3 ms·

Many of us have routinely cleaned computers from adults that installed several Ask Jeeves and Yahoo toolbars.

by pjmlp 24d ago

compass_copium 24d ago
At some point computers need to stop being treated as magical boxes that no reasonable person can learn how to use safely. We expect people who use cars to learn how to use them safely, we expect people who use lawnmowers to not stick their fingers in them. Computers have been a part of daily life for normies for decades at this point, it's infantilizing to suggest that average, non-tech savvy people can't learn to use (not necessarily build, repair, etc.) them properly and need to be protected from them.
- pjmlp 24d ago
  People have to successfully get through a state exam in order to drive cars in first place, can be jailed, get fined when not driving them safely, or forbidden for life to ever drive again. People that accidentality cut their fingers in lawnmowers due to lack of safety features are allowed to sue the lawnmower company. What I would agree is that it is about time computing gets the same liability laws that the rest of the world already has in place and no EULAs that work around local laws should be considered valid in any form or shape.
  - voakbasda 24d ago
    Do you hate open source and want only projects where their authors can afford liability insurance and are willing to put themselves in the firing line of a legal system that can be both arbitrary and capricious? Because that’s what you seem to want.
    - pjmlp 24d ago
      Even people selling on the street or doing charity work have to account for liability of their actions. Lets stop talking about open source as special snowflakes where everything is excused.
      - voakbasda 24d ago
        And that’s how you prevent bake sales, lemonade stands, and more. You create a barrier to entry that gets raised little by little until only the biggest players can afford the game. Software liability would end all small open source projects.
        pjmlp 24d ago
        Bake sales and lemonade stands are perfectly fine as long as people don't land on hospital urgency, due to careless work on preparing them with spoiled ingredients or lack of hygiene. Lets strive for quality in software.
        Dylan16807 23d ago
        Now do that again without careless work or spoiled ingredients. Do you still want them punished or facing so much regulation they can't exist? Because you'll definitely get that with software; even really good development will have flaws, and single flaws can lead to a thousand or million hacks.
        pjmlp 23d ago
        All humans face scrutiny in their interactions with others. Software only got this bad, because we educated users broken tools are acceptable and fixable with computer reboots and anti-virus.
        Dylan16807 23d ago
        I dunno, people seem to accept most kinds of tool being fussy or flaky. But the special thing about security flaws is that they turn a one in a billion error into a guaranteed attack. It's moderately hard to make something that doesn't feel buggy, but ridiculously hard to be secure. If you hold to the standards of a bake sale it's the former. If you want full security then nobody releases anything outside very strict contracts.
  - dml2135 24d ago
    >People that accidentality cut their fingers in lawnmowers due to lack of safety features are allowed to sue the lawnmower company. Anyone is allowed to sue the lawnmower company. Did they win?
    - lightedman 24d ago
      The amount of "Do not put hands here" labels I've seen on lawnmowers would suggest that, yes, someone did sue and win (or at the least got a settlement) and thus the lawyers forced the companies to put disclaimers and warnings on the lawnmower, directly on the top of the deck in plain sight.
  - close04 24d ago
    On power tools, appliances, etc. the safety features are at the user's latitude to bypass. They are usually a hint (don't microwave your dog), not a hard barrier ("I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that"). A spinning blade is covered by a grill you can trivially remove without permission from anyone. I agree that the defaults should be secure, but you can't force security on people without creating parallel issues which are maybe worse. Centralizing this power in a single point can have orders of magnitude bigger blast radius than a security failure on an app. At some point users have to take responsibility and be accountable for their actions. We can't just infantilize them forever as if a magical hand will always be over them protecting and having their best interest in mind. And we certainly shouldn't punish every user for the sake of some of them. The worst part is that Google gets the benefit of putting itself as the central point of control over the ecosystem based on a promise to keep users safe, but without any of the liability from failing to keep that promise. When the app store is chock full of malware I'm really starting to suspect that their goal is actually only the control. And all those people defending it with "but people don't know better, they need a hand to guide them" were equally misled. What do you think?
    - pjmlp 24d ago
      Yes, and when they fail to do so, there are laws in place for liability of third party, or when their own irresponsible actions affects others.
- marcosdumay 24d ago
  Well, computers first stop being magical machines that no person can learn how to use safely, then. And, honestly, if you think the endpoint safety problem doesn't apply to you, you are part of the problem.
  - compass_copium 22d ago
    The endpoint safety problem obviously applies to me and every person connected to the World Wide Web, but the grandparent was talking about The Olds who install the AskJeeves and the Yahoo! toolbars and Bonzi Buddy and... If computers aren't safe enough that a reasonably competent user, who doesn't open random files they found online and obvious spear-phishing emails, can't use one without losing their 401k, then maybe we need to just reevaluate modern life and go back to bank tellers.
- misnome 24d ago
  Using a computer wrong doesn't kill people.
  - pjmlp 24d ago
    Depends on what those computers are responsible for.
  - jprjr_ 24d ago
    Yes and no. The computer itself won't really do anything. But I'm sure suicides go up when people lose all their money, or get personal private details leaked, and so on.
  - m4rtink 24d ago
    ehm: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25
    - anonymars 24d ago
      > "One [software fault] was when the operator incorrectly selected X-ray mode then in 8 seconds quickly changing to electron mode, which allowed the electron beam to be set for X-ray mode without the X-ray target being in place" Therac-25 is an important software-development case study but a torturous stretch of "Using a computer wrong"
      - deleted 23d ago
        [deleted]
    - misnome 23d ago
      You are right! Computer use should be taught, tested and licensed exactly the same way of steering several tons of metal at 70mph are!
    - deleted 23d ago
      [deleted]
  - esikich 24d ago
sunaookami 24d ago
And e.g. browsers cracked down on it, removed toolbar support and powerful add-on support AND enforced signing meaning everything goes through their gatekept extension store and these problems still persist (e.g. addons changing the search provider, new tab page or homepage). Locking everything down does not help.
- pjmlp 24d ago
  More a problem of those stores still not being properly validated rather a dumping ground for extensions, than anything else.
  - sunaookami 23d ago
    A problem that can't be solved, you can't check every single program out there much like you can't check every single human ever even with cameras installed everywhere.
    - pjmlp 23d ago
      Just because some people still die with seatbelts, does not mean they aren't safer without them. Yes you can check every single program out there, when digital stores are the only acquisition mechanism. Or as alternative, signed binaries. Coupled with liability like anything else in our societies.
- no-name-here 24d ago
  > does not help Is that true - do you not see significantly fewer of those installs on random PCs now than you did years ago? And that's even with the current situation not being what I'd call fully locked down.
  - sunaookami 23d ago
    Nope.

