Comment by grishka
4 days ago
At this point I'm convinced that there's something deeply wrong with how our society treats technology.
Ruining Android for everyone to try to maybe help some rather technologically-hopeless groups of people is the wrong solution. It's unsustainable in the long run. Also, the last thing this world needs right now is even more centralization of power. Especially around yet another US company.
People who are unwilling to figure out the risks just should not use smartphones and the internet. They should not use internet banking. They should probably not have a bank account at all and just stick to cash. And the society should be able to accommodate such people — which is not that hard, really. Just roll back some of the so-called innovations that happened over the last 15 years. Whether someone uses technology, and how much they do, should be a choice, not a burden.
> People who are unwilling to figure out the risks just should not use smartphones and the internet.
Sounds great in theory, but just today I was reminded how impossible this is when walking back from lunch, I noticed all the parking meters covered with a hood, labelled with instructions on how to pay with the app.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/city-of-regina-r...
What do you mean by impossible in this case? Can't you just have the coin-operated parking meters back? Where I live, in EU, parking meters even take cards.
EDIT: I guess "just" is doing some heavy-lifting, so I won't argue this further, but "impossible" isn't the word I would use either. The city could revert this decision, definitely if enough people wanted them to (that's... I know, the hardest part). I just agree with the OP that we technically could go back to slightly less-digital society.
> Where I live, in EU, parking meters even take cards.
Unfortunately, a more accurate way of putting it is: stuff takes cards in lieu of coins. Like, where I live (also EU), ticket machines in buses and trams have gradually been upgraded over the past decade to accept cards, and then to accept only cards.
It's a ratchet. Hidden inflation striking again. Cashless is cheaper to maintain than cash-enabled, so it pretends to be a value-add at first, but quickly displaces the more expensive option. Same with apps, which again, are cheaper to maintain than actual payment-safe hardware.
It's near impossible to reverse this, because to do that, you have to successfully argue for increasing costs - especially that inflation quickly eats all the savings from the original change, so you'd be essentially arguing to make things more expensive than the baseline.
5 replies →
Place where I park my car for work (Gosford, Australia) just got rid of cash payment, they now take card payment only (apparently there is also going to be an app, but they haven’t launched it yet). I think the number one reason is they are upgrading to a new system, and the parking technology vendor doesn’t provide cash payments as a standard option-probably they could implement a custom integration to enable it if they thought it was essential, but cash payments are so rare, it would be a difficult decision to justify. The carpark is owned and operated by the local government, so they need to justify their decisions, either as commercially viable, or else as producing substantial public benefit, but I think both arguments would be difficult to sustain in this case.
9 replies →
There are places in EU too where parking meters have disappeared and payments are only done through apps. And I am talking about public space in the street, not private parkings.
1 reply →
no way will they go back to coin-operated. That would mean they have to pay employees to walk up and down to collect coins.
6 replies →
I parked in a garage in downtown Tacoma, Washington. The only option to pay was via an app. So I downloaded the app (by walking outside to where there was cell service, because I was, you know, underground in a garage) at which point it threw an internal server error when adding my card. There was no attendant on duty, and no way to pay with a credit card. So I left - just drove out of the garage. Then a few months later I got a fine for $75 for not paying. Then I called them to dispute it, and they offered to waive most of it, but it was still more than if I had been able to pay the fee initially.
I'm sure it was sold to the garage as a way to "maximize revenue and unlock operational efficiency". And sure enough, look, the revenue number is up and to the right. Working as designed.
3 replies →
Of course it's not impossible; but very incompatible with the agenda per which everyone must become a digital slave, guilty by default, surveilled 24/7, deprived of all privacy, freedom and rights, with TOSes replacing the charade that there is for law now, and impenetrable screens instead of human interaction.
> Can't you just have the coin-operated parking meters back? Where I live, in EU, parking meters even take cards.
That costs money. Coin operated machines routinely are targeted by vandals, with each case making easily 100x the damage for loot. And card-acceptance also has its issues, the terminals need a data uplink, someone needs to take care of the machines. That's why so many (especially private parking lots) shift over to purely app based schemes. Orders of magnitude less tech you need to worry about.
>Regina city council made the decision to remove the coin option at downtown meters as part of the budget deliberation process, said Faisal Kalim, the City of Regina's director of community standards.
7 replies →
Where I live, in the EU, we just have signs and the parking meters have been gone for several years
1 reply →
They are saying that things that have already been dumbed down can't go back. Obviously that's just their opinion, but I would guess that most people agree with them.
I also live in EU. In Sweden. Most places don't even have parking meters anymore. You're just expected to use your phone.
And cashless is the default.
No because those cost more to maintain than the digital ones. Nobody is restoring the budget that got cut because the meters got cheaper.
