5 ms·
I used to think this way but then I saw how non-techy people use their devices. Something like this would inevitably be abused and result in wave of malware so
by emmelaich 2y ago
I used to think this way but then I saw how non-techy people use their devices.
Something like this would inevitably be abused and result in wave of malware so massive that it would render the internet too hostile for all but the most careful, knowledgable and paranoid users.
- Palomides 2y ago"everyone is too stupid to be trusted with general purpose computers" is a pretty grim position to hold
- emmelaich 2y agoYou left out the vital clause. "... if they have total unfettered control". Also, not everyone. Obviously. It's a position I came to rather regretfully and sadly.
- LocalH 2y agoHow do you propose we limit access to general-purpose computing without doing so across the board for everyone? How would you block bad actors from general-purpose computing? Require licensing to use development tools, and track what they're used for so you can react when someone crosses that "line"? Congratulations, you've just destroyed computing.
- jmb99 2y agoWhile obviously not perfect, what we have today is > limit[ing] access to general-purpose computing without doing so across the board for everyone I imagine the vast majority of people on this site run (or at least have used) Linux, *BSD, etc. on a daily basis. No average person is going to set up Arch on their main PC, but lots of us do. Your average person enjoys their locked-down Samsungs and iPhones, while we enjoy unlocked problem-ridden (but personally solvable) Linux environments. Would it be better if every person who could buy an iPhone was sufficiently technically competent to not install malware on their easily-rootable phone? Yes. But that’s not the world we live in. Maybe I’m succumbing to the “First They Came...” mindset, but until I can’t run Linux on a PC I’ve built with components of my choosing, I don’t really care if my phone is a semi-closed semi-black box. I used to enjoy jailbreaking iOS devices, but eventually decided I’m happy with my phone just being a phone. If I want to tinker, I’ve got a rack full of servers and 3 different workstations I have the freedom to break whenever I want. It’s nice to have a phone that can just do phone things 100% of the time - I haven’t had an iOS system crash (or any bug preventing use) in about 5 years, which was the last time I had a jailbroken phone.
- gjsman-1000 2y agoA grim position that is completely accurate for over 90% of people.
- lightedman 2y agoA grim position that accurately reflects my 36 years of experience involving people and computers.
- fsflover 2y agoIs it about computers only, or should the people be protected from themselves in every aspect of life?
- lightedman 2y ago"should the people be protected from themselves" There's a line from Blazing Saddles that comes to mind...
- lapcat 2y agoAs the author mentions, desktop computers have always been (mostly) unlocked. This comment is just over the top scaremongering.
- emmelaich 2y agoEven with access controls, people do things like download chrome from random web sites, then do their banking with the result. If the fake-chrome requested admin access then you'd never be able trust anything on that computer ever again. Even re-installing the OS wouldn't fix it. It would no longer be your computer.
- stavros 2y agoSo because it would no longer be our computer, we should buy one that's not ours from the start?
- emmelaich 2y agoI guess, pretty much. For the vast majority of computer users, all we can do is buy it from someone we mostly trust (to be competent and trustworthy). Pretty sad state of affairs, huh?
- stavros 2y agoNo, I don't think that's true. We got used to insecure systems, and then accepted Big Brother as a security model. We can have secure devices that aren't owned by a corporation, but judging by the comments section here, nobody knows that.
- emmelaich 2y agoHow might that work? You personally have the keys to the TPM? Then some confidence trickster will tell a naive user that to make big$buck$ on the internet you'll need to handover your TPM key. And people will.
- qmr 2y agoStupidest take I've seen today. There are already myriad unlockable devices. What a bizarre fantasy you have constructed.
- emmelaich 2y agoLet me clarify .. if you have an unlocked device, then software vendors should be able to ensure that their software is non-functional on such a device. Given that, then anything very useful would be rendered non-functional, resulting in the device probably being useless.
- yjftsjthsd-h 2y agoWhy should a software vendor be allowed to say what I can and can't run on my machine?
- jmb99 2y agoBecause it’s their software? It is well within your bank’s rights to deny you access to their online banking system for pretty much any (technical) reason they choose; why are you entitled to run their app on what they deem to be an insecure platform? If you don’t like it, either pick a different bank or deal with not having access to their software. Freedom cuts both ways here; if you want absolute freedom to do whatever you want with your device, why should software vendors not have absolute freedom to choose what platforms their software is permitted to run on? Obviously none of this applies to FOSS.
- raxxor 2y agoThey do have that right as long as they do not sabotage the integrity of the system. Personally I would quickly use other software developers and banks. Competition would sort that out quickly. Today banks don't want to be liable for user error that lead to scams. They adhere to such policies out of fear, but they don't help as the most prominent victims of scams are still the same people, open system or not.
- 2y ago
- BeFlatXIII 2y agoGood. Boot the normies offline again. Bring back the glory days of the internet being an exclusive club of nerds.