Many of us have routinely cleaned computers from adults that installed several Ask Jeeves and Yahoo toolbars.

by pjmlp 24d ago

Many of us have routinely cleaned computers from adults that installed several Ask Jeeves and Yahoo toolbars.

At some point computers need to stop being treated as magical boxes that no reasonable person can learn how to use safely. We expect people who use cars to learn how to use them safely, we expect people who use lawnmowers to not stick their fingers in them. Computers have been a part of daily life for normies for decades at this point, it's infantilizing to suggest that average, non-tech savvy people can't learn to use (not necessarily build, repair, etc.) them properly and need to be protected from them.

pjmlp 24d ago
People have to successfully get through a state exam in order to drive cars in first place, can be jailed, get fined when not driving them safely, or forbidden for life to ever drive again. People that accidentality cut their fingers in lawnmowers due to lack of safety features are allowed to sue the lawnmower company. What I would agree is that it is about time computing gets the same liability laws that the rest of the world already has in place and no EULAs that work around local laws should be considered valid in any form or shape.
- voakbasda 24d ago
  Do you hate open source and want only projects where their authors can afford liability insurance and are willing to put themselves in the firing line of a legal system that can be both arbitrary and capricious? Because that’s what you seem to want.
  - pjmlp 24d ago
    Even people selling on the street or doing charity work have to account for liability of their actions. Lets stop talking about open source as special snowflakes where everything is excused.
    - voakbasda 24d ago
      And that’s how you prevent bake sales, lemonade stands, and more. You create a barrier to entry that gets raised little by little until only the biggest players can afford the game. Software liability would end all small open source projects.
      - pjmlp 24d ago
        Bake sales and lemonade stands are perfectly fine as long as people don't land on hospital urgency, due to careless work on preparing them with spoiled ingredients or lack of hygiene. Lets strive for quality in software.
        Dylan16807 23d ago
        Now do that again without careless work or spoiled ingredients. Do you still want them punished or facing so much regulation they can't exist? Because you'll definitely get that with software; even really good development will have flaws, and single flaws can lead to a thousand or million hacks.
        pjmlp 23d ago
        All humans face scrutiny in their interactions with others. Software only got this bad, because we educated users broken tools are acceptable and fixable with computer reboots and anti-virus.
        Dylan16807 23d ago
        I dunno, people seem to accept most kinds of tool being fussy or flaky. But the special thing about security flaws is that they turn a one in a billion error into a guaranteed attack. It's moderately hard to make something that doesn't feel buggy, but ridiculously hard to be secure. If you hold to the standards of a bake sale it's the former. If you want full security then nobody releases anything outside very strict contracts.
- dml2135 24d ago
  >People that accidentality cut their fingers in lawnmowers due to lack of safety features are allowed to sue the lawnmower company. Anyone is allowed to sue the lawnmower company. Did they win?
  - lightedman 24d ago
    The amount of "Do not put hands here" labels I've seen on lawnmowers would suggest that, yes, someone did sue and win (or at the least got a settlement) and thus the lawyers forced the companies to put disclaimers and warnings on the lawnmower, directly on the top of the deck in plain sight.
- close04 24d ago
