5 ms·

This kind of thing reminds me of why I've always felt there shouldn't be a gatekeeper. Add your repos, install your apps. Folks should be allowed to have more t

This kind of thing reminds me of why I've always felt there shouldn't be a gatekeeper. Add your repos, install your apps. Folks should be allowed to have more than one repo to install apps from.

iamnothere 2mo ago
But if you allow users to have freedom, grandma will get hacked! We should all be told what to do and where to go and rely on gatekeepers for permission, for safety. (And no, of course there’s not any solution that would allow competent individuals to go outside the safe zone.)
- ceejayoz 2mo ago
  There's a saying about how hard it can be to design bear-resistant containers: > There is considerable overlap between the intelligence of the smartest bears and the dumbest tourists. The same is true for computers. Solutions that "allow competent individuals" to do something are also typically solutions scammers can convince Grandma to perform without understanding what they do. (Case in point: I saw a fake captcha that told you to open Terminal and paste a command to "prove" you're human; https://www.reddit.com/r/mac/comments/1rq4bh6/warning_suspicious_captcha/ https://www.reddit.com/r/mac/comments/1rq4bh6/warning_suspic...)
  - iamnothere 2mo ago
    Exactly, computers should only be allowed to do what expert gatekeepers deem safe. There is no possible way to allow competent users to bypass this. Even if they had to go submit a blood sample and sign a document in front of a judge, grandma would just do it anyway! Lock it all down and make sure that compilers require a government license.
    - ceejayoz 2mo ago
      The flip side of this is: Pro: I can use a convoluted process to install an astronomy app Apple didn't like. Con: Billions of dollars of life savings siphoned off with devastating consequences. I'm by no means a maximalist on either side of this, but technologists aren't the only ones who get a say here.
      - iamnothere 2mo ago
        Correct. As a side benefit we can restrict users from installing applications that go against other societal interests, like apps that allow unrestricted communications. The framework is complete for mobile devices, we just need to tackle PCs now.
        ceejayoz 2mo ago
        Loudly dismissing genuine and legitimate concerns may feel good, but it’s not likely to get you what you want, especially at a societal level. I agree with you on the risks of this sort of protection! But I understand what it’s like for non-technical folks in a technical society. Their needs do matter.
        iamnothere 2mo ago
        You’re precisely right, and of course there’s no possible way on Earth that we could create a safe way to allow users to install apps outside of the blessed path. No matter how many steps people have to go through, even if they have to pass a special exam to prove their competence, even if they have to sign something that says they could lose their life savings and submit it to a court to document this fact. There’s just not a single possible way to protect people to an adequate degree. That the gatekeeper and government benefit from this arrangement is just a happy accident.
        ceejayoz 2mo ago
        There isn’t a way for everyone to be able to do what they want with computing devices and be safe from this shit. That’s the reality. As with most things in society, it’s left to people to negotiate the balance.
  - Rohansi 2mo ago
    Scammers will manage to manipulate people into giving away all of their savings just fine no matter what restrictions are put in place. The excuse is just another "think of the children" to maintain control and profit.
    - ceejayoz 2mo ago
      People will murder people, too. We don't have to make it trivially easy.
      - Timon3 2mo ago
        So your solution is to ban the sale of any kind of knife. Sucks that people can't really cook at home anymore, but do we have to make it trivially easy for murderers?
        ceejayoz 2mo ago
        > So your solution is to ban the sale of any kind of knife. If you give a toddler a butcher's knife to play with and they get hurt, you'll likely get in trouble for child endangerment. Using my car requires it be registered, pass my state's safety standards, and that I possess a valid license and follow a wide variety of rules. Maybe a certain level of protection is, at times, acceptable?
        Rohansi 2mo ago