I'm reading this discussion, and allow me to give you my two cents. It's not a matter of being impossible, but rather how much the rest of society is willing to pay to maintain such infrastructure (either through higher taxes when dealing with the government, or through more expensive goods/services when dealing with corporations, since companies need to maintain old infrastructure that most people don't use).
For example, I read that Switzerland voted to guarantee the use of physical cash, even enshrining it in the constitution, which clearly points toward preserving older infrastructure. However, if you have cash but no one accepts it, it becomes useless. So it would probably require more—something like requiring businesses and the government to accept that form of payment.
As many things in life, not impossible: but is society willing to pay for that?
This cuts both ways. Since smartphones are becoming such an essential necessity, we should never ever remove the possibility to adjust these devices for our own requirements
It's kinda dumb that you can't tap your card. At least they have a phone option, but really, why no CC?
I'm guessing it's a lot more expensive to install and maintain card readers than to essentially just have signs prompting people to use their phone.
Right, and builders now build homes with Ring cameras pre-installed. Surveillance chills aside it's about building rent-seeking into every corner of the economy, and that's a top-down goal of modern capitalism. Requiring a smart-phone to park is just part of it, and it goes back to the parent comment that there is something deeply wrong with how our society treats technology.
To me it proves that Google's steps to lock down phones isn't really about security. To them the scams that happen are acceptable losses. The scammed will still use Android and still click on ads and still let themselves be tracked and marketed to as before. But if Google can use the excuse of security to edge out alternative apps and app stores they will spend plenty of money and time to do it.
This isn't security, it's sealing a hole in the sales funnel.
>how to pay with the app.
Or by phone.
[flagged]
[flagged]
This has nothing to do with keeping people safe. If it did then power users could continue to install their own software by being given that ability as a developer setting. The fact that some people are gullible enough to go into a hidden setting on their phone and enable that in order to install an app from a random Chinese website is not a good reason to take away everyone's freedom. Consolidation of power is all this is about.
There is immense pressure to stop online scams which are draining old people of their life savings. The whole flow from the article seems entirely based around letting power users install what they want while being able to break the flow of a scammer guiding a clueless person in to installing malware.
It is promising that Google has avoided just turning off sideloading but still put measures in place to protect people.
Why can't a bank put a lock on large transfers or have an extra verification step? Or a cooldown period, so that if they see a large transfer from people above 60, let them go to a branch to verify/ack the transaction. Why is this the internet or operating systems problem to solve?
4 replies →
I've never seen any news about such scams with actual malware that can break through Android's sandbox system - as we're still assuming a rootless systems. In most cases it's pig butchering, phishing, cold calls that make the person use the official app to transfer money to an account they're told to.
This stops nothing of the sort.
Why is it on Google to stop this and not the banks?
4 replies →
>There is immense pressure to stop online scams which are draining old people of their life savings.
From who? I'd rather have this done by a regulated service like a bank than a private corporation with a perverse incentive. Frauds and scams are already illegal.
That't the similar narrative to "think of the children". They want to act as this middleman and secure their place, all while having unfettered access to people's data.
None involve installing an app from a non app store.
It absolutely has to do with keeping people safe. You not caring isn't relevant.
If Google cared just the slightest bit about keeping people safe, they would stop hosting scam ads as core part of their business model.
Google is on the side of the scammers.
6 replies →
This has nothing to do with keeping people safe.
...and...
some people are gullible enough to go into a hidden setting on their phone and enable that in order to install an app from a random Chinese website
are kind of contradictory.
There's much easier ways for gullible people to be scammed than convincing them to install an android app.
It's not a contradiction. Removing that setting solves that problem, but it's not the only solution.
3 replies →
> Ruining Android for everyone to try to maybe help some rather technologically-hopeless groups of people is the wrong solution.
This isn't about how skilled a person is, it is about tackling social engineering. The article gave the example of someone posing as a relative, it could also be a blackmail scheme, but it could also be the carefully planned takeover of a respected open source project (ahem, xz).
What I am saying is this sort of crime affect anyone. We simply see more of it among the vulnerable because they are the low hanging fruit. Raising the bar will only change who is vulnerable. Society is simply too invested in technology to dissuade criminals. Which is why I don't think this will work, and why I think going nuclear on truly independent developers is going to do more damage than good.
There's quite a gap between this sort of opportunistic scamming that's happening all over the world and targeted multi-year campaigns that probably require the resources of a nation state.
> targeted multi-year campaigns that probably require the resources of a nation state
Ha ha ha, "resources of a nation state"! One could run phishing campaigns at scale over many years without breaking the bank. This was true before LLMs, it's probably even cheaper now.
3 replies →
True, but that kinda misses the point.
