←back to thread

205 points ColinWright | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0.314s | source
1. natch ◴[] No.45080514[source]
Authors like this love saying that it’s all about installing apps you choose on a device you own and control.

Who could disagree with that?

The problem is it’s often controlling household members sneakily installing creepy things on devices of those they live with and want to control.

replies(3): >>45080566 #>>45081266 #>>45082980 #
2. bangaladore ◴[] No.45080566[source]
> The problem is it’s often

I'd like a source for that. News to me if that is common at all. Not to mention there are apps on the playstore / ios store that can be used in a similar way without sideloading.

3. wiseowise ◴[] No.45081266[source]
If only there was some kind of biometric protection on those devices, preventing from unauthorized access.
4. rpdillon ◴[] No.45082980[source]
> controlling household members sneakily installing creepy things on devices of those they live with and want to control.

This is actually the happy path: parenting! I would love to see this approach taken with parenting, rather than trying to age-verify the internet.

Of course what you're talking about is abusive behavior, but my point is that's not what we're solving for here: and "parent has control" scenario has the dual-use of "the abuser has control". I don't think we can fix that by requiring code signatures or banning sideloading.