3 ms·
I think my reply to the sibling comment covers most of this. But I am not suggesting that my family is too stupid -- rather, that the level of expertise requir
by andrewla 3y ago
I think my reply to the sibling comment covers most of this.
But I am not suggesting that my family is too stupid -- rather, that the level of expertise required to safely determine whether a given app is safe to sideload is not only beyond the reach of a casual user, it's beyond the reach even of an experienced expert. Is my family too stupid to understand quantum field theory? I don't know -- maybe? Does the framing of "too stupid" make sense with that question?
- archagon 3y agoShould you also allowlist their internet use, then?
- andrewla 3y agoWhat's the "sharp edge of the knife" here? For use of web sites, the assumption has been that the user agent is responsible for preventing websites, no matter how malicious, from performing harmful operations. Even before there was a formal concept of "sandboxing" this was the basic assumption, and the biggest violation of it always came from "hey, download this executable and run it on your machine". Maybe someday we'll have sufficient app isolation that there will be no worries about the idea of running completely untrusted native-code apps on your device. But this is not that day.
- archagon 3y agoIt looks like the off-store app installation method that Apple is developing has exactly the same system protections as App Store apps, including the capability to kill malicious apps. Just as with websites, I think the biggest threat would be deceit: phishing, credit card and identity theft, subscription schemes, etc.