4 ms·

It seems that this is another one of those things where the lowest common denominator sets the rules for everyone. Most people arent tech savvy programmers so g

It seems that this is another one of those things where the lowest common denominator sets the rules for everyone. Most people arent tech savvy programmers so giving them the freedom to do 'whatever they want' will lead them to hurt themselves in some way. Of course this is not an excuse for locking down your hardware. Smartphones just came into being as a consumer-first product and didnt require many of the freedoms that programmers needed, which is why computers are fundamentally more open than smartphones. Apple of course is trying to change that with their Macs

squigz 1y ago
You don't need to be a "tech savvy programmer" to be aware of the risks on the Internet and not do stupid shit.
- rikafurude21 1y ago
  https://xkcd.com/2501/ https://xkcd.com/2501/
  - fleshmonad 1y ago
    Only that nothing about this requires big expertise. If you are a user of computers, you should be able to navigate the basics. It's the same like driving a car, you must know the traffic rules and how to behave, but that doesn't mean you have to understand how your engine works in detail.
    - rikafurude21 1y ago
      If you want to drive a car you go through driving school and have to pass the tests to get a drivers license. Theres no drivers license for the internet and not really any strict set of rules you have to follow in order to get online - most people pick up a sense for rules online by osmosis, usually about how to not get scammed or get malware - sometimes they have to learn by first hand experience. If we go by your comparison this would be like learning to drive by crashing a couple cars. I definitely believe anyone whos even a little tech savvy underestimates how complicated or confusing technology can be for the average person.
- fc417fc802 1y ago
  TBF historically systems were designed with such poor UX that it was sometimes quite difficult not to do stupid things. Such as using Windows back in the day without installing software from the internet at large (ie there was no reputable package manager). But that's a system design issue as opposed to an argument against user freedom.
  - pjmlp 1y ago
    You mean like using curl, shell, and sudo that is so prevalent these days?
    - fc417fc802 1y ago
      Is it? I certainly don't do that. We have access to multiple well known and reasonably well designed distribution mechanisms today. Anyone going the curlbash route is doing so of his own accord and with zero excuse if his known bad choices bites him in the ass. (For the record I have nothing but disdain for those that choose to go this route. Looking at you rustup home page. In contrast LLVM has the decency to provide an apt repository for nightly images.)
gr4vityWall 1y ago
> this is another one of those things where the lowest common denominator sets the rules for everyone In that case, the solution should be to raise the lowest commmon denominator. Lots of issues like that could be prevented by investing in education to increase technology literacy. But long term investments (even public ones) do not match well with quarterly reports.
- rikafurude21 1y ago
  I would say young people grow up with tech and usually are very tech literate.
  - ColinWright 1y ago
    I deal with a lot of young people who have grown up with tech, and my experience is that in general they haven't got a sodding clue about how anything works, or the implications of any of this. Absolutely not a Scooby.
  - shagie 1y ago
    Tech... a "maybe" yes. However, this isn't entirely a tech problem - it's a social/human one. Not every mechanic has a driver's license. Sure, they may enjoy working on cars and the technology of cars... but for one reason or another they may have never gotten or have lost their driver's license. Not everyone who is tech literate is similarly socially literate. I have programmer co-workers who have been scammed into sending gift card authentication codes or installed malware (or allowed the installation) onto their personal computing devices. It isn't possible to prevent someone from accessing the internet any more than it is possible to prevent them from accessing a phone. I am not saying that one should have a license to access the internet. Rather, I am saying that a device that holds and maintains the authentication mechanism for doing banking transactions, it is not unreasonable for the maker of that device and its software to attempt to mitigate the possibility that they are held liable for negligence in allowing user installed software to do banking without the owner's consent. With the uncertainty that everything in the operating system and hardware is locked down to the point where no-consent access by malware to those banking capabilities is completely restricted (and thus they're not liable for negligence) - the wall that is being put up to try to prevent that is "no software that has not been vetted can be run on this device." Consider that the phone is often the authentication mechanism and second factor for authorization to restricted systems. Authy, Microsoft Authenticator, and other 2nd factor applications typically do not run on general computing devices. Technical literacy does not imply social or security literacy.

