. And they will all believe 100% they are doing the right thing to protect the users. I am deeply afraid for open general purpose computing.
- ethbr1 3y ago
  It's economics. If "safe" means ceding control, and there's a business model by which I can make more money if the user cedes control (e.g. enforcing DRM), then I can subsidize the "safe" version and sell it for less than the total control version. I'll make it up on the backend.

ndriscoll 3y ago

If they installed it through a commercial app store, hold the store owner liable as an accessory to fraud.

danShumway 3y ago

> And if it drains people’s bank accounts because they aren’t savvy enough to know that their bank’s app is realbank not realbankofficial? Deal with it? But... will this proposal stop that from happening? I think with every tradeoff between security and freedom, before we get into the philosophical questions we have to ask, "are we getting security from this tradeoff." Tbh, it is not clear to me how this improves security. The way I'll drain your bank account is by setting up a phishing site and proxying requests to your bank. That's how I would do it before this proposal, and it seems like post-proposal that would still work exactly the same way? I don't feel like I've seen enough information yet about how this is going to work to be able to confidently say that this is going to improve security.

mindslight 3y ago

This is not how bank accounts work at all. "Regulation E". Bank accounts are not bearer bonds, and the system is not meant to be impervious to unauthorized transactions. Your vulnerability/responsibility essentially ends at checking your statements for unauthorized transactions.

c0pium 3y ago
> This is not how bank accounts work at all. Of course it is. It is allegedly the case that you are correct. It is actually the case that using the system is incredibly painful, and hard to understand, and lots of people end up in a terrible situation because of it.

keepamovin 3y ago

Resorting to what appears as a moral high ground by labeling any dissenter with extreme negative attributes is, in essence, a shaming tactic intended to stifle opposition. This method is prevalent in political discourse, where extremists might brand those who disagree with them with the most severe moral condemnations available. The reliance on such shaming suggests that the accuser’s arguments might not withstand critical examination. Instead of yielding to this intimidation, intended to silence dissent, people should recognize these tactics as signs of argumentative weakness and a questionable moral stance. True morality, in contrast, supports the free exchange of ideas in a secure environment where all perspectives can be considered. Hostile tactics like these often betray an immoral position by those who employ them, despite their attempts to claim moral high ground. Their quickness to suppress dialogue through shaming undermines any claim to ethical superiority. Recognizing these tactics should prompt us to steer the conversation towards more constructive, open engagement, rather than engaging with any of the points raised in the moral intimidation directly, and question the robustness of the positions of those who resort to such methods.