4 ms·

I want my less tech savvy family members to be able to buy locked-to-the-company-store hardware, that they can’t run other things on, as it protects them from o

by Nursie 1y ago

I want my less tech savvy family members to be able to buy locked-to-the-company-store hardware, that they can’t run other things on, as it protects them from one avenue of scams and hacks. This protection can and will be worked around if it can be easily disabled. Fully open phone systems consistently fail to sell enough to make a difference, which is a bit of a shame, but honestly at this point the market has spoken.

hoppp 1y ago
That is understandable, most people are not technical but the few who has a need for it should have an option for it. As a developer I write apps for myself and I side-load them. Why take away my right to do so, just because other people can't then nobody should?
- Nursie 1y ago
  Because you’re in a tiny minority and it’s more important that more people be protected from malware. Buy a specifically open phone, and support that market segment.
  - hoppp 1y ago
    Well luckily its illegal to do this in Europe due to the Digital Markets Act, so maybe the tiny minority can win .
greatgib 1y ago
Nothing prevents that the device is locked by you instead of the "store" or even that the device has a "safe" mode that has to be explicitly disabled by the user in a non obvious way like connecting the device to a computer and running a command or so. The only important thing is for the bank, Netflix and co to not be able to discriminate. But again nothing would provide the bank to offer a setting for the user to restrict where it can use it's banking app if it was not discriminatory. But we know well where this goes, in the end if you don't enable it
- Nursie 1y ago
  I think the bank should be able to discriminate, they should be allowed to say they only work on locked devices, surely. It’s a security measure, particularly as we place more responsibility on banks to prevent their customers being defrauded.
  - const_cast 1y ago
    You must allow your government issued brain chip in order to have money. But don't worry citizen - you have the choice. You can always choose to never have money. How will we use the brain chip? Citizen, for your security, you must not ever see the brain chip software. You must trust it is perfectly secure and will not be used for nefarious reasons. All citizens who deny the brain chip, please board the train to your designated shanty town.
    - Nursie 1y ago
      This is just facile and childish.
      - const_cast 1y ago
        No, you just don't like it and don't have an argument against it so you resort to "nuh uh!!" Which would be very effective... If we were 8 years old and on the playground. Requiring government approved devices and government approved access to the internet is an authoritarian recipe for disaster. The fact people as naive as you exist to not see that is legitimately mind-blowing.
zigzag312 1y ago
You provided an alterative solution yourself. Make protection harder to disable, so non-tech savvy users can't disable it easily, always inform them of the consequences of disabling it and make it that it's only needed in exceptional cases (there a lot of room for improvement here). If they want to climb over the protection fence, they should be able to do it as they clearly WANT to do it. Why should you have control what they can or cannot do? (Unless they are your kids.) Should experts in other fields also be able to control over what their layman family members are allowed to do?
- Nursie 1y ago
  > always inform them of the consequences This would be about as useful as telling the cat why he can’t go out right now. The words would not be understood, as they won’t be by probably 90% of humanity. > If they want to… They don’t. Categorically. The only reason they would try is because they are being scammed with offers of getting something or cajolement entreating them to allow it. > Why should you have control what they can or cannot do? Me? I’m not asking for control. I’m saying that most people aren’t equipped to understand the threats they face, even in the face of explanation or warning, and their use-cases are comprehensively covered without it. My parents are old. My brother ends up with any PC he owns full of malware and viruses. The current status quo serves them and many millions of other people very well, and we need to be very cautious when arguing to rip this away in the name of our freedom - to them it only represents freedom to be exploited. > Should experts in other fields also be able to control over what their layman family member… Experts in other fields determine the extent of what all laypeople may do legally all the time. Or do you live somewhere that there are zero restrictions on (for example) gas plumbing or work on electrical systems?
  - zigzag312 1y ago
    You are overblowing it out of proportions. Majority of people are capable of understanding warnings just fine, you're not that special. When they can't, it's usually because it was communicated poorly. More often, they choose to ignore it, because of too many useless and overblown warnings. Why aren't your family members sending money to the Nigerian prince? I bet your parents and brother are able to perform money transfer, so the tech isn't blocking it, but they don't do it. Windows has very poor security model. It fails all security requirements I mentioned in my previous post. Needing elevated permissions to move a shortcut to a subfolder on their desktop just trains users that a lot of warning in Windows are useless. A lot of dangerous and stupid activities are legal. Experts influence laws, but they don't have the power to prohibit laymen around them from doing legal things. Running software of your choice on your devices is legal last time I checked.

by Nursie 1y ago

hoppp 1y ago

That is understandable, most people are not technical but the few who has a need for it should have an option for it. As a developer I write apps for myself and I side-load them. Why take away my right to do so, just because other people can't then nobody should?

