• 1 Post
  • 181 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 16th, 2023

help-circle







  • Sure. I personally find cynicism intensely irritating. It’s infectious so it inevitably ends up poisoning everything. Nobody ever solved any problem with cynicism. In fact I’d go further: all the world’s backward societies (i.e. most of them) are characterized by all-pervasive cynicism (“they’re in it for themselves”, “they’re all crooks”, “nothing will ever change”), whereas the successful countries (few in number) are the ones where people have a more optimistic view of others’ motives. Cynicism is so obviously a self-fulfilling prophesy that I struggle to understand why so many choose to indulge it. I’ve heard a theory that it makes people feel better about their own helplessness. Perhaps I’m too logical but I wish people would choose not to wallow in pessimism - after all, nobody can prove anything one way or the other when it comes to the motivations of others. And oddly, most humans tend to trust others that they know personally. Personally don’t see why strangers would somehow be a different variety of human. Rant over.



  • IMO the “ownership” thing is a red herring. It has its roots in a specifically American obsession with private property.

    If everybody “demands ownership of goods”, that means we share nothing. Hardly a model of “sustainable consumption”. There are loads of examples of redundant private ownership of goods. My favorite stat: the average electric drill is used for 7 minutes in its entire life. All because every household in every building on every street must have its own one, instead of us finding a way to share them.

    In the context of digital “goods”, “ownership” really just means control. I wish we would use that word instead.






  • Your points are of course valid but this is getting slightly offtopic.

    If your bank really spies on you through its app, I would change bank

    What would be nice would be not to have to use a proprietary app on a closed-source software stack in the first place, given that it clearly represents a privacy compromise. And that is possible: almost no bank makes it obligatory. But they would obviously love to. If only to fire their web team and save some money.

    And this is not just about banks. Every online service is trying to force us onto the closed platforms of Google and Apple, when an open-standards software platform exists and is perfectly workable. Seems there might be a battle worth fighting here. Nobody much seems to agree. Fair enough.

    Just let your password manager fill up the login everytime, it’s not hard.

    IME that hardly works any more, as mentioned.


  • Exactly, the 2FA recourse usually affects browsers and not apps. And comes on top of the password or PIN, rather than replacing it. Which seems like discrimination. And it’s not even secure, as you say.

    This all feels very convenient. Like a subtle form of abuse, in the name of security, to push people away from the only platform where they have any serious chance of privacy.

    The arguments about the insecurity of the browser context have some merit in the aggregate, but in the end all these considerations are relative to the individual user. Which makes the discrimination a form of collective punishment that might have a legal redress.


  • Fair enough, but “regulatory requirements” can be a symptom as well as a cause. Bad rules are there for the changing.

    So if you add up all that, then they’re more likely to allow long term login sessions on an application that they control than on a desktop/web browser that they don’t.

    Again, all true. But this is all just probabilistic, as someone else said. A properly secured browser on a locked down machine can be much more secure than an outdated Android stack in the hands of the kind of person who falls victim to scams.

    Here, the effect of “assumptions” is to undermine software freedom and privacy. That feels like a problem that needs a better fix.




  • So I will offer constructive pushback instead of inane downvotes like everyone else.

    clowns

    This word does literally nothing except trivialize your argument and so make it less convincing.

    don’t give a shit

    Ditto. Makes you sound angry and irrational. Not much of an incentive to go on reading.

    psychotic

    psychopathy

    These are medical terms. Presumably you will claim to mean them literally and not figuratively. But really, nobody is going to assume in good faith that you’re a doctor or a psychologist. So, again, the result is to undermine your whole point and make it seem like empty bloviating.

    Hope that helps.