Most active commenters
  • rafram(4)
  • danieldk(3)
  • throw0101c(3)

←back to thread

Is it possible to allow sideloading and keep users safe?

(shkspr.mobi)
205 points ColinWright | 12 comments | 30 Aug 25 12:03 UTC | HN request time: 1.406s | source | bottom
Show context
enriquto ◴[30 Aug 25 12:59 UTC] No.45074254[source]▶
> Are you allowed to run whatever computer program you want on the hardware you own?

Yes. It is a basic human right.

> This is a question where freedom, practicality, and reality all collide into a mess.

No; it isn't. The answer is clear and not messy. If you are not allowed to run programs of your choice, then it is not your hardware. Practicality and "reality" (whatever that means) are irrelevant issues here.

Maybe you prefer to use hardware that is not yours, but that is a different question.

replies(7): >>45074265 #>>45074374 #>>45074385 #>>45074396 #>>45074529 #>>45074536 #>>45074595 #
rafram ◴[30 Aug 25 13:15 UTC] No.45074374[source]▶
That’s a great ideal, but Android is used both by sophisticated users who want a phone they can tinker with and the tech-illiterate grandparents of the world, who will never have a legitimate reason to install an app outside the Play Store, and who would never attempt to do that unless they were being guided by a scammer.
replies(4): >>45074413 #>>45074437 #>>45074462 #>>45074780 #
1. danieldk ◴[30 Aug 25 13:20 UTC] No.45074413[source]▶
So, put a toggle somewhere. When the toggle is toggled, put up a big fat warning sheet and say if somebody on the phone or mail asks you to do that, 99.9% it's a scammer.

If people still go for it, then it is their responsibility. A lot of things in life require responsibility because otherwise the results can be disastrous. But we don't forbid them, because it would be a huge violation of freedoms.

replies(2): >>45074480 #>>45076037 #
2. rafram ◴[30 Aug 25 13:26 UTC] No.45074480[source]▶
But it’s not someone on the phone - it’s their best friend / star-crossed lover who they met on WhatsApp because of a chance wrong-number text! Since then they’ve become incredibly close, and they can trust each other with anything. When their lover gives them some amazing investment advice and it requires clicking through a scary-looking prompt (like they do all the time on a phone), who do they trust - their one true love or a generic warning message on their phone?

You have to take into account that the threat model here is vulnerable people, often older, being taken in by scammers who talk to them for weeks and gain their complete confidence. To the victims, it feels like a real romantic relationship, not someone who could even possibly be a scammer.

replies(1): >>45074526 #
3. danieldk ◴[30 Aug 25 13:31 UTC] No.45074526[source]▶
The solution is not taking people's freedom away. The solution is education. Lesson 1: lovers are not for investment advise.

Also, scams also happen outside smartphones.

What's next? Are we going to revoke people's control over their financials because they might be scammed? Let's have the bank approve before we can do a transaction. And since we are using their payment platform, maybe they should also take 30%.

Please stop feeding their narrative. Scammers are Google/Apple's "but think of the children".

replies(2): >>45074581 #>>45076058 #
4. rafram ◴[30 Aug 25 13:36 UTC] No.45074581{3}[source]▶
> lovers are not for investment advise.

Aren’t they? I ask my partner for investment opinions all the time.

> Let's have the bank approve before we can do a transaction.

Yes… That’s already how it works. Banks use heuristics to detect and prevent suspicious transactions. That’s why most of these scams ultimately involve crypto.

replies(2): >>45075693 #>>45075892 #
5. danieldk ◴[30 Aug 25 15:57 UTC] No.45075693{4}[source]▶
Aren’t they? I ask my partner for investment opinions all the time.

Obviously, the probability of it being a scammer reduces with the amount of time. In the end it's a function of time vs. effort. Scamming billionaires by marrying them and waiting until they die happens frequently enough. A 5 year scam for a few thousand bucks, unlikely.

As usual, use common sense, which you would have to do anyway if you do investments.

replies(1): >>45076939 #
6. Hizonner ◴[30 Aug 25 16:28 UTC] No.45075892{4}[source]▶
> Banks use heuristics to detect and prevent suspicious transactions.

... and it's really fucking annoying when their heuristics misfire-- which is not at all rare-- especially since they do all they can to externalize all costs of that to the customer.

7. throw0101c ◴[30 Aug 25 16:47 UTC] No.45076037[source]▶
> So, put a toggle somewhere. When the toggle is toggled, put up a big fat warning sheet and say if somebody on the phone or mail asks you to do that, 99.9% it's a scammer.

The proverbial grandparents will follow the instructions of the scammers and will click through all of that. We've had decades of empirical evidence: people will keep clicking and tapping on dialogue boxes to achieve their goal.

People have physically driven to cryptocurrency ATMs on the instructions of scammers:

* https://bc-cb.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=2136...

* https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2025/04/21/bitcoin-atm-...

Warning sheets will do nothing.

replies(2): >>45077506 #>>45078579 #
8. throw0101c ◴[30 Aug 25 16:50 UTC] No.45076058{3}[source]▶
> The solution is education.

We've been trying to educate people about passwords and phishing for years/decades now, and it has not worked. Further, every day a new ten thousand (US) people need to be educated:

* https://xkcd.com/1053/

9. rafram ◴[30 Aug 25 18:30 UTC] No.45076939{5}[source]▶
There are lots of older people who have never really invested their money, have a lot in their savings account, and might be excited by the idea of a get-rich-quick crypto investment they hear about from someone they trust. Even if they’ve only known them for a little while.
10. dns_snek ◴[30 Aug 25 19:52 UTC] No.45077506[source]▶
Okay great, seeing how every reasonable warning and technical restriction is completely pointless and how people will do everything they're told if they're naive enough and the person on the other end is convincing enough, we can skip this whole dance.

Because at the end of the day the scammer is going to convince your grandma to go to the bank, withdraw the entirety of her savings and send them to the scammer in an envelope.

Any technical restrictions therefore only harm our personal freedoms and don't actually protect those who are vulnerable because those people's problems aren't technical in nature.

11. broker354690 ◴[30 Aug 25 22:34 UTC] No.45078579[source]▶
Who cares? Granny is still allowed to buy knives and accidentally chop off her fingers while she cooks. If she ends up doing that it's either her fault or she's too old to be using knives. We don't ban or blunt knives just because you can cut yourself with them.
replies(1): >>45092219 #
12. throw0101c ◴[01 Sep 25 12:31 UTC] No.45092219{3}[source]▶
> Who cares?

Those of us with elderly parents and piblings (aunts/uncles).