One way to look at it: there are many open source projects targeting Android, projects that gain some sense of legitimacy over being open source yet have few (if any) eyes vetting them. Or, perhaps, the project is legitimate but people are getting third-party builds. That is what F-Droid does. That is what the developer of a third-party ROM does. It would not require the resources of a nation state to compromise them. I am not trying to cast a shadow on open source projects or F-Droid here. I am simply using them as an example because I use said software and am familiar with that ecosystem. The same goes for any software obtained outside of the Play Store, and it's likely worse since there is no transparency in those cases. Heck, the same goes for software obtained through the Play Store (but we're probably talking about nation state resources on that front).
Another way to look at it: we are only considering a specific avenue for exploitation here. If you close it off, the criminals will look for others. I would be surprised if they weren't looking for ways to bypass Google's checks. I would be surprised if they weren't looking for weaknesses in popular apps. Then there is social engineering. While convincing someone to install software is likely desirable, it certainly isn't the only approach.
Either way, I don't think Google's approach is solving the problem and I think it is going to do a huge amount of damage. Let's face it: major corporations aren't a paragon of goodness, yet Google's shift is handing them the market.
1 reply →
I was always under the impression security was a red herring and the real reason was control. Google wants to own the device and rent it to users with revocable terms the same way SaaS subscription software works. Locking down what can run is a key step in that process
I worked at a bank on the backend for architecture and security.. and I've posted this attestation here before, but the sheer volume of fraud and fraud attempts in the whole network is astonishing. Our device fingerprinting and no-jailbreak-rules weren't even close to an attempt at control. It was defense, based on network volume and hard losses.
Should we ever suffer a significant loss of customer identity data and/or funds, that risk was considered an existential threat for our customers and our institution.
I'm not coming to Google's defense, but fraud is a big, heavy, violent force in critical infrastructure.
And our phones are a compelling surface area for attacks and identity thefts.
I wish we had technical solutions that offered both. For example, a kernel like SeL4, which could directly run sandboxed applications, like banking apps. Apps run in this way could prove they are running in a sandbox.
Then also allow the kernel to run linux as a process, and run whatever you like there, however you want.
Its technically possible at the device level. The hard part seems to be UX. Do you show trusted and untrusted apps alongside one another? How do you teach users the difference?
My piano teacher was recently scammed. The attackers took all the money in her bank account. As far as I could tell, they did it by convincing her to install some android app on her phone and then grant that app accessibility permissions. That let the app remotely control other apps. They they simply swapped over to her banking app and transferred all the money out. Its tricky, because obviously we want 3rd party accessibility applications. But if those permissions allow applications to escape their sandbox, and its trouble.
(She contacted the bank and the police, and they managed to reverse the transactions and get her her money back. But she was a mess for a few days.)
18 replies →
Then don't issue an app. Issue people cards to pay with and let them come to the bank for weird transactions.
5 replies →
Yeah, I worked at a bank once. I was told following policy and using dependencies with known vulnerabilities so my ass was covered was more important than actually making sure things were secure (it was someone else's problem to get that update through the layers of approval!). Needless to say, I didn't last long
Do you allow customers to log in to their account with a web browser on a windows machine?
1 reply →
How does preventing people from running software of their choice on their own device (what you call jailbreaking) prevent fraud in practice? It's a pretty strong claim you're making there. And it's being made frequently by institutions, yet I have never seen it actually explained and backed up with any real security model.
All the information and experience I ever got tells me this is security theater by institutions who try to distract from their atrocious security with some snake oil. But I'm willing to be convinced that there is more to it if presented with contraindicating information. So I'm interested in your case.
How did demanding control over your customers' devices and taking away their ability to run software of their choice in practice in quantifiable and attributable terms reduce fraud?
3 replies →
What would happen to a normal person's phone when Google decided to revoke their Google account? Will the phone still function? Or is it "just" a matter of creating another Google account?
I “get” technology so I understand how you got here.
But this is the wrong take. I expect to go to a restaurant and not die from the food… and I want nothing to do with the inner workings of the kitchen. I just want to know any restaurant I go into will be safe. Society has made restaurants safe, either because of government pressure or it’s good for business.
How is that not a fair ask for technology, too? We all have things we know well, and then there’s reasons we’re alive that we don’t even know exist because someone took care of it.
It’s unreasonable to only allow people to participate in society once they understand every nuance.
Your analogy doesn't work here. Going to a restaurant is like using an app store. Installing apks is like cooking at home. Nothing stops you from cooking a meal that will get you sick.
Now imagine that every restaurant in your city is owned by one of two megacorporations and they really don't want you to have a microwave at home, let alone a stove. They expect that you will get all your food from them. This is where it's going with apps right now.
It works fine for the point that they were making.
