5 ms·

I'll buy the argument that the industry has a duty to protect users, and also that Safari could be designed to better warn about SSL. > Your response is like s

I'll buy the argument that the industry has a duty to protect users, and also that Safari could be designed to better warn about SSL. > Your response is like saying when Facebook was privacy zuckering, the user clicks right through the settings that should have sounded an alarm. This is a bit odd, though. On one hand we have a company directly attempting to trick users; on the other, we have a company whose product is being attacked by a hostile government. Drawing an equivalence between the two is a bit ridiculous, no?

selmnoo 12y ago
Yes that was probably not a very good analogy. I was trying to highlight the fact that we're really good at getting users to do what we want (things, specifically, that hurt them and make us more money). So far, we (the tech industry) have put a lot of effort into tricking them to do what we want, now maybe it's time to trick them for their own benefit, rather than ours.
antsar 12y ago
The comparison was between a company who's web UI tricked unsuspecting/naive users into revealing private info to third parties, and a company who's browser UI is making it all too easy for unsuspecting/naive users to inadvertently reveal private info to third parties. I think the two are quite comparable. In both cases, the software developer should be responsible for guiding the user to make the right decision.