        Those are very different scenarios because your "protection" is the threat of consequences. You can freely buy and use knives, you can drive your own car, but you can only use your phone to do what Apple approves of? Sure, banning knives, replacing cars with public transport, and locking down all computers should be safer in theory... but murderers will still murder and scammers will still scam. Social engineering is the weakest link even if your grandma is doing all her banking on Windows XP.
        ceejayoz 2mo ago
- grishka 2mo ago
  The society should change such that grandmas could decide for themselves whether they want tech or not, and still have a comfortable life if they choose to not use it. In our current society, smartphones and the internet are forced on everyone. It's not really a choice any more. Which is quite sad.
  - lazyasciiart 2mo ago
    My grandma does want tech because she loves sharing pictures with her grandchildren throughout the day. That doesn’t mean she wants to send money to Nigeria through a fake banking app?
    - dgellow 2mo ago
      You grandma can keep the „restricted“ flag on then. I will be happy to disable it on my device
      - macintux 2mo ago
        My concern has been that companies with a huge install base (hi, Meta) would take advantage of this: "in order to provide you with the best experience, you have to turn off the restricted flag to install the next release of our app". And then, billions of users cry out in pain as their private data is hoovered into the panopticon in the cloud.
        iamnothere 2mo ago
        Exactly, and it’s impossible to regulate those business practices! Don’t even try! Better to limit what people can do on their own computing devices, or better yet remove that ownership entirely.
        bigyabai 2mo ago
        > And then, billions of users cry out in pain as their private data is hoovered into the panopticon in the cloud. That's not how data collection works? It's Apple's responsibility to prevent their application runtime from exposing private data or unnecessary entitlements. Enabling sideloading does not prevent Apple from protecting user data any more than the App Store does.
- MostlyStable 2mo ago
  There is an easy solution to this: Allow the user to decide whether they want to allow for apps from outside a particular ecosystem. Then Johnny can set up Grandma's phone and (in a deep byzantine menu where she will never accidentally stumble on it, maybe locked behind a pin), Johnny can set it so that Granny's phone can only install software from "Super premium, high class, curated, guaranteed not to hack your phone" walled garden app store. And Johnny, on his own phone, can choose what to download himself, including from the "Buyer Beware, half our shit is malware" dark web app store. In my opinion, the Apple app store should actually be FAR more curated than it is, and far less curated options should be equally available. The Apple App store (and the Google app store for that matter), should be a relatively small list of apps that have extremely high standards and guarantees. It should essentially be impossible for spammy bullshit to get into these places. User-controlled, parental control like options should determine whether or not other app sources can be installed from (including allowing for specific other sources, so that app source control can be granular and detailed. I should be allowed to add FDroid but nothing else for example). Done. Problem solved. Everyone is happy. Grandma is safe and Johnny has control over his phone. But of course, that assumes that keeping Granny safe is actually the reason. Facially obviously, it is not, and is in fact entirely pretextual.
  - zbentley 2mo ago
    There are two big problems with this (not that Apple’s caprice is the only alternative): 1. The vast majority of people are Grandma, and they do not have a Johnny available to administer their tech. Most people are not technical. 2. The vast majority of Grandmas will follow instructions on a “how do I share cute photo” website even when that website directs them to dig deep into configuration settings and ignore six “are you sure you want to allow this app to fully remotely control your device?” warnings. Even if Grandma has a healthy suspicion of scams, when she is instead trying to accomplish a goal she will suddenly prove quite adept at giving software with questionable provenance root access to her life.
    - CamperBob2 2mo ago
      And what if my grandma is Admiral Hopper. I wonder if there's a way to argue for or against paternalistic corporate gatekeepers without invoking sexism, ageism, or both?