squigz 1y ago

You don't need to be a "tech savvy programmer" to be aware of the risks on the Internet and not do stupid shit.

rikafurude21 1y ago
https://xkcd.com/2501/ https://xkcd.com/2501/
- fleshmonad 1y ago
  Only that nothing about this requires big expertise. If you are a user of computers, you should be able to navigate the basics. It's the same like driving a car, you must know the traffic rules and how to behave, but that doesn't mean you have to understand how your engine works in detail.
  - rikafurude21 1y ago
    If you want to drive a car you go through driving school and have to pass the tests to get a drivers license. Theres no drivers license for the internet and not really any strict set of rules you have to follow in order to get online - most people pick up a sense for rules online by osmosis, usually about how to not get scammed or get malware - sometimes they have to learn by first hand experience. If we go by your comparison this would be like learning to drive by crashing a couple cars. I definitely believe anyone whos even a little tech savvy underestimates how complicated or confusing technology can be for the average person.
fc417fc802 1y ago
TBF historically systems were designed with such poor UX that it was sometimes quite difficult not to do stupid things. Such as using Windows back in the day without installing software from the internet at large (ie there was no reputable package manager). But that's a system design issue as opposed to an argument against user freedom.
- pjmlp 1y ago
  You mean like using curl, shell, and sudo that is so prevalent these days?
  - fc417fc802 1y ago
    Is it? I certainly don't do that. We have access to multiple well known and reasonably well designed distribution mechanisms today. Anyone going the curlbash route is doing so of his own accord and with zero excuse if his known bad choices bites him in the ass. (For the record I have nothing but disdain for those that choose to go this route. Looking at you rustup home page. In contrast LLVM has the decency to provide an apt repository for nightly images.)

gr4vityWall 1y ago

> this is another one of those things where the lowest common denominator sets the rules for everyone In that case, the solution should be to raise the lowest commmon denominator. Lots of issues like that could be prevented by investing in education to increase technology literacy. But long term investments (even public ones) do not match well with quarterly reports.

rikafurude21 1y ago
I would say young people grow up with tech and usually are very tech literate.
- ColinWright 1y ago
  I deal with a lot of young people who have grown up with tech, and my experience is that in general they haven't got a sodding clue about how anything works, or the implications of any of this. Absolutely not a Scooby.
- shagie 1y ago
  Tech... a "maybe" yes. However, this isn't entirely a tech problem - it's a social/human one. Not every mechanic has a driver's license. Sure, they may enjoy working on cars and the technology of cars... but for one reason or another they may have never gotten or have lost their driver's license. Not everyone who is tech literate is similarly socially literate. I have programmer co-workers who have been scammed into sending gift card authentication codes or installed malware (or allowed the installation) onto their personal computing devices. It isn't possible to prevent someone from accessing the internet any more than it is possible to prevent them from accessing a phone. I am not saying that one should have a license to access the internet. Rather, I am saying that a device that holds and maintains the authentication mechanism for doing banking transactions, it is not unreasonable for the maker of that device and its software to attempt to mitigate the possibility that they are held liable for negligence in allowing user installed software to do banking without the owner's consent. With the uncertainty that everything in the operating system and hardware is locked down to the point where no-consent access by malware to those banking capabilities is completely restricted (and thus they're not liable for negligence) - the wall that is being put up to try to prevent that is "no software that has not been vetted can be run on this device." Consider that the phone is often the authentication mechanism and second factor for authorization to restricted systems. Authy, Microsoft Authenticator, and other 2nd factor applications typically do not run on general computing devices. Technical literacy does not imply social or security literacy.