Which is that the fact that restaurants have to certify for food safety training and pass regular inspection is perfectly reasonable, and allows those who aren't experts in those areas, or want to continually inspect kitchens to dine out in confidence & conveinience. (or at least vastly reduced risk).
There should be some equivalent, safe, experience in the technology space. Especially given how powerful a tool of liberation it is.
Of course, who controls that, and the ability to turn off those safeguards is important for many many other reasons and... also a question of liberty. And so I think it is a difficult conflict to resolve elegantly.
You could torture the analogy more and say that this is more like saying "it is possible to make bad food and kill yourself at home, so we require everyone to go to a restaurant."
Well, I mean, do you know many houses burn down because someone fell asleep while frying a pork chop? We should just get rid of kitchens at home because it's just not safe.
7 replies →
Because no amount of safeguards put up by the restaurant is going to protect you from getting sick of you decide to empty a bottle of bleach into your meal.
This captures the issue well
If you want to cook at home, there's no waiting list. There's no popup you have to confirm three times. You buy a stove, which likely lasts you half your life, a fridge, some dishes, pots, pans and so on.
I think it's fine to give people an easy mode. Not everyone cares about cooking (or tech). I just wish companies weren't trying to take the advanced features from the rest of us who do care.
I think it is different for some people because they are passionate and interested in tech.
I'd imagine someone who is passionate about cooking wouldn't be delighted if you cloudn't buy any ingredients in a store.
I see the value in precooked food and black-box working technology. But for me myself, as an enthusiast: I like being able to tinker and control my technology.
So the solution being proposed by multiple companies, is that the restaurant is now responsible to check your age and gender before they bring you something from the kitchen. Also, now you cannot tell the kitchen to use your toaster as some toasters are built to burn the restaurant down or poison the food.
It still doesn't make sense, we need a better plan.
you expect a restaurant to be safe but there is no guarantee that it is. Many people have had food poisoning and I am sure some have died. It is obvious you don't "get" technology at all. You don't even "get" restaurants.
More like some users have shellfish problems so the restauarants stop serving shellfish. Apparently the "contains shellfish" labels aren't enough
The ask is fair but the distinction regarding one or two companies total being the arbiter of this is the issue.
Bad analogies are bad analogies
And I expect to be able to open a restauraunt without surrendering my identity and private information to a huge monopolistic company.
And I expect to buy food without that food being sanctioned by a huge, monopolistic company. Especially if said company has shown itself to be completely subservient to an overbearing, increasingly fascist government.
Could the technophobes please just buy different smartphones? If certain people want to opt in to locked down devices, I think that's okay. But please give me a device that lets me do whatever I want. (And still lets me participate in modern society—I can't live with a Linux phone).
Apple's argument for locking down the iPhone but not the Mac has always been some variation of "Mac users are professionals and iPhones are for everyone." Fine! Where can I buy the unrestricted iPhone? As far as I'm concerned, basically every problem could be solved if Apple would put the Security Research Device on an unlisted page of their online store for the general public. Normies won't buy it, and I will.
You can do that, there are custom roms and open source phones. The problem is banks are legally obligated a lot of the time to pay out for fraud and scams. So in response they won't allow you to run their software unless they can verify the compute environment.
So why can I access my bank account just fine via the website on my phone, but shouldn't be able to do the same via the app? Can't they offer at least a PWA version of the website for custom ROM users?
5 replies →
We already have that. The market for the "technophobe" (e.g. above average and below levels of security awareness) phone is 100x larger.
That means the people who say "I can evaluate the intricacies and impacts of software authorization" have significantly fewer speciality devices to pick from, and those devices may not be worth developers (or regulators) making carve-outs to support.
> Apple's argument for locking down the iPhone but not the Mac has always been some variation of "Mac users are professionals and iPhones are for everyone."
That argument no longer holds water with the release of the Macbook Neo and the associated Tiktok advertising campaign [1].
[1] https://www.tiktok.com/@apple
They are. Android and iOS are the technophobe options. Technophiles can buy phones with GrapheneOS and LineageOS and even mainline Linux.
> People who are unwilling to figure out the risks just should not use smartphones and the internet.
That train has left the station decades ago. The internet has become an essential part of modern societies. People can't not use the internet (or smartphones), at least if they don't live in the woods.
Have you read my comment in full?
I have, and I have the same objection. Do you have a response to it other than “change society to 15 years ago”?
29 replies →
> People who are unwilling to figure out the risks just should not use smartphones and the internet
People who aren't technically sophisticated should choose the smartphone ecosystem that was designed to offer the safety of a walled garden from the start.
Google sold Android as the ecosystem that gave users the freedom to do anything they like, including shooting themselves in the foot.
Google should not be allowed to fraudulently go back on their promise now that they have driven the other open ecosystems out of the marketplace.
