4 ms·

Maybe if it did something very specific you had to set up. Maybe. "You're using Microsoft Edge, would you like to record your (specific) usage of passwords,

by araes 2y ago

Maybe if it did something very specific you had to set up. Maybe. "You're using Microsoft Edge, would you like to record your (specific) usage of passwords, personal data, and form entries?" (that can be found encrypted (here) if you're interested) Not some large scale screenshot operation. The issue is with taking "snapshots of your screen" with no real knowledge of what is even going to be worked on or recorded afterward. How horrible are the identity theft issues? (BS non-threats requiring logins: social blab / news website account with no money attached, Normal dangerous stuff: credit card use (cancel/contest), Somewhat rare: bank accounts (long bank fight), Rare and dangerous: scanned federal IDs (endless nightmares with the feds)) It even makes the task a greater difficulty because there's so little specificity about what's being recorded or what form the recorded information is going to take. And the results are notably spotty like the article mentions. Also, 95% users. [1] "Across 33 rich countries, only 5% of the population has high computer-related abilities, and only a third of people can complete medium-complexity tasks" Even if we put this in the "only Poor and Terrible skill users would fail" that's still ~50% of the population. How many click through stuff with "Yet another BS alert to get rid of. Go away, I want to actually use my computer." The WWW has long ago deadened most to annoying spam popup authorizations. [1] The Distribution of Users’ Computer Skills: Worse Than You Think: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/computer-skill-levels/ https://www.nngroup.com/articles/computer-skill-levels/

Spivak 2y ago
So the argument is actually I know better and because I know better my decision should be forced on others for their safety. It's easy to make this argument when you believe you have the truth on your side but what happens when you're on the other side of someone else's obvious truth— secure boot can't be disabled, you can only install apps from the app store, programmatic ad blocking is too dangerous, replacement parts have to be genuine, you're forbidden from performing maintenance on your electric car, we can't let you have unrestricted AI access, we couldn't possibly let you see the source code of your cellular chip, we scan all your private photo uploads for csam, all for your safety of course.
- araes 2y ago
  Not a single one of those examples is relevant. > secure boot can't be disabled - arguing for the ability of fine scale control on "secure boot" > only install apps from the app store - arguing for "install apps with known behaviors" and "specifically identified hardware access" > programmatic ad blocking is too dangerous - arguing for fine scale filters that the user has awareness of and the ability to choose specific types of content to remove > replacement parts have to be genuine - arguing for "parts with tested and verified behaviors" documented by a reliable testing agency with layers of verifiable history and previous known functional parts supported by users with well documented case study examples > forbidden from performing maintenance on your electric car - arguing for "you as the user can do literally anything you want to your own car (within the known legal limits of your state or nationality)" rather than having the auto company install a bunch of secondary BS you have no idea what its actually doing > we can't let you have unrestricted AI access - arguing "each user can download whatever variation of each 'AI' each user desires tailored toward their own specific use cases" > let you see the source code of your cellular chip - arguing for the "right to maintain, disassemble, and repair your own hardware" if you've bought the hardware > we scan all your private photo uploads for csam - arguing for "no one anywhere is allowed to have external access to your hardware without an extremely well documented rationale."
  - Spivak 2y ago
    What are you talking about? They're all real life examples of some person or group arguing for denying users control of or access to their own systems under the pretense that denials are for the user's safety or best interest. And that interest is so self-evident that the decision should be made for them because we know better than they do. You're making the exact same case for the scare screens Android uses.

by araes 2y ago

Spivak 2y ago

So the argument is actually I know better and because I know better my decision should be forced on others for their safety. It's easy to make this argument when you believe you have the truth on your side but what happens when you're on the other side of someone else's obvious truth— secure boot can't be disabled, you can only install apps from the app store, programmatic ad blocking is too dangerous, replacement parts have to be genuine, you're forbidden from performing maintenance on your electric car, we can't let you have unrestricted AI access, we couldn't possibly let you see the source code of your cellular chip, we scan all your private photo uploads for csam, all for your safety of course.

araes 2y ago
Not a single one of those examples is relevant. > secure boot can't be disabled - arguing for the ability of fine scale control on "secure boot" > only install apps from the app store - arguing for "install apps with known behaviors" and "specifically identified hardware access" > programmatic ad blocking is too dangerous - arguing for fine scale filters that the user has awareness of and the ability to choose specific types of content to remove > replacement parts have to be genuine - arguing for "parts with tested and verified behaviors" documented by a reliable testing agency with layers of verifiable history and previous known functional parts supported by users with well documented case study examples > forbidden from performing maintenance on your electric car - arguing for "you as the user can do literally anything you want to your own car (within the known legal limits of your state or nationality)" rather than having the auto company install a bunch of secondary BS you have no idea what its actually doing > we can't let you have unrestricted AI access - arguing "each user can download whatever variation of each 'AI' each user desires tailored toward their own specific use cases" > let you see the source code of your cellular chip - arguing for the "right to maintain, disassemble, and repair your own hardware" if you've bought the hardware > we scan all your private photo uploads for csam - arguing for "no one anywhere is allowed to have external access to your hardware without an extremely well documented rationale."
- Spivak 2y ago
  What are you talking about? They're all real life examples of some person or group arguing for denying users control of or access to their own systems under the pretense that denials are for the user's safety or best interest. And that interest is so self-evident that the decision should be made for them because we know better than they do. You're making the exact same case for the scare screens Android uses.