This kind of thing reminds me of why I've always felt there shouldn't be a gatekeeper. Add your repos, install your apps. Folks should be allowed to have more than one repo to install apps from.

iamnothere 2mo ago

But if you allow users to have freedom, grandma will get hacked! We should all be told what to do and where to go and rely on gatekeepers for permission, for safety. (And no, of course there’s not any solution that would allow competent individuals to go outside the safe zone.)

ceejayoz 2mo ago
There's a saying about how hard it can be to design bear-resistant containers: > There is considerable overlap between the intelligence of the smartest bears and the dumbest tourists. The same is true for computers. Solutions that "allow competent individuals" to do something are also typically solutions scammers can convince Grandma to perform without understanding what they do. (Case in point: I saw a fake captcha that told you to open Terminal and paste a command to "prove" you're human; https://www.reddit.com/r/mac/comments/1rq4bh6/warning_suspicious_captcha/ https://www.reddit.com/r/mac/comments/1rq4bh6/warning_suspic...)
- iamnothere 2mo ago
  Exactly, computers should only be allowed to do what expert gatekeepers deem safe. There is no possible way to allow competent users to bypass this. Even if they had to go submit a blood sample and sign a document in front of a judge, grandma would just do it anyway! Lock it all down and make sure that compilers require a government license.
  - ceejayoz 2mo ago
    The flip side of this is: Pro: I can use a convoluted process to install an astronomy app Apple didn't like. Con: Billions of dollars of life savings siphoned off with devastating consequences. I'm by no means a maximalist on either side of this, but technologists aren't the only ones who get a say here.
    - iamnothere 2mo ago
      Correct. As a side benefit we can restrict users from installing applications that go against other societal interests, like apps that allow unrestricted communications. The framework is complete for mobile devices, we just need to tackle PCs now.
      - ceejayoz 2mo ago
        Loudly dismissing genuine and legitimate concerns may feel good, but it’s not likely to get you what you want, especially at a societal level. I agree with you on the risks of this sort of protection! But I understand what it’s like for non-technical folks in a technical society. Their needs do matter.
        iamnothere 2mo ago
        You’re precisely right, and of course there’s no possible way on Earth that we could create a safe way to allow users to install apps outside of the blessed path. No matter how many steps people have to go through, even if they have to pass a special exam to prove their competence, even if they have to sign something that says they could lose their life savings and submit it to a court to document this fact. There’s just not a single possible way to protect people to an adequate degree. That the gatekeeper and government benefit from this arrangement is just a happy accident.
        ceejayoz 2mo ago
        There isn’t a way for everyone to be able to do what they want with computing devices and be safe from this shit. That’s the reality. As with most things in society, it’s left to people to negotiate the balance.
- Rohansi 2mo ago
  Scammers will manage to manipulate people into giving away all of their savings just fine no matter what restrictions are put in place. The excuse is just another "think of the children" to maintain control and profit.
  - ceejayoz 2mo ago
    People will murder people, too. We don't have to make it trivially easy.
    - Timon3 2mo ago
      So your solution is to ban the sale of any kind of knife. Sucks that people can't really cook at home anymore, but do we have to make it trivially easy for murderers?
      - ceejayoz 2mo ago
        > So your solution is to ban the sale of any kind of knife. If you give a toddler a butcher's knife to play with and they get hurt, you'll likely get in trouble for child endangerment. Using my car requires it be registered, pass my state's safety standards, and that I possess a valid license and follow a wide variety of rules. Maybe a certain level of protection is, at times, acceptable?
        Rohansi 2mo ago
        Those are very different scenarios because your "protection" is the threat of consequences. You can freely buy and use knives, you can drive your own car, but you can only use your phone to do what Apple approves of? Sure, banning knives, replacing cars with public transport, and locking down all computers should be safer in theory... but murderers will still murder and scammers will still scam. Social engineering is the weakest link even if your grandma is doing all her banking on Windows XP.
        ceejayoz 2mo ago
grishka 2mo ago
The society should change such that grandmas could decide for themselves whether they want tech or not, and still have a comfortable life if they choose to not use it. In our current society, smartphones and the internet are forced on everyone. It's not really a choice any more. Which is quite sad.
- lazyasciiart 2mo ago
  My grandma does want tech because she loves sharing pictures with her grandchildren throughout the day. That doesn’t mean she wants to send money to Nigeria through a fake banking app?
  - dgellow 2mo ago
    You grandma can keep the „restricted“ flag on then. I will be happy to disable it on my device
    - macintux 2mo ago
      My concern has been that companies with a huge install base (hi, Meta) would take advantage of this: "in order to provide you with the best experience, you have to turn off the restricted flag to install the next release of our app". And then, billions of users cry out in pain as their private data is hoovered into the panopticon in the cloud.
      - iamnothere 2mo ago
        Exactly, and it’s impossible to regulate those business practices! Don’t even try! Better to limit what people can do on their own computing devices, or better yet remove that ownership entirely.
      - bigyabai 2mo ago
        > And then, billions of users cry out in pain as their private data is hoovered into the panopticon in the cloud. That's not how data collection works? It's Apple's responsibility to prevent their application runtime from exposing private data or unnecessary entitlements. Enabling sideloading does not prevent Apple from protecting user data any more than the App Store does.
MostlyStable 2mo ago
There is an easy solution to this: Allow the user to decide whether they want to allow for apps from outside a particular ecosystem. Then Johnny can set up Grandma's phone and (in a deep byzantine menu where she will never accidentally stumble on it, maybe locked behind a pin), Johnny can set it so that Granny's phone can only install software from "Super premium, high class, curated, guaranteed not to hack your phone" walled garden app store. And Johnny, on his own phone, can choose what to download himself, including from the "Buyer Beware, half our shit is malware" dark web app store. In my opinion, the Apple app store should actually be FAR more curated than it is, and far less curated options should be equally available. The Apple App store (and the Google app store for that matter), should be a relatively small list of apps that have extremely high standards and guarantees. It should essentially be impossible for spammy bullshit to get into these places. User-controlled, parental control like options should determine whether or not other app sources can be installed from (including allowing for specific other sources, so that app source control can be granular and detailed. I should be allowed to add FDroid but nothing else for example). Done. Problem solved. Everyone is happy. Grandma is safe and Johnny has control over his phone. But of course, that assumes that keeping Granny safe is actually the reason. Facially obviously, it is not, and is in fact entirely pretextual.
- zbentley 2mo ago
  There are two big problems with this (not that Apple’s caprice is the only alternative): 1. The vast majority of people are Grandma, and they do not have a Johnny available to administer their tech. Most people are not technical. 2. The vast majority of Grandmas will follow instructions on a “how do I share cute photo” website even when that website directs them to dig deep into configuration settings and ignore six “are you sure you want to allow this app to fully remotely control your device?” warnings. Even if Grandma has a healthy suspicion of scams, when she is instead trying to accomplish a goal she will suddenly prove quite adept at giving software with questionable provenance root access to her life.
  - CamperBob2 2mo ago
    And what if my grandma is Admiral Hopper. I wonder if there's a way to argue for or against paternalistic corporate gatekeepers without invoking sexism, ageism, or both?