Choosing an iPhone is not sufficient to avoid the risks of technology. The majority of online scams require nothing more than two pre-installed apps: Safari and Phone.
Before downvoting, consider providing evidence that sideloading comes anywhere close to being the root cause of most online scams.
Just yesterday I discovered that my grandmother had been receiving calls from "Google business support" on her iPhone. The fact that they can't get her to sideload some app doesn't seem to stop them.
in 2 years: you will have a wait period of 24 hours or pay a yearly fee if you want to access a website that is not on $COMPANY's whitelist
> At this point I'm convinced that there's something deeply wrong with how our society treats technology.
The problem isnt with technology. The problem is with physical ownership versus copyright/trademark/patent ownership in abeyance of physical ownership.
I go to a store and buy a device. I have a receipt showing a legal and good sale. This device isnt mine, even if a receipt says so.
The software (and now theres ALWAYS software) isnt mine and can never be mine. My ownership is degraded because a company can claim that I didn't buy a copy of software, or that its only licensed, or they retain control remotely.
And the situation is even worse if the company claims its a "digital restriction", ala DMCA. Then even my 1st amendment speech rights are abrogated AND my ownership rights are ignored.
It would not be hard to right this sinking ship.
If you think about it for as long as I did, you will find that the moment everything went sideways is when general-purpose computing devices started having their initial bootloader in the mask ROM of the CPU/SoC. Outlaw just that, say, by requiring the first instruction the CPU executes to physically reside in a separate ROM/flash chip, and suddenly, everything is super hackable. But DMCA abolition would certainly be very helpful as well.
I don't know if Google is making the right choice here, but I do believe that technology should be for anyone (anyone who wants it, at least).
How do you plan to decide who gets to use internet banking and who doesn't? That doesn't seem like a good road to be going down, either.
People themselves will decide. Same way they decided whether they wanted to buy a computer in the 00s. It's just that those who decide to not have internet banking should not be disadvantaged by the society compared to those who have it.
I think you'll find that most people using internet banking are using it voluntarily, not because they'd rather visit an in-person branch every time.
Agreed. Businesses should not be permitted to follow a "technology only" business model (which usually means lower costs for the business) to discriminate against potential Customers who might not want to use that technology.
>Ruining Android for everyone
Are they really though? does the average person really care about side loading? I think we are in an echo chamber. I can't picture any of the people in my life installing things from outside of an app store on their phone. However I realize that's purely anecdotal, it would be nice to see actual statistics on this to have a more informed decision.
When I point out that Apple listened to the Chinese government and removed apps that protestors were using to communicate during the Hong Kong protests, they seem to get it.
They removed VPNs at the request of the Russian government too (they have no operations in Russia). They are actively participating in government censorship.
If you phrase it as "sideloading" then probably not, since it doesn't sound like something they might want to do, it also sounds difficult and technical. If you phrase it as installing your own software then it might garner some interest from the general populace, as who wouldn't want the option to install their desired software.
A lot of people won't even understand the question, because they can install their apps from the app store, because that's where the apps come from, the app store has what phones crave.
Some of them will even be frightened by the question because they consider their devices scary and dangerous enough already.
2 replies →
Of course the average person doesn't care. Similar to how the average person doesn't care about age verification for social media. '
But it will affect them all the same.
Of course nobody is doing that, because Google and Apple made it too hard already.
Even Fortnite gave up on direct installs. If one of most popular game in the world can't make it, who can?
This "sideloading" thing is mostly to enforce US sanctions against countries like China, Russia and Iran.
So yes, hundreds of millions of people care about this.
I don't think it follows that the entire population of each of those countries automatically cares about this just because it's, ostensibly, being done to enforce sanctions against them.
3 replies →
It sounds like you're not grasping the meaning of the linguistic construction being used by the person you're quoting. (Or you're being deliberately deceptive about your understanding of their intent. But it's probably just the former. I'm guessing you're ESL.)
"Ruining Android for everyone" ("to try to maybe help some") does not mean, "Android is now ruined for X, for all X." It means, perhaps confusingly, pretty much the opposite.
It means: "There exists some X for which Android is now ruined (because Google is trying to protect Y, for all Y)." (Yes, really. The way the other person phrased it is the right way way to phrase it—or, at least, it's a valid way to phrase it.)
(some) people are starting to understand why cash is so important. It's the neutrality that it provides. The fact that it can't be programmatically limited or censored and you can't be excluded from the economy. Cash is inclusive. Obviously cash becomes much harder to "use" online and in apps...
Activists and human rights lawyers are constantly getting their bank accounts closed or denied, even UN human rights council members, members of the ICC, journalists, pro-palestine activists or people in the BDS movement, it happens ALL the time now in europe, people have no idea how bad that has become, nobody in mass media is ever reporting on it.