Nursie 1y ago
Because you’re in a tiny minority and it’s more important that more people be protected from malware. Buy a specifically open phone, and support that market segment.
- hoppp 1y ago
  Well luckily its illegal to do this in Europe due to the Digital Markets Act, so maybe the tiny minority can win .

greatgib 1y ago

Nothing prevents that the device is locked by you instead of the "store" or even that the device has a "safe" mode that has to be explicitly disabled by the user in a non obvious way like connecting the device to a computer and running a command or so. The only important thing is for the bank, Netflix and co to not be able to discriminate. But again nothing would provide the bank to offer a setting for the user to restrict where it can use it's banking app if it was not discriminatory. But we know well where this goes, in the end if you don't enable it

Nursie 1y ago
I think the bank should be able to discriminate, they should be allowed to say they only work on locked devices, surely. It’s a security measure, particularly as we place more responsibility on banks to prevent their customers being defrauded.
- const_cast 1y ago
  You must allow your government issued brain chip in order to have money. But don't worry citizen - you have the choice. You can always choose to never have money. How will we use the brain chip? Citizen, for your security, you must not ever see the brain chip software. You must trust it is perfectly secure and will not be used for nefarious reasons. All citizens who deny the brain chip, please board the train to your designated shanty town.
  - Nursie 1y ago
    This is just facile and childish.
    - const_cast 1y ago
      No, you just don't like it and don't have an argument against it so you resort to "nuh uh!!" Which would be very effective... If we were 8 years old and on the playground. Requiring government approved devices and government approved access to the internet is an authoritarian recipe for disaster. The fact people as naive as you exist to not see that is legitimately mind-blowing.

zigzag312 1y ago

You provided an alterative solution yourself. Make protection harder to disable, so non-tech savvy users can't disable it easily, always inform them of the consequences of disabling it and make it that it's only needed in exceptional cases (there a lot of room for improvement here). If they want to climb over the protection fence, they should be able to do it as they clearly WANT to do it. Why should you have control what they can or cannot do? (Unless they are your kids.) Should experts in other fields also be able to control over what their layman family members are allowed to do?

Nursie 1y ago
> always inform them of the consequences This would be about as useful as telling the cat why he can’t go out right now. The words would not be understood, as they won’t be by probably 90% of humanity. > If they want to… They don’t. Categorically. The only reason they would try is because they are being scammed with offers of getting something or cajolement entreating them to allow it. > Why should you have control what they can or cannot do? Me? I’m not asking for control. I’m saying that most people aren’t equipped to understand the threats they face, even in the face of explanation or warning, and their use-cases are comprehensively covered without it. My parents are old. My brother ends up with any PC he owns full of malware and viruses. The current status quo serves them and many millions of other people very well, and we need to be very cautious when arguing to rip this away in the name of our freedom - to them it only represents freedom to be exploited. > Should experts in other fields also be able to control over what their layman family member… Experts in other fields determine the extent of what all laypeople may do legally all the time. Or do you live somewhere that there are zero restrictions on (for example) gas plumbing or work on electrical systems?
- zigzag312 1y ago
  You are overblowing it out of proportions. Majority of people are capable of understanding warnings just fine, you're not that special. When they can't, it's usually because it was communicated poorly. More often, they choose to ignore it, because of too many useless and overblown warnings. Why aren't your family members sending money to the Nigerian prince? I bet your parents and brother are able to perform money transfer, so the tech isn't blocking it, but they don't do it. Windows has very poor security model. It fails all security requirements I mentioned in my previous post. Needing elevated permissions to move a shortcut to a subfolder on their desktop just trains users that a lot of warning in Windows are useless. A lot of dangerous and stupid activities are legal. Experts influence laws, but they don't have the power to prohibit laymen around them from doing legal things. Running software of your choice on your devices is legal last time I checked.