  On power tools, appliances, etc. the safety features are at the user's latitude to bypass. They are usually a hint (don't microwave your dog), not a hard barrier ("I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that"). A spinning blade is covered by a grill you can trivially remove without permission from anyone. I agree that the defaults should be secure, but you can't force security on people without creating parallel issues which are maybe worse. Centralizing this power in a single point can have orders of magnitude bigger blast radius than a security failure on an app. At some point users have to take responsibility and be accountable for their actions. We can't just infantilize them forever as if a magical hand will always be over them protecting and having their best interest in mind. And we certainly shouldn't punish every user for the sake of some of them. The worst part is that Google gets the benefit of putting itself as the central point of control over the ecosystem based on a promise to keep users safe, but without any of the liability from failing to keep that promise. When the app store is chock full of malware I'm really starting to suspect that their goal is actually only the control. And all those people defending it with "but people don't know better, they need a hand to guide them" were equally misled. What do you think?
  - pjmlp 24d ago
    Yes, and when they fail to do so, there are laws in place for liability of third party, or when their own irresponsible actions affects others.
marcosdumay 24d ago
Well, computers first stop being magical machines that no person can learn how to use safely, then. And, honestly, if you think the endpoint safety problem doesn't apply to you, you are part of the problem.
- compass_copium 22d ago
  The endpoint safety problem obviously applies to me and every person connected to the World Wide Web, but the grandparent was talking about The Olds who install the AskJeeves and the Yahoo! toolbars and Bonzi Buddy and... If computers aren't safe enough that a reasonably competent user, who doesn't open random files they found online and obvious spear-phishing emails, can't use one without losing their 401k, then maybe we need to just reevaluate modern life and go back to bank tellers.
misnome 24d ago
Using a computer wrong doesn't kill people.
- pjmlp 24d ago
  Depends on what those computers are responsible for.
- jprjr_ 24d ago
  Yes and no. The computer itself won't really do anything. But I'm sure suicides go up when people lose all their money, or get personal private details leaked, and so on.
- m4rtink 24d ago
  ehm: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25
  - anonymars 24d ago
    > "One [software fault] was when the operator incorrectly selected X-ray mode then in 8 seconds quickly changing to electron mode, which allowed the electron beam to be set for X-ray mode without the X-ray target being in place" Therac-25 is an important software-development case study but a torturous stretch of "Using a computer wrong"
    - deleted 23d ago
      [deleted]
  - misnome 23d ago
    You are right! Computer use should be taught, tested and licensed exactly the same way of steering several tons of metal at 70mph are!
  - deleted 23d ago
    [deleted]
- esikich 24d ago

sunaookami 24d ago

And e.g. browsers cracked down on it, removed toolbar support and powerful add-on support AND enforced signing meaning everything goes through their gatekept extension store and these problems still persist (e.g. addons changing the search provider, new tab page or homepage). Locking everything down does not help.

pjmlp 24d ago
More a problem of those stores still not being properly validated rather a dumping ground for extensions, than anything else.
- sunaookami 23d ago
  A problem that can't be solved, you can't check every single program out there much like you can't check every single human ever even with cameras installed everywhere.
  - pjmlp 23d ago
    Just because some people still die with seatbelts, does not mean they aren't safer without them. Yes you can check every single program out there, when digital stores are the only acquisition mechanism. Or as alternative, signed binaries. Coupled with liability like anything else in our societies.
no-name-here 24d ago
> does not help Is that true - do you not see significantly fewer of those installs on random PCs now than you did years ago? And that's even with the current situation not being what I'd call fully locked down.
- sunaookami 23d ago
  Nope.