Most active commenters
  • userbinator(3)

←back to thread

Is it possible to allow sideloading and keep users safe?

(shkspr.mobi)
205 points ColinWright | 16 comments | 30 Aug 25 12:03 UTC | HN request time: 0.693s | source | bottom
Show context
Scarblac ◴[31 Aug 25 08:08 UTC] No.45081381[source]▶
Is it possible to let owners use their hardware as they wish, without having large companies control what they deem "safe"?

I'm not the user of my phone, I'm its owner.

replies(4): >>45081410 #>>45081473 #>>45081786 #>>45088192 #
1. lblume ◴[31 Aug 25 08:14 UTC] No.45081410[source]▶
Sure. But the societal losses of a vast amount of people getting scammed might in general be more important your individual wish for freedom to run anything you want on your device. I think there are important tradeoffs to be made, and that we have to acknowledge that many people in society less technically skilled might suffer from serious consequences in your proposed model of computation.
replies(4): >>45081430 #>>45081444 #>>45081452 #>>45084330 #
2. userbinator ◴[31 Aug 25 08:19 UTC] No.45081430[source]▶
I say let them be scammed. Idiocy only grows if it's not resisted. People don't learn if they don't see the consequences. Otherwise it'll just make society head into an authoritarian socialist hellhole... not that it wasn't already going in that direction.
replies(2): >>45081744 #>>45082101 #
3. logicchains ◴[31 Aug 25 08:20 UTC] No.45081444[source]▶
>But the societal losses of a vast amount of people getting scammed might in general be more important your individual wish for freedom to run anything you want on your device

The societal losses of a vast amount of people having no private, uncensored means of communication, which this is leading to, are orders of magnitude greater. The largest cause of early death in the past century was governments murdering their own citizens, and the more power governments have over their citizens, the easier it becomes for this to happen again.

replies(1): >>45085020 #
4. kikonen ◴[31 Aug 25 08:22 UTC] No.45081452[source]▶
People get scammed over phonecalls all the time and we're not opening up for debate my freedom to accept calls from unknown users. Because why would you? Doing that is like using a nuke to kill a fly.

This reeks as a powergrab that restricts my freedom disguised with the classic "for the greater good". Same as the new UK age verification laws

replies(1): >>45081955 #
5. saagarjha ◴[31 Aug 25 09:18 UTC] No.45081744[source]▶
People don't necessarily learn if they see consequences.
replies(1): >>45081791 #
6. userbinator ◴[31 Aug 25 09:26 UTC] No.45081791{3}[source]▶
They definitely won't learn if they don't see consequences.
replies(1): >>45082038 #
7. mike_hearn ◴[31 Aug 25 10:04 UTC] No.45081955[source]▶
> we're not opening up for debate my freedom to accept calls from unknown users

That debate was had already and was lost. Phone scammers get blocked by telcos all the time.

replies(1): >>45090533 #
8. saagarjha ◴[31 Aug 25 10:23 UTC] No.45082038{4}[source]▶
No, this is not true. It's definitely possible to educate people about security without them getting hacked.
9. scarface_74 ◴[31 Aug 25 10:36 UTC] No.45082101[source]▶
Yes there is a clear part from not being able to install what you want on your phone - even though you are free to buy a phone that you can - and authoritarianism. Did you know that you also can’t drive just anything on the highway and in some places you have to get your car inspected every year before you can drive it?
replies(3): >>45082434 #>>45083140 #>>45086360 #
10. matt_kantor ◴[31 Aug 25 11:44 UTC] No.45082434{3}[source]▶
A key part of your analogy is "on the highway", where I am a danger to other people and public infrastructure.

I'm allowed to build a wacky unsafe DIY car and drive it around my own property without getting permission from the government. In many scenarios I don't even need a driver's license.

Bringing the analogy back around, maybe one could argue that if I let my phone get hacked such that it becomes part of a botnet or something then it is a danger to other people, but that's not the typical example. Usually these policies claim to be about protecting me from myself while using a device I own.

replies(1): >>45084295 #
11. Der_Einzige ◴[31 Aug 25 13:50 UTC] No.45083140{3}[source]▶
Become ungovernable. Works for the french
12. scarface_74 ◴[31 Aug 25 16:13 UTC] No.45084295{4}[source]▶
Yes and you are allowed to use Graphene and whatever “whacky” other open source alternative non Google Android OS’s that HN users always brag about.
13. unsungNovelty ◴[31 Aug 25 16:17 UTC] No.45084330[source]▶
What this does is punish good users. Not stop scams. They will move on to something else or find solutions to this.

Same as the privacy invading tech/E2EE for "national security/protecting children online". You think banning VPN or E2EE apps is going to stop bad actors?

NO! As always it effects normal users for control/power or money.

How many times does this same thing get played over and over again? It's the same script you know?

14. lblume ◴[31 Aug 25 17:27 UTC] No.45085020[source]▶
> The largest cause of early death in the past century was governments murdering their own citizens

Sounds like an interesting claim, mind sharing your source / calculation?

15. userbinator ◴[31 Aug 25 19:39 UTC] No.45086360{3}[source]▶
in some places

...but not in others. Which is why those who still have the freedom will continue fighting for it.

16. kikonen ◴[01 Sep 25 07:54 UTC] No.45090533{3}[source]▶
I guess the analogy is not perfect since when making a phone call you're using the network (which you're "renting"). In that sense the callers are blocked from using that network, which makes sense (this would be equiv from being banned from uploading malicious apk to an app store I guess)

What I am saying is that I have not been stopped from taking calls from unknown numbers just because the call might be a scam. Likewise I don't wanna be stopped from installing an apk just because it might be a scam.