I got personally de-banked from one bank and I'm nobody. I had other options, so it was only a minor issue, but I can't imagine what it's like for people when they run out of alternatives.
I'm not surprised - the Zionist lobby has basically criminalized all opposition to it. Trump's "anti-DEI" geniuses ensured that any censure of Israel and its crimes would lead to the total destruction of one's life in the US (Gleen Greenwald talks about this on Tucker).
Given how this is going, I'd not be surprised if anti-semitism comes roaring back by the end of the decade.
1 reply →
Smartphones and the internet are really useful and convenient. Even if we could make it work, it seems quite rude to say that people should be excluded from it because we can't be bothered to make it safe.
Consider an older technology that became fundamental to much of daily life a century or two ago: writing. After a few millennia where literacy was a specialized skill, we pretty quickly transitioned to a society where it was essential for common activities. Rather than make sure everything had pictures and such to accommodate the illiterate, we tried to make it so that the entire population is literate, and came pretty close to succeeding. There are people who just outright can't read for whatever reason, but they're a very small minority and we aim to accommodate them by giving them assistance so they can get by in a literate world, rather than changing the world so you don't need to be able to read to live a normal life.
Rather than saying that half the population (a low estimate, I believe, for how many people will fall prey to malware in an anything-goes world) should abandon this technology, we should work to make it so they don't have to, with some combination of education and technological measures.
Some people don't want to be taught about some things because they don't care enough about them. I was told a story as a kid about a grandma that didn't want to learn to read and write. It's the same thing here — there are people who don't want a smartphone. They were just fine with an old cell phone that could only call and text, but then the society forced them to buy a smartphone, so they did, but they still don't really want it. It's still a burden to them. It still creates more problems for them than it solves. I know several people like that.
I mean, too bad. You don’t want to learn to read and write? You have to anyway.
Yellowstone rangers taught us that building an effective anti-bear trash container is impossible because the top 10% of bears are smarter than the bottom 10% of tourists.
They obviously didn't teach us that, because it isn't true. It's trivial to provide a container that can only be opened by following instructions that a human can understand and a bear can't.
That container won't work to stop bears from having access to trash, because tourists have the alternative of just throwing their trash on the ground, but being unwilling to bother using a bear-safe container is a very different thing from being unable to.
Idiocracy needs a spiritual "sequel" with modern times.
It is called baseline reality, unfortunately.
We haven't started watering crops with salt-water but it's only a matter of time.
Israelis have a plan for that in Gaza.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/as-israel-floods-...
1 reply →
open source alternative, at first it's going to suck. but over time it will win. imagine how miserable we would be if all we had was windows and osx. but we have linux. we are now at such crossroads were the choice is android and apple, we need a free alternative. much sooner than most realize the threat to freedom from big corps, govt and others will be so big that we would wish to have a free mobile OS. mobile is now the main computing platform and needs a free big corp alternative. it's true that some big corps would refuse to allow there apps to run on there like a bank, but that's okay! there will be alternatives ...
Not necessarily; coding agents might help to accelerate getting to Android/iOS feature parity much faster than what was the case with Linux.
They do not have the hardware specs in their training, which is what is missing.
4 replies →
> to try to maybe help some rather technologically-hopeless groups of people
Even if they're the majority?
(Keep in mind that as average lifespan keeps getting longer while birth rates keep going lower, demographics will tend to skew older and older. Already happened in Japan; other developed countries will catch up soon.)
> They should probably not have a bank account at all and just stick to cash.
You know that these (mostly) don't fall into this category of being "hopeless with [modern] technology" because they're cognitively impaired, right?
Mostly, the people who most benefit by these protections, are just people 1. with full lives, who 2. are old enough that when they were first introduced to these kinds of technologies, it came at a time in their life when they already had too much to do and too many other things to think/care about, to have any time left over for adapting their thinking to a "new way of doing things."
This group of people still fully understands, and can make fluent use of, all the older technologies "from back in their day" that they did absorb and adapt to earlier in their lives, back when they had the time/motivation to do so. They can use a bank account; they can make phone calls and understand voicemail; they can print and fax and probably even email things. They can, just barely, use messaging apps. But truly modern inventions like "social media' confound them.
Old bigcorps with low churn rates are literally chock-full of this type of person, because they've worked there since they were young. That's why these companies themselves can sometimes come off as "out of touch", both in their communications and in their decision-making. But those companies don't often collapse from mismanagement. Things still get done just fine. Just using slower, older processes.
> Ruining Android for everyone to try to maybe help some rather technologically-hopeless groups of people is the wrong solution.
Those groups of people are Google's paying customers. Google will, of course, defer to the ones who need more help to be safe online over the ones who don't. That's how you create a safe ecosystem.
