Comment by simondotau
1 month ago
The average smartphone is probably doing a hundred things you didn’t knowingly consent to every second.
Should Apple insist that every end user consents to the user agent string sent on every HTTP request?
1 month ago
The average smartphone is probably doing a hundred things you didn’t knowingly consent to every second.
Should Apple insist that every end user consents to the user agent string sent on every HTTP request?
> The average smartphone is probably doing a hundred things you didn’t knowingly consent to every second.
You've succinctly identified a (maybe the) huge problem in the computing world today. Computers should not do anything without the user's command/consent. This seems like a hopeless and unachievable ideal only because of how far we've already strayed from the light.
Even Linux, supposedly the last bastion of user control... it's a mess. Do a fresh install and type ps ax at a shell. You'll see dozens of processes in the background doing god knows what. I didn't consent to any of this! The distribution's maintainer simply decided on my behalf that I want the computer to be running all these processes. This is totally normalized!
I don't expect my computer to ask for consent again and again for every byte sent over the network, but I do expect it to obtain my consent before generally accessing the network and sending bytes over the network.
"The light" you claim is that users should have the knowledge and discernment to consent to what a computer does.
To me, there's never been a case, except maybe in the first decade or so of the hobby/tinkering PC movement, where most users had this ability.
Should we just not use computers?
> Should we just not use computers?
I don't think "should we just give up?" is a reasonable question to anything.
> I do expect it to obtain my consent before generally accessing the network and sending bytes over the network.
How would that make any difference in this case? Presumably, you'll have long-ago checked the "allow general access to the network" setting, so you've given consent to the "send my photo data" action. Heck, surely connecting to the internet in the first place is implicit consent that you want to send stuff over the network?
If I were actually given the choice, I would not check any checkbox allowing an application broad, unfettered access to the network. But, in most cases I'm not even given that choice!
> I didn't consent to any of this!
Yes you did. You purchased a computer, put this software on it and executed it. If you didn't want it to do whatever it's doing you should have determined what it would do beforehand and chose not to do it.
> whatever it's doing
Even assuming that running the software implies my consent (which I would dispute), how do I make the decision about whether I should execute the software if I don't know what it is doing?
This all-or-nothing approach is also problematic. I should not have to allow the developer free rein to do whatever he wants, as a condition of using the software. This is why operating systems are slowly building granular permissions and consent checks.
1 reply →
That's not how informed consent works.
> You've succinctly identified a (maybe the) huge problem in the computing world today.
And getting downvoted for saying it, which is a fascinating incongruity.
> incongruity
Or signal of non-named stakeholders.
It’s amazing how hostile Silicon Valley (and HN commenters) are to the basic idea of consent. It’s as if simply asking the user for permission is a grave insult to these technologists. “I shouldn’t have to ask permission! It implies I’m doing something bad!” they might be thinking.
If the world was a nightclub, “Silicon Valley” would be a creepy guy who walks up to every woman and says “You’re now dating me. To stop, you need to opt out using a form that I will do my best to make sure you can’t read.”
3 replies →