What's then left as Google's advantage? I'm really not interested in buying myself a cage, but if Google will make me choose between two cages then Apple has nicer one.
Google still doesn't make you pay s dollar to write an app on their architecture (only to have it hosted in their store).
2 replies →
Start your own nation and then start your own company, then.
Nobody is forcing you to use a smartphone. If your work needs you to use some app, they’ll buy you a phone if they respect you.
If you’re so upset just stop using it. But you won’t.
Or people just learn it and if they screw up they learn from those mistakes.
My take is quite different. Every device that I use to do internet banking or things of that nature, I'm very happy to delegate security to companies, and consider that already I trust said bank with my finances. If I want a device I "fully control", then I don't expect a bank to trust it, I don't expect to do internet banking on it or other sensitive stuff of that nature. And that's the status quo even with Google implementing this, open-source OSes still exist, just don't expect internet banking to happen on them.
I like this idea. But last time I tried it the customer representative on the other line told me they were sorry but they could not accommodate my request at this time.
I agree. In fact, one of the things I frequently propose is that we disallow the elderly and mentally disabled from using advanced technology without government proctor. In this way we can protect them. Everyone else can choose to turn off their scam protection.
People frequently talk about this with respect to AI and ads and how it’s bad for people to be use these things. I recommend we disallow the internet entirely for classes of people whose minds are not ready for the downsides of the tech.
With your Adderall prescription should come a phone number to sign up to the government proctoring service.
This isn't about helping people, that's just the cover story.
This is about Google wanting more control over their ecosystem.
Your mistake is taking Google's argument at face value. Protecting users is an outright lie, this is purely about control.
Google doesn't give one single shit if users download malware from the Play Store, but hypothetical malware from third party sources is so much worse that we need to ruin the whole OS? That doesn't pass the sniff test.
Google wants to make sure you can only download malware from developers who give google a cut. They want to control the OS and remove user choice. That's all it is. That's what it's always been about.
"Protecting users" is a pretense and nothing more. Google does not care at all about user safety. They aren't even capable of caring at this point. There are far, far cheaper and more effective ways to actually protect users, and google isn't doing any of them.
I'm assuming good faith and giving them the benefit of the doubt.
Of course it might be that they want more control. In addition to controlling the world's most popular web browser and the world's most popular search engine and the world's most popular online advertising network and the world's most popular online video service.
Assuming good faith and giving the benefit of the doubt to google is just naivety.
They have shown time and time again that they will take as much control from you as they can.
It's really hard to when there's already technical solutions. They could require a process like bootloader unlocking that puts it in "dev" mode for instance
While signing is useful, leaving no escape hatch imo is blatantly predatory
1 reply →
It's all part of the war on general computing. This dystopian nightmare is coming to desktop operating systems too. See the age verification stuff that's all of a sudden being pushed hard by countries all over the world.
As someone that was going to switch from iPhone to Android/Pixel later this year, at least now I know not to bother anymore, as the locking down of Android won't stop here.
It's crazy to me how technical people willfully disregard the coming end of individually-owned general purpose computers. I have a strange mix of nostalgia and crushing sadness knowing that I got to live through that time.
Consider that you, and most of the community here, wouldn't have jobs if that were the case. XD
How is it unsustainable when iOS has enforced even stricter rules for its nearly 20 year lifespan?
Android has about 2/3 worldwide market share and it hasn't had anything like this before. Many people, myself included, chose it exactly because it allows the installation of modded, pirated, or otherwise non-store-worthy apps.
The 2/3 marketshare must be almost entirely due to Android being cheap and accessible, not because those people need to install arbitrary software. A lot of mobile plans don't even give you GB/mo, they give WhatsApp messages/mo.
Not saying that this is right on principle.
>Many people
But also a tiny percentage of the whole.
There two main mobile OS in the space, one moron-proof but limited, the other a bit more permissive, but slightly less secure for it.
The problem is that most apps target only those two, and the second is trying to moron-proof, loosing most of it value to part of its users, while the apps are still locked in.
>They should probably not have a bank account at all and just stick to cash
Pretty much illegal in some parts of EU
Source?
Also how is it related to the EU if it only affects certain places? Could have just said certain places in Europe
Illegal would by a hyperbole. But the noose is tightening a bit.
There are upcoming limits for cash transactions (10K, countries can opt to go lower), and strong requirements for identity verification at 3K or more euros in cash.
See: https://www.deloittelegal.de/dl/en/services/legal/perspectiv...
EDIT: The other side of the coin is that banks are _required_ to give legal residents of a country a basic account that can be used for payments.
Also illegal in Denmark. You need a NemKonto by law. Also making cash payments over 15000 is illegal since 2024. So you can't make a large purchase without a bank transfer.
1 reply →
Not illegal per se in Germany but you won't find a legal job that doesn't require you to have a bank account. Benefits will also only be paid electronically (exceptions for some asylum seekers apply).
You also cannot get a tax refund or pay taxes without a bank account.
Spain: you must be paid through a bank if you
-have a steady contract -are paid more than 1000€ for a job (say you are self-employed).
Completely illegal in Spain if you have a paid job.
Not sure how it works in countries that didn't go through 80 years of socialism, but I assume that you're saying that in those countries, your salary is required to go to your bank account and can't be paid in cash. Then you can still pretty much "stick to cash" by withdrawing the whole thing on your payday. But then idk, maybe everyone in those countries is aware of the risks related to keeping their money in a bank, it's just the internet banking that introduces the new ones for them.
>Then you can still pretty much "stick to cash" by withdrawing the whole thing on your payday.
Not if you want to make a purchase beyond a small amount, like $500 or $1000. Then it has to be through some fucking bank or CC.
All withdrawals of more than 1000€ in Spain must be accounted for and more than 5000€ must be authorized.
You "may" but maybe you "cannot".
You live in a bubble. The roles are inversed. This is "ruining" Android for the 0.001% of power users that install .apk files and improving it for the huge chunk of population that are still getting hit by malicious ads that try to push app installs onto you.
Who is hosting these ads? Might it be Google?
No real counter argument? Do better HN
3 replies →
So then let it be such that only 0.001% of people will use smartphones.
Its not society, this is simply more fascism. Corperate and government cooperation to surviel and controll the masses.
So long as the 5g chips and the 2 mobile app stores remain under control, then 5 eyes has nearly full coverage.
A fascist society is a society. Members of that society will gladly vote in more fascism.
Is this even the reason? If Android phonemakers are simply concerned about tech-illiterate users switching to iPhone, they could sell a locked-down Android phone that requires some know-how to unlock.
This was a reason that someone at Google gave iirc, but its ridiculous.
"We could make devices safe for everyone but this upsets freedom purists, so I've decided some people need to stay in the dark ages instead"
'Only the educated elite should be permitted to use technology' is a great take, but unfortunately the peons outvote and outspend you, so their opinions matter more than yours.
[dead]
[flagged]
what
I fully agree. Similar to killing bacteria with antibiotics, Attempting to idiot-proof machinery only leads to the creation of idiot-proofing-resistant idiots.
We need to move back to putting users back into full control. Machines (including computers) should ALWAYS respect the input of the user, even if the user is wrong.
If a person shoots themself with a gun as a result of their incompetence, we don't fault the gun manufacturer for not designing the gun to prevent auto-execution. If you can't operate a firearm safely, you shouldn't attempt to operate a firearm.
Similarly, if a person deliberately points their car a solid object and accelerates into it, the actions of the operator shouldn't be the car manufacturer's responsibility. We need to get rid of ESC, ABS, AEB, etc. These features have created a whole slew of drivers who speed headfirst into the back of stationary drivers and expect their car to stop itself. This works right up until a sensor fails and the operator flies through the windshield (usually people like this don't wear seat-belts). If you can't drive, you shouldn't be driving until you rectify your incompetence.
Similarly, phones and computers should respect user input. If a users wants root access to their personal device, they should be able to get root access. If a user runs "rm -rf --no-preserve-root /" as root, the device should oblige and delete everything, since that is what the operator instructed it to do. If you can't be trusted to use a computer, you shouldn't be using a computer until you rectify your incompetence.
The lack of accountability in modern society is disgusting, and it leads to much deeper societal problems when people refuse to better themselves and instead expect the world to shield them from their willful ignorance.
I was with you right up until "We need to get rid of ESC, ABS, AEB, etc.".
That is unreasonable. ABS, ESC, and AEB all exist to interpret what the driver intends. The driver does not intend for their wheels to lock up, that's why ABS exists, nor does the driver intend to skid. You can argue that AEB does not reflect the will of the driver, but it can also be disabled.
Given how many tech savvy people here run OpenClaw or one of it’s copycats I wouldn’t be so harsh in my judgment.
> just should not use smartphones and the internet
That's ridiculous. Phones are being made more and more of a requirement to participate in society, including by governments.
Which is exactly my point! This is exactly the thing that desperately needs to be undone.
>That's ridiculous. Phones are being made more and more of a requirement to participate in society, including by governments.
The latter is what's ridiculous, not what the parent suggests.
If the government wants to force me to use a certain device, it should give me that device.
No, you have that backwards. A society is judged by how it treats its least able members. Android devices are primarily for mainstream users, not us. Technically adept users are the minority and we can deal with a few hoops to customize our phones the way we like.
It's selfish to advocate against better protections for the least able people in the